3 ms·
The rich are responsible for a disproportionate amount of emissions. They fly more (often ridiculously more with their private jets), buy more, live in houses t
by brabel 3y ago
The rich are responsible for a disproportionate amount of emissions. They fly more (often ridiculously more with their private jets), buy more, live in houses that take more energy than whole suburbs. If it becomes taboo for them to spend their fortunes on things that have high emissions and they're pressured to use this sort of innovative solution because of that, it may actually make a big difference.
Also, what's your alternative? Shouldn't anyone do anything just because in the grand scheme of things, it won't make a dent?
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago> Also, what's your alternative? Shouldn't anyone do anything just because in the grand scheme of things, it won't make a dent? I was very clear in my alternative - I even posted a link to one such example real alternative in my post. We should be very clear headed about the types of technologies that can actually reduce worldwide global emissions. Anything else should be completely ignored. Reducing carbon emissions isn't like cleaning up litter. If you clean up litter in your little town, you're left with a sparkling clean town, which is great, even if other towns don't do anything and look like a dump. With carbon reduction, if you find a way to reduce .00001% of emissions, it literally does nothing to affect overall climate and temperature. In fact, I think it can do more harm than good, as it is basically a way for people to pay off their conscience without doing anything that makes a difference.
- pasttense01 3y agoIt's a question of what has the most bang for the buck. Using wind to generate electricity via big wind turbines has a vastly lower cost per ton of avoided carbon pumped into the atmosphere than using wind to move very small capacity sailboats across the ocean.