4 ms·

> It's all well and good to say that we should use less oil. The trick is to make the alternatives cheaper. That's what a lot of people don't understand. A midd

by mullen 12y ago

> It's all well and good to say that we should use less oil. The trick is to make the alternatives cheaper. That's what a lot of people don't understand. A middle class Californian can afford to spend a little extra to be "green". The majority of the developing world, and even a significant portion of people in the most developed parts of the world, cannot. Yes, but the average middle class Californian uses a lot more energy that an average person in the developing world. If an average Californian can cut their energy use and green house gas output by 20%, that has a lot more environmental impact than say 75% cut of the average person in the third world. The people who have to get their environmental impact down the most are people in the 1st world.

beloch 12y ago
Per capita yes, but consider the sheer population size of countries like India and China. A small change made by billions can easily outweigh large changes made by millions.
henrikschroder 12y ago
Making people feel bad about the environment has a very small effect, and only a privileged minority that can afford to care will change their habits. If you instead make the environmentally better choices cheaper, everyone will change their habits.
InclinedPlane 12y ago
Time is not fixed, change is rapid. Over the 21st century the countries that will contribute greatest to the cumulative greenhouse emissions over that period are those which are today in the "developing" world. CO2 emissions from Asia already vastly outstrip those from the USA, for example. If every single G7 country stopped producing CO2 completely tomorrow that would provide a comparatively minor change to the estimated total global CO2 emissions for the 21st century. Many people believe as you do, that the problem is primarily with the rich, developed nations of the world, that they are big, ugly polluters who are making the world worse for all of the poor folks in the world and if they'd just accept a different scope for their lifestyle it would be possible to clean up this whole mess. That's a gross misunderstanding of the issue. The crux of the problem is that over the next few decades literally billions of people will climb out of poverty as the developing world becomes developed, and they will do so largely via industry powered by fossil fuels. They will become healthier, more well-fed, more productive, and wealthier almost in lock-step with their increase in energy, energy produced at the cost of CO2 emissions. Make no mistake, there is a tremendous amount of good that will come of this, billions of lives will be vastly improved and there will be new opportunities for artistic expression and cultural exchange which have not existed yet. But currently we know of no way to enable that transition to the developed world without such a heavy reliance on fossil fuels.

by mullen 12y ago

beloch 12y ago

Per capita yes, but consider the sheer population size of countries like India and China. A small change made by billions can easily outweigh large changes made by millions.

henrikschroder 12y ago

Making people feel bad about the environment has a very small effect, and only a privileged minority that can afford to care will change their habits. If you instead make the environmentally better choices cheaper, everyone will change their habits.

InclinedPlane 12y ago

Time is not fixed, change is rapid. Over the 21st century the countries that will contribute greatest to the cumulative greenhouse emissions over that period are those which are today in the "developing" world. CO2 emissions from Asia already vastly outstrip those from the USA, for example. If every single G7 country stopped producing CO2 completely tomorrow that would provide a comparatively minor change to the estimated total global CO2 emissions for the 21st century. Many people believe as you do, that the problem is primarily with the rich, developed nations of the world, that they are big, ugly polluters who are making the world worse for all of the poor folks in the world and if they'd just accept a different scope for their lifestyle it would be possible to clean up this whole mess. That's a gross misunderstanding of the issue. The crux of the problem is that over the next few decades literally billions of people will climb out of poverty as the developing world becomes developed, and they will do so largely via industry powered by fossil fuels. They will become healthier, more well-fed, more productive, and wealthier almost in lock-step with their increase in energy, energy produced at the cost of CO2 emissions. Make no mistake, there is a tremendous amount of good that will come of this, billions of lives will be vastly improved and there will be new opportunities for artistic expression and cultural exchange which have not existed yet. But currently we know of no way to enable that transition to the developed world without such a heavy reliance on fossil fuels.