this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2023
648 points (93.5% liked)

World News

39151 readers
2535 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

In short, we aren't on track to an apocalyptic extinction, and the new head is concerned that rhetoric that we are is making people apathetic and paralyzes them from making beneficial actions.

He makes it clear too that this doesn't mean things are perfectly fine. The world is becoming and will be more dangerous with respect to climate. We're going to still have serious problems to deal with. The problems just aren't insurmountable and extinction level.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jemorgan@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The chuds driving jacked up pickups aren’t contributing very much to global CO2 emissions actually.

The tendency of individuals to place far more blame on passenger vehicles (of which medium and heavy trucks constitute less than 1/4th in the US- likely far less elsewhere) as a contributor to global warming than they are actually responsible for actually had a name; The Transportation Fallacy.

Exact numbers vary by year and country, but it seems like passenger transportation accounts for about ~7% of global CO2 emissions. To put that in perspective, the same source indicates that we can remove the same amount of CO2 by eliminating food waste as we would by taking every passenger vehicle on earth off the road.

The auto manufacturing lobby wants you to sell your current working vehicle and buy a Tesla or a Prius, even though the carbon debt of manufacturing that vehicle won’t break even with an IC engine for ~300,000 miles. And even when it does break even with your current vehicle, if everyone on earth did the same thing, it would barely dent our global emissions.

They want you to feel satisfied about doing your part in a way that earns them revenue, instead of focusing your energy on things that will cost the energy lobby money but actually have an effect.

Sorry, long rant, but I wish more people realized how convenient of a scapegoat the type of car someone drives is. Yes, a more fuel efficient car is better than a gas guzzler, of course. But that’s such a small part of the problem, yet it gets such a huge amount of the mental energy that people spend trying to reduce personal emissions. Eat less meat, push for nuclear power generation, make sure your home is well insulated and uses efficient appliances, fight for working from home where possible, switch from grass to native plants. Drive less. The chuds rolling coal are idiots, but they’re a very, very small part of the problem. So many better ways to spend our energy.

[–] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 year ago

They want you to feel satisfied about doing your part in a way that earns them revenue, instead of focusing your energy on things that will cost the energy lobby money but actually have an effect.

What a perfect way to phrase it.

I see what you mean about those gas guzzlers. While they do make me irrationally upset, a much bigger problem is forcing millions upon millions of workers on daily commutes. This isn't just about WFH, which would be a solution, but also of insisting on putting almost all employment opportunities at the end of the same clogged roads miles away from where anyone lives.

I think you're right to point out that the argument against individualising the problem/solution should be applied evenly. It's easy to individualise the problem when someone seems to be doing the exact opposite of helping.

That said, I've one challenge, which is about insulating your home. I've heard that a good air source heat pump will save more emissions than insulation (some leaky homes might be the exception) and at much lower overall cost to the consumer. They have to be set up right, though. Maybe it depends on building materials? It might be different for timber framed houses that have some insulation built in, anyway. Makes sense to put in better stuff during ordinary construction and maintenance of those.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You seem to think that just because someone didn't specifically cite lifetime investment in each platform that it negates their premise.

I disagree.

Stop apologizing for people who have gone far outside the norms, intentionally, simply to pollute more.

Don't confuse it with someone who bought a 2005 honda and are simply getting their useful life out of the vehicle. The US Truck fetish is counterproductive to the needs of actual trucks, and wasteful in resources and disgusting in motivation.

This is conspicuous, intentional overconsumption that not only consumes valuable resources but emits much, much more exhaust products than it should, for the exclusive point of intentionally polluting by reducing combustion. To own the libs, they like to call it.

Is it equal to air carriage or maritime transport? No. No one asserted these things.

But it's more pollution dumped into everyone's atmosphere, more consumption at the pump, all for the purpose of being assholes. Those emissions aren't hypothetical, they're real. Really unnecessary too. A fucking kei truck is more useful than the average american lifted dipshit hauler. Much more efficient too.

But knowing there are people ready to jump in and snipe apocrypha peripherally related to the premise reinforces my doubts that humanity will get it's shit together before we're doomed (if not already). Have a good one.

[–] jemorgan@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m not apologizing for anyone, I’m suggesting that we would be better served by focusing our efforts on major contributors to global greenhouse gas emissions instead of getting personally butthurt over a globally tiny number of individuals who are contributing an extra fraction of a percent of global emissions relative to their peers.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yup, read you loud and clear, there's no reason to stop the chuds because it's only a tiny fraction - and this why we can't have nice things, like an ecosystem.

see sport, the tiny percentages add up over time. acting like it's not a consequence is merely shitting even more on the next generation.

[–] jemorgan@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You must be one of those goofballs who thinks millennials can’t by houses because they keep buying coffee.

See sport, enormous percentages add up way faster than tiny ones. Pissing your pants over how bad your feelings are hurt when you see a scary bad man in a truck while you are eating meat 10 meals a week and driving your Corolla to and from work instead of biking is just shitting even more on the current, and every future, generation.

Sad how many people put their personal feelings ahead of objective data, and hold back meaningful progress in the process.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Pointless waste is the most egregious. Nothing would be more pointless than wasting more time on you and you incorrect, but I suspect, personal projections. I'm a cyclist. I eat mostly fish and veg. I don't drive a car unless it's going out of town, and it gets decent mileage. Thanks for over-sharing, it's like you strive to be wrong and sadly ridiculous with each new reply.

Gonna help you with that problem and block you.

[–] jemorgan@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Please, for the love of God, block me. It seems like that’s what it is going to take to get you to stop obsessing over this wild pissing contest that you’ve manufactured.

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You forget those clowns buy new gas guzzling trucks in large part to spite the left and climate efforts as a whole, which negates your point.

[–] jemorgan@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That absolutely does not negate any of the points that I made but god bless you for trying buddy.

New large trucks actually get way better gas mileage than older ones.

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't care if you feel convinced or not. It's the truth. New large trucks will always put out more CO2 than electric cars, even considering manufacturing, and that doesn't change just because you don't want to hear it. And that's the end of the debate.

[–] jemorgan@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Who in this conversation do you think is claiming that large trucks don’t emit more greenhouse gasses than electric cars? That’s an impressive strawman you’ve got there. It looks really good right next to the goalposts that are speeding towards the horizon.

And I’m happy to hear that you’re done debating with yourself in a conversation that you can’t seem to keep up with.