And you don't care about the people who will have to grow up in it? Anyway, you might still be around to get drowned, burned alive, or blown away.
Seriously dude, WTF?
And you don't care about the people who will have to grow up in it? Anyway, you might still be around to get drowned, burned alive, or blown away.
One, legislation can be used to create choices. For instance had their been tax incentives for electric or higher mileage cars earlier, the consumer would have more options because more of those cars would be available.Darth Wedgius wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2019 5:07 pmAgain, that legislation would be used to constrain choices. People could already make the choices you want them to make.Draco Dracul wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2019 3:38 pmIt does when the rich spend billions of dollars to prevent legislation that could do more to fix the issue than any number choice the sum totality of poor people in the US could make.Darth Wedgius wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2019 4:38 am Yes, poor people have fewer choices. Yes, that makes sense to me. Yes, it can make it harder for them to have a lower carbon footprint. But most can ease up on the carbon a lot more than they do. That poor people have fewer choices does not make a few rich people responsible for them.
Fuzzy, people moved to the suburbs when automobiles became affordable and roads more decent. If people had stayed in the cities then cars would not have been nearly as popular. But people like lawns, privacy, and less crime.
People could also take the bus, which uses gas (or natural gas or diesel) and is quite passenger-mile-per-gallon efficient if it has a lot of people on it. It's a lot less convenient, but it's a personal choice.
Vegan food consumption doesn't have to be expensive. Vegetables are not especially expensive; trust me, I'm vegetarian and I'm cheap. Meat is expensive. Meat substitutes can be expensive, and organic anything can be expensive, but potatoes, brussels sprouts, broccoli, legumes, rice, those aren't especially costly.
And it also ignores that their are a lot of things the consumer inherently has not choice over. I mean if all the power in your area comes from a coal plant you can do everything in you power to cut your power consumption, but you're still going to be polluting more than the guy that constantly runs a thousand plasma balls but is in an area that gets all it's power from hydroelectric or nuclear power.BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 4:59 am It's also just stupid to posit that if biggest group just decided to curb their own consumption then it wouldn't be a problem, instead applying the protocol to generally everybody that contaminates the environment at the same rate.
The original argument IIRC was that millennials are the ones consuming the pollution from the suppliers, and since they're the ones that want the change then they simply don't do it. Millennials aren't an association, like with a hierarchical council or organization. A lot of people don't even believe in science in the first place as far as cohesion is concerned.Draco Dracul wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 5:35 amAnd it also ignores that their are a lot of things the consumer inherently has not choice over. I mean if all the power in your area comes from a coal plant you can do everything in you power to cut your power consumption, but you're still going to be polluting more than the guy that constantly runs a thousand plasma balls but is in an area that gets all it's power from hydroelectric or nuclear power.BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 4:59 am It's also just stupid to posit that if biggest group just decided to curb their own consumption then it wouldn't be a problem, instead applying the protocol to generally everybody that contaminates the environment at the same rate.