You're viewing a single thread.
And the ones in your garage.
Ah, yes, the old "consumers are the problem" rhetoric when, in actuality, they only account for 10% of emissions.
10% is 10%. I can't control what the CEO of an oil company does, but I can decide avoid using fossil fuels. (Maybe if enough of us did the same, we actually could influence an oil company.) We each have to do everything we can to reduce CO2. Dismissing something as rhetoric doesn't help.
While I can respect the idea, pragmatically speaking, it would be too little too late. My 10 percent figure refers to global emissions from personal vehicles globally. In the US, these account for less than 2.5% of global emissions
Like another commenter mentioned, the majority of people (in the US) can't even afford EVs yet, and many can't afford environmentally conscious food replacements. If the government provided credits toward EV purchases/subsidized production/expanded public transportation, then it would maybe be possible. But given the current economic climate, it won't happen, and the rate at which it would change even if the government did wouldn't be significant enough to have a substantial impact. Not to mention that most of these policies are an attempt to disguise a lack of reform in the industrial/power sectors. The article above does a great job explaining why this sort of rhetoric is purposefully misleading.
I agree with your overall statement, but if by environmentally conscious food, you mean vegan, it can easily be cheaper than an omnivore diet. Don't use any of the meat or cheese substitutes or many highly processed foods, and it will likely be much cheaper (and healthier) than an omnivore diet.
On the other hand, industrial agriculture isn't very environmentally conscious; it basically turns fossil fuels into food (fossil fuel derived fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides; machinery, transportation, processing, and refrigeration powered by fossil fuels). Still more efficient than meat and dairy though, since the animals are fed the output from agriculture.
I think EVs are about on par with ICE on total cost of ownership now (but higher initial cost still).
I can't afford an EV, transit is too unreliable to get me to work and housing/rent is too expensive for me to move closer to my work, so how exactly is my fault North American society is built around requiring a car while various social economic factors help reinforce it?
Who's talking about fault (besides you)? We each have to do as much as we can. Maybe you can help in other ways instead. How about cutting dairy/meat from your diet, then doing the four Rs with everything else?
I'm expressing that many of us are bound to fossil fuels by design and we need bigger more impactful change. I do what I can, i walk to get my grocceries, I rarely buy new clothing, keep my apartment cool in the winter even though I don't pay the energy bill. Its not even a drop in the bucket compared to millions being spent and made on oil and ensuring we all rely on it.
We made our cars bigger, we made our cities wider and less dense and we told everyone to drive everywhere. Buy everything wrapped in plastic, don't worry it's totally recycleable (but not really). No one can afford housing because multi unit housing doesn't exist in the vast majority of neighbourhoods, unless it was a big house renovated into apartments. Multi units are often more energy effecient compared to the same number of SFH, they loose less heat during winter due the shared walls. They are also denser which can support walkability and transit better than traditional suburbs.
We are beyond the points of individual change being meaningful. We need broad solutions from individuals, communities, nations and everything in between. Building a denser, more walkable society will naturally lower many people's oil and energy consumption while also preserving land.
We need both. Throwing up our hands and saying it's the corporations' fault is too easy an excuse for not doing everything we each can. AND living in a bubble thinking that recycling my plastic bottle will be enough, is not enough.
I can't control the infrastructure that requires me to drive a car.
Pretty sure it's "Fuck Cars" rhetoric
It's not the cars that are the issue. it's the politicians and lobbyists who have made it necessary to own one.
But it's also a 10% over which in western world we have quite a lot of control. You can vote for local governments that want to expand public transport. You can demand more bike paths and pedestrian friendly infrastructure in your neighborhood. There are multiple examples around the world (even in the USA) of communities or even whole cities significantly reducing car-centrism over several years.
It's wrong to blame people for using plastic packaging when there's no feasible alternative. It's wrong to force people to go beyond their comfort by using less electricity or heating because governments didn't transform the energy sources.
But each gram of CO2 matters and when reducing emissions doesn't require much effort or sacrifices (like voting) then we all absolutely should do our part.
That's exactly my point. Instead of pointing the finger at our curremt vehicles, we should be focused more on pushing for better legislation. The rest will follow suit.
That 10% created a demand that caused the 60% to happen. To decrease or even eliminate that 60%, the 10% have to change their behaviour as well, even after decades of being indoctrinated.
Not even remotely true. Most emissions are caused by factors completely indepedent from consumer vehicles. Nearly 60 percent comes from power generation, industrial processes, and goods transportation (Not to be confused with personal vehicle use)
Who those power generated for? What those industrial processes making? And who those goods is delivered to? It's all come down to over consumption.
We all need fuel to drive the car, if the oil is stopped today, what are people gonna do? They still have to change their behaviour regardless.
Same case everywhere. Stopping plastic and consumer has to change the way they purchase thing. Stopping beef industry and consumer has to eat less beef or eat another thing. It's a cycle, most of that 90% emission that link to big company emission is directly correlated to how the consumer act. You can't stop oil without first giving a viable alternative transportation everywhere, but you won't get viable alternative transportation and a properly build town/city if people being a little bitch with NIMBY mindset and want everywhere to be accessible by car and refuse to walk.
It's all come down to over consumption.
You said it yourself... It has nothing to do with our use of personal vehicles.
Our reliance on vehicles is a result of horrible city design, lobbying from vehicle manufacturers, and lack of public transportation. All of which have nothing to do with people's tendency to over-consume.
We all need fuel to drive the car, if the oil is stopped today, what are people gonna do? They still have to change their behaviour regardless.
When you start creating impossible hypotheticals to justify your reasoning, it is a sign that your argument doesn't actually make sense.
Let's look at energy production, the single worst contributor to emissions worldwide. The consumers' propensity to overuse has no bearing on where the energy comes from. Switching to renewables comes from government intervention in the form of incentivizing/requiring green energy production. Unfortunately, due to utility monopolies (at least in the US), the consumer has no way of controlling that. So no, it's not all a cycle, if it were that simple, we wouldn't be having these problems.
Not to defend cars, but that's what, 7%* of CO² emissions?
While oil rigs have 100%. Ok, aside the gas rigs.
* fuck localized results by default, i find only results for EU and germany. Mind, the 14% of sector transport includes ship and flight too.
the ones used to haul people - I have no issue with. of course they must be replaced but in the great grand scale of things, they're at least hauling people to schools and jobs.
the assholes who look at internal combustion as their personality - the f1s, the nascar types, the tuner heads and vroom vroom fuckwits - they're doing it for FUN.
FUCK THOSE PEOPLE THE MOST. FUCK THEM EIGHT WAYS FROM SUNDAY. THEY'RE DERIVING THEIR ENTERTAINMENT FROM MAKING IT HARDER FOR CHILDREN TO BREATH. THEY DON'T EVEN FUCKING CARE ABOUT THEIR OWN CHILDREN, BECAUSE THAT'S WHO'S GOING TO PAY THE PRICE FOR THEIR ABSURD BULLSHIT.
Of course replace ICE wherever possible, do the work, but I ain't angry at some lady hauling her kids around in an ICE kia.
The fuckwit who's modified their carb so they spew more freedom smog - and the ones who want to watch them race in circles at full tilt - they're holding the species back. Please, remind them of this whenever you see them. They're fucking us all over.
I think there's a MASSIVE difference between Formula/GT/Rally guys and guys who roll coal. True racing cars count for less than 1% of global emissions. The real problem is all the flights and transport necessary to get to the venues. The vehicles themselves are a blip on the radar.
Guys who roll coal are deliberately harming the environment for the sake of making a really stupid point.
Guys who roll coal are deliberately harming the environment for the sake of making a really stupid point.
I don't disagree but it doesn't let f1/nascar/etc off the hook. their 'hobby' is racing in circles burning gas.
Let me type that again, because the absurdity is powerful:
THEIR HOBBY IS RACING IN CIRCLES BURNING GAS.
work it out mate.
Nobody care. Fuck you
How much CO2 did I waste responding to this comment?
I think the larger point is that non-hobby, essential things like "going to work" or "feeding the family" should not be cooking the planet.
Their hobby is a feat of mechanichal engineering, and like I said, their prescence accounts for less than 1% of total emissions.The research and development that goes into these cars can also translate to consumer cars.
I wouldn't be surprised if the improved aerodymics, engine efficiency, and reliability from pushing engineering practices significantly offset the emissions created by the sport
Here is an interesting read showcasing that f1 puts out one tenth of the emissions that the world cup does and also shows that the races themselves only cover 0.7% of the sport's emissions. So that is 0.7% of <1% of global emissions, which is negligible.
I understand that off principle, it may seem like a waste, but thinking pragmatically for a second one can see that the benefits outweigh the environmental costs.
Their hobby is a feat of mechanichal engineering, and like I said, their prescence accounts for less than 1% of total emissions.
their presence accounts for less than 1% of total emission for what? it's far below total combustion emissions so I have no idea what you're on about; if you're asserting that the race itself only uses 1% of the total expended to move the cars to the next race etc., I've got radical advice bud:
you could end 100% of that emission by just STOPPING. Let them mario kart, let them gran turismo ffs.
The research and development that goes into these cars can also translate to consumer cars.
yeah this seems like the nasa argument but the actual returns are tiny, teeeny amounts of cross-pollination from the race world to the real world, because even though the real world might benefit from something like radical aerodynamics (vacuum motors for example) don't work on city streets, or they're so feverishly expensive that they can't be applied to the average car.
Cute canard tho.
Here is an interesting read showcasing that f1 puts out one tenth of the emissions that the world cup does and also shows that the races themselves only cover 0.7% of the sport’s emissions. So that is 0.7% of <1% of global emissions, which is negligible.
well that's fine because I'd like people to stop travelling massive distances for sportsball too. no need to compare, cut 'em both.
Less than 1% of global greenhouse gas emissions (And by my rough math, it could be lower than even 0.5%)
While many of the engineering improvements from racing aren't nearly as dramatic as they were previously (take the flappy paddle gearbox, for example). Nowadays, the improvements are lower level, think things like material science, manufacturing processes, and efficiency. But given the scale of the consumer vehicle market, these small changes add up very quickly.
Also, I dont think you understand what neglibility means. We would still be well on track for net zero carbon emissions even without sacrificing these culturally/socially significant activities.
The prime contributor to emissions by far and away is the industrial/power sector. Slight improvements there equate to decades if not hundreds of years of racing/football. A 5 percent decrease in either would easily account for thousands of years of both.
This is my problem with the "consumers need to do their part" rhetoric. We already are. The only reason things are as bad as they have been is entirely because of greedy mega corporations and governments who refuse to change due to corruption.
ok, how 'bout this:
you enjoy watching idiots produce smog that's not necessary AS YOUR FORM OF ENTERTAINMENT, and the rest of us will despise your shitty choices.
obviously you are never going to comprehend IT ALL NEEDS TO GO. Because this is your chosen form of entertainment, you don't give a shit about your children's future and will selfishly cling to a 'sport' which consists of idiots racing in circles.
You do you. what a strange fetish.
obviously you are never going to comprehend IT ALL NEEDS TO GO
Except that's not the case. There are plenty of ways to offset emissions, and that is exactly how formula plans to reach carbon-neutrality by 2030. When that happens, what, then? Do you think they still need to go? Even if they are doing no measurable harm to the atmoshpere? What if they had negative carbon production due to excess offsets?
It seems you are far too obsessed with the principles rather than approaching the situation rationally/pragmatically.
Also, I don't even watch racing lmao.
There are plenty of ways to offset emissions,
show me a single one that can offset any significant amount of carbon emissions in any kind of useful timeline. they range from hideously expensive to outright insane (requiring more energy to sequester than was emitted in the burning). of course you're dumb enough to believe in these fantasies - big oil are the ones selling those too.
you're a fool, who's entertained by foolish things, and believes foolish solutions will come save you.