SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
We need to reduce emissions to zero in about a decade. You think prosperity is going to do that ? About as likely as reducing population to zero.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Green New Deal
- Thread starter mspohr
- Start date
- Status
Prosperity both hinders and helps with emissions.
But that wasn't my point. My point was that people emphasizing population are ignoring the trend towards population decline. Not simply stabilization, decline. Addressing per capita emissions works with the trend towards sustainability.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
My personal experience has been that most people who emphasize population over per capita emissions are self-justifying their personal failure to take action. I had a co-worker that once expressed that it was fine for her to have a higher than average carbon footprint because she didn't have kids. Cool; that's great that you don't have kids. It's it really that hard to not be a moron too?
juliusa
Active Member
She is right - her choice not to have a kid will do more to reduce emissions than having a kid and driving an EV.
If the goal is reduced emissions, less capita has more effect than reducing emissions per capita.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
So two wrongs make a right? That's not the lesson I was taught. How's about not having kids AND not being a fools fuel addled moron...
They're doing X so I'm not gonna do Y. Not only is that pathetically immature but it's also not exactly a recipe for progress. Go Solar. Drive electric; Regardless of family size or square miles of barren land.
juliusa
Active Member
I would not want her to tell me not to have children, and I would not presume to tell her how to live her life.
I don't know her, but does she call people that choose to have children morons?
juliusa
Active Member
Nuclear war would be a more effective way of reducing current population.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
No, she's ethically agnostic which is why she has no problem using the fact she has no children as justification for living at the expense of the future of children. I find that pathetic but I'm not ethically agnostic.
Or.... or... crazy thought.... solar, wind and EVs.... then we can exist AND not create huge problems. Sure seems like a win-win.
juliusa
Active Member
She is doing more for the environment and future generations than the family driving a Model S.
How do you fly your private jet without fossil fuel?
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Um no because math. The average family of 4 in SF has GHG emissions of <30 tons/yr. The average single moron in WY has GHG emissions of >100 tons/yr... No reason we can't get our per capita GHG emissions to ~0. We just have to start making rational choices.
And I don't fly.
LOL.... christ.... if you put half as much effort into making intelligent choices as you do trying to justify idiotic choices your GHG emissions would be negative. Why not try that???
Last edited:
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
juliusa
Active Member
You co-worker lives in WY? Not having children in WY has a much bigger impact on reducing carbon due to their high per-capita carbon output - having no children instead of the two children in your SF example will save 200 tons of carbon per year.
She and her husband would have to reduce their carbon to 0 in order to achieve the same 200 tons per year savings.
You are absolutely right - reducing population where there is high carbon-per-capita rates has bigger impact on carbon than in low carbon-per-capita rate areas.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
juliusa
Active Member
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
..... I have this thing called a 'car'.... I don't travel by air.
For those that do; I find this 'logic' interesting... so... because we don't have a viable non-fools fuel alternative for aircraft it's somehow not idiotic to use fools fuel for electricity and ground transport???? Please elaborate.
Last edited:
juliusa
Active Member
I don't know why their emissions are so high per-capita. Probably has something to do with electricity generation sources, distances people drive, rural vs city energy requirements.
Wyoming accounts for about 1% of the carbon emissions in the US. It would probably be VERY expensive to get them to cut their per-capita emissions in half in a short period of time, while reducing the US GHG emissions by .5% - probably hard to justify the cost from a public policy perspective.
Last edited:
juliusa
Active Member
I'm glad you don't travel by air. Or use/purchase any good transported by air or sea. Or fart. You probably have some trees and are net 0 carbon.
I was asking in regards to this:
By "our" I assume you mean the US. So I was asking how you would deal with planes and ships. For farts, I assume you would eliminate all animals raised for food.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
No; Energy produced >>> Energy used
Not rocket science.
Pretty simple. They're coal addicted morons.
juliusa
Active Member
Yes, here is another part of the answer. 40% of electricity WY generates is exported to other states, so while the carbon is generated in WY coal generation plants, it is consumed in states like CA - which imports 26% of their electricity.
Seems the answer is a little more complicated.
- Status
Similar threads
