going4roses;842853788 said:

---

Wow where do you reside ???

Even if it's the car next to/in front me its a daily thing. For me

I don't even know who can afford them $$ or health wise

---

I live in the city and have literally never had a smoker lecture me on the dangers of second hand smoking. I don't really know a lot of smokers though and don't recall hearing anyone lecture about the dangers of smoking because it's common knowledge. Somewhat ironically apparently my toddler lectured a dude on the street who she saw smoking this morning. He was apparently good natured about it.

Unit2Sucks;842853806 said:

---

I live in the city and have literally never had a smoker lecture me on the dangers of second hand smoking. I don't really know a lot of smokers though and don't recall hearing anyone lecture about the dangers of smoking because it's common knowledge. Somewhat ironically apparently my toddler lectured a dude on the street who she saw smoking this morning. He was apparently good natured about it.

---

My wife is obsessed with the dangers of motorcycle riding. She drilled this into my boy from when he was a toddler. This resulted when he was four in him lecturing a group of Hell's Angels we happened to pass in the street. I believe the phrase "bad motorcycle" featured prominently in the discourse. They seemed pretty shell shocked by the whole thing (or at least that's what it seemed like to me - hard to say since I took the opportunity to hide between a couple of parked cars while this was going down ).

Unit2Sucks;842853684 said:

---

Does this happen to you frequently? I rarely am exposed to smokers these days so it's a genuine question.

---

No, it's not an actual thing. It's an illustrative point that went over your head. People have been spending valuable resources debating a point on this thread spending countless hours that could have been used to produce more and reduce the wealth gap. We used electricity to discuss how rediculous it is not to believe in global warming but we still change very little about the carbon footprint we leave behind. What about our daily lives manifest our deep belief in what we say we believe? Do you use less electricity? Do you eat less beef? Don't tell me how convincing the science is. Show me with how you live. If you lecture me about how much the earth is on the brink of a catastrophe but continue to pollute the world just like the deniers do, what's the point of all that hot air? You might as well lecture me about smoking and then smoke in front of me. You are just as convincing as the illustrative smoker would be.

OdontoBear66;842853779 said:

---

So, could you explain to me in simple terms why, as stipulated in the Paris Accord, the carbon tax on the US is so important. And in terms where you understand I am asking from a standpoint of questioning why necessary. All I have heard is "We should do it" but no real rational as to why. I am open to absorbing, but just saying we must do it to help underdeveloped countries just doesn't do it for me. I keep suggesting that the US has been doing a very credible job of improving its carbon imprint, and it is continuing. Somehow the carbon tax gets added on, and I just do not understand why. And then to make it stick in my craw even more we let China and India continue with coal while our coal has nicely been dropped like a lead balloon, which in itself helps our footprint immensely.

---

Odont, don't hold your breath. To them, the only people who matter are those in complete and utter agreement with them, and the opposite. People who don't follow that dichotomy, for whatever reason, they don't know what to do with.

You have made you position clear on several occasions and in several ways. Did you see all the responses to the evidence you offered? I didn't either.

Same as the Reply I made to Sycasey at the bottom of this thread. 'Course, now that I've brought it to their attention, we'll see some snark dropped toot sweet.

Strykur;842853790 said:

---

Carbon emissions are the cost of living.

---

I don't know what that means.

OdontoBear66;842853738 said:

---

Not questioning that. If you have been with this thread, my comments have been toward an uneven deal when you have "one earth", not a US, a China, an India. Coal emissions are coal emissions--one atmosphere.

---

Yeah, I've followed the thread from its inception. So your take on remedies is that you support only those that all others are willing to accept? The most reluctant set the bar? Assuming it's fair, could it be effective?

drizzlybears brother;842853850 said:

---

Yeah, I've followed the thread from its inception. So your take on remedies is that you support only those that all others are willing to accept? The most reluctant set the bar? Assuming it's fair, could it be effective?

---

And I have little clue what this means.

I understood your original post but the way you phrased your comparison was more of an anecdote than a hypothetical which is why I was genuinely asking whether you meant it literally. Your last post phrased it in much more clear way.

I agree that it can be frustrating to be lectured by hypocrits. I find that often people who complain about it in the guise of climate change however are doing so in order to chill speech. They might say - don't talk to me about carbon usage, show me by your actions. If you were to respond that you're a vegan who walks to work, grows her own food, is a single hermit intent on not procreating and that your solar panels more than offset all of your energy usage, they would then say that you are just one person and that if you really cared about the climate you would take additional steps to reduce climate change like going to China and replacing their coal plants with solar panels or inventing a new type of technology that converts CO2 into therapeutic patches that can wean people off opioids (kill 2 birds with 1 stone). Just to be clear I'm not accusing you of doing it but I do see it commonly. Let me repeat that - I Unit2Sucks are not accusing you calbear93 of complaining of hypocrisy in order to chill speech. I mean that sincerely so you can omit any implication that I have done so from a response should you choose to respond.

I'm not arguing in favor of hypocrisy, but I don't think that there needs to be an ideological purity test before engaging in a topic of discussion.

Also I'm not sure how your complaint relates to the discussion on this message board since, as far as I can recall, no one has disclosed their carbon footprint.

calbear93;842853837 said:

---

No, it's not an actual thing. It's an illustrative point that went over your head. People have been spending valuable resources debating a point on this thread spending countless hours that could have been used to produce more and reduce the wealth gap. We used electricity to discuss how rediculous it is not to believe in global warming but we still change very little about the carbon footprint we leave behind. What about our daily lives manifest our deep belief in what we say we believe? Do you use less electricity? Do you eat less beef? Don't tell me how convincing the science is. Show me with how you live. If you lecture me about how much the earth is on the brink of a catastrophe but continue to pollute the world just like the deniers do, what's the point of all that hot air? You might as well lecture me about smoking and then smoke in front of me. You are just as convincing as the illustrative smoker would be.

---

Rushinbear;842853840 said:

---

You have made you position clear on several occasions and in several ways. Did you see all the responses to the evidence you offered? I didn't either.

---

You say these things like there hasn't already been a 50-page thread with responses and responses to the responses. It's been addressed. You and Odonto don't like the responses, as is your prerogative. But don't act like no one has talked about this already.

OdontoBear66;842853854 said:

---

And I have little clue what this means.

---

Sorry, I thought your point was that your opposition to a carbon tax was that it didn't apply to all equally. If I have that right, I'm asking if the only solutions you are open to are the ones that everyone is willing to adhere to? If so, dose that mean that the only solutions available are those to which the the most reluctant participant is willing to engage?

Coal is a radioactive lead balloon unless you use slave labor or pay workers 50 cents an hour. You can't pay coal miners and maintenance workers more than engineers and scientists and expect to compete with less labor intensive fuels like natural gas. China and India have dug themselves into a deep coal pit, but we helped. For a long time the industrial age was steam powered and the steam was coal fired. But as technology advanced, coal even as a dirt cheap fuel continued to lose out to lower maintenance fuels like diesel and natural gas and electrical power. The last hurrah (after steel furnaces closed) was large scale power plants. But they have a finite life and the coal plants wear out faster and require more maintenance and when it's time to renew the infrastructure investment,it's hard to say NO to turning on a gas valve to replace mile long coal trains, coal dumps, and the staff to run them, exotic emission suppression systems. India and China with large manual labor forces, cheaply paid could use coal competitively, but as their economies advance they will at some point no longer be able to afford to subsidize coal. The only Government health care plan Republicans seem to support is Black Lung Care, which is expensive but the pool of recipients is dying out so they are willing to wait for the need to disappear. Coal is dying, but politicians can put it on life support at a cost to our economy.

FWIW we forced India and China into using more coal because the alternative for power was to import expensive foreign fuels and workers. Fifty years after American railroads abandoned steam locomotives, China was building new ones. They had the labor pool for the old technology and needed to employ the work force and sending money out of the country to buy only newer technology would have slowed economic growth. If they hadn't had the coal alternative,
they would still be third world countries.

OdontoBear66;842853779 said:

---

So, could you explain to me in simple terms why, as stipulated in the Paris Accord, the carbon tax on the US is so important. And in terms where you understand I am asking from a standpoint of questioning why necessary. All I have heard is "We should do it" but no real rational as to why. I am open to absorbing, but just saying we must do it to help underdeveloped countries just doesn't do it for me. I keep suggesting that the US has been doing a very credible job of improving its carbon imprint, and it is continuing. Somehow the carbon tax gets added on, and I just do not understand why. And then to make it stick in my craw even more we let China and India continue with coal while our coal has nicely been dropped like a lead balloon, which in itself helps our footprint immensely.

---

Strykur;842853790 said:

---

Carbon emissions are the cost of living.

---

This is excellent because it's both funny and true

sp4149;842853881 said:

---

Coal is a radioactive lead balloon unless you use slave labor or pay workers 50 cents an hour. You can't pay coal miners and maintenance workers more than engineers and scientists and expect to compete with less labor intensive fuels like natural gas. China and India have dug themselves into a deep coal pit, but we helped. For a long time the industrial age was steam powered and the steam was coal fired. But as technology advanced, coal even as a dirt cheap fuel continued to lose out to lower maintenance fuels like diesel and natural gas and electrical power. The last hurrah (after steel furnaces closed) was large scale power plants. But they have a finite life and the coal plants wear out faster and require more maintenance and when it's time to renew the infrastructure investment,it's hard to say NO to turning on a gas valve to replace mile long coal trains, coal dumps, and the staff to run them, exotic emission suppression systems. India and China with large manual labor forces, cheaply paid could use coal competitively, but as their economies advance they will at some point no longer be able to afford to subsidize coal. The only Government health care plan Republicans seem to support is Black Lung Care, which is expensive but the pool of recipients is dying out so they are willing to wait for the need to disappear. Coal is dying, but politicians can put it on life support at a cost to our economy.

FWIW we forced India and China into using more coal because the alternative for power was to import expensive foreign fuels and workers. Fifty years after American railroads abandoned steam locomotives, China was building new ones. They had the labor pool for the old technology and needed to employ the work force and sending money out of the country to buy only newer technology would have slowed economic growth. If they hadn't had the coal alternative,
they would still be third world countries.

---

sp4149 needs to post more in this thread. Coal in the United States is terminally ill and the sooner it dies out the better off we'll be. The pandering that Trump and lots of other Republicans do to the Coal industry is disgraceful but unsurprising. Trump doesn't care about anything so remote as the world after him, and Republicans as an organization always know an about face is within their ability as they've done it on so many other things. Eventually they'll do it on climate change too, right about the time the US coal industry croaks.

Unit2Sucks;842853855 said:

---

I understood your original post but the way you phrased your comparison was more of an anecdote than a hypothetical which is why I was genuinely asking whether you meant it literally. Your last post phrased it in much more clear way.

I agree that it can be frustrating to be lectured by hypocrits. I find that often people who complain about it in the guise of climate change however are doing so in order to chill speech. They might say - don't talk to me about carbon usage, show me by your actions. If you were to respond that you're a vegan who walks to work, grows her own food, is a single hermit intent on not procreating and that your solar panels more than offset all of your energy usage, they would then say that you are just one person and that if you really cared about the climate you would take additional steps to reduce climate change like going to China and replacing their coal plants with solar panels or inventing a new type of technology that converts CO2 into therapeutic patches that can wean people off opioids (kill 2 birds with 1 stone). Just to be clear I'm not accusing you of doing it but I do see it commonly. Let me repeat that - I Unit2Sucks are not accusing you calbear93 of complaining of hypocrisy in order to chill speech. I mean that sincerely so you can omit any implication that I have done so from a response should you choose to respond.

I'm not arguing in favor of hypocrisy, but I don't think that there needs to be an ideological purity test before engaging in a topic of discussion.

Also I'm not sure how your complaint relates to the discussion on this message board since, as far as I can recall, no one has disclosed their carbon footprint.

---

That's a fair response. I do get frustrated with two things. The first are people who talk and talk but do nothing to show they really believe. It's like Trump talking about how we need a strong military and how important our soldiers are but didn't believe enough to serve himself. I will listen to McCain and Kerry before I will be lectured by the likes of Trump on need to serve. The person you described in the example would have actions to back up the talk. The likes of Gore make me sick talking about the need to reduce our carbon footprint but taking way more than his share of the resources. And the likes of people in Hollywood and the Bay Area who talk and talk while hoarding resources for themselves just need to talk less and do more. And crap about one person unable to make a difference needs to stop - that mentality results in allowing injustices, pollution, etc. to be perpetuated. One person may not be enough but it starts with one person. The second is doing things for the sake of doing without actual benefit. When it comes to global warming, the problem itself is so fact driven that you would think that the solution would be fact driven. Instead, I read crap like - well it's better than doing nothing. Is it really? What science backs up the assumption that the proposed steps from the Paris Accord would make any meaningful difference. Maybe some difference like a water drop in the ocean makes a difference but not a meaningful difference. Without proof that it is worth doing, why settle? If it's real, have the courage to stand our ground and demand at least the minimum. Don't let China get away with doing so little. I understand that it was a negotiation, but, if there is a minimum, the negotiation shouldn't allow the results to go below it. Everything I read seemed to indicate that the Paris Accord fell far short of the minimum but was something to do to say that the world now cares (just not enough to do what is necessary).

calbear93;842853899 said:

---

That's a fair response. I do get frustrated with two things. The first are people who talk and talk but do nothing to show they really believe. It's like Trump talking about how we need a strong military and how important our soldiers are but didn't believe enough to serve himself. I will listen to McCain and Kerry before I will be lectured by the likes of Trump on need to serve. The person you described in the example would have actions to back up the talk. The likes of Gore make me sick talking about the need to reduce our carbon footprint but taking way more than his share of the resources. And the likes of people in Hollywood and the Bay Area who talk and talk while hoarding resources for themselves just need to talk less and do more. And crap about one person unable to make a difference needs to stop - that mentality results in allowing injustices, pollution, etc. to be perpetuated. One person may not be enough but it starts with one person. The second is doing things for the sake of doing without actual benefit. When it comes to global warming, the problem itself is so fact driven that you would think that the solution would be fact driven. Instead, I read crap like - well it's better than doing nothing. Is it really? What science backs up the assumption that the proposed steps from the Paris Accord would make any meaningful difference. Maybe some difference like a water drop in the ocean makes a difference but not a meaningful difference. Without proof that it is worth doing, why settle? If it's real, have the courage to stand our ground and demand at least the minimum. Don't let China get away with doing so little. I understand that it was a negotiation, but, if there is a minimum, the negotiation shouldn't allow the results to go below it. Everything I read seemed to indicate that the Paris Accord fell far short of the minimum but was something to do to say that the world now cares (just not enough to do what is necessary).

---

Here's the deal: Okay, so I drive a Chevy Tahoe, eat a lot of beef and have five kids (the oldest of whom is in charge of watering our giant lawn). Why? Because I want to. It's my thing and I'm not breaking any laws. Do I understand that, collectively, we are destroying Mother Earth? Sure, but I AM JUST ONE PERSON! Thus, I feel that the most impact I can have is to join the Sierra Club and vote for Hillary Clinton and support the U.S. being with the Paris accords... and to make a decent effort to get others to do the same. It's like my own personal carbon off-set.

To anybody who thinks I'm a hypocrite, I would simply reply that I'm a realist. I hope everybody participates in "Bike to Work Day": The world will be a better place, plus the traffic will be much lighter that day.

Big C_Cal;842853920 said:

---

Here's the deal: Okay, so I drive a Chevy Tahoe, eat a lot of beef and have five kids (the oldest of whom is in charge of watering our giant lawn). Why? Because I want to. It's my thing and I'm not breaking any laws. Do I understand that, collectively, we are destroying Mother Earth? Sure, but I AM JUST ONE PERSON! Thus, I feel that the most impact I can have is to join the Sierra Club and vote for Hillary Clinton and support the U.S. being with the Paris accords... and to make a decent effort to get others to do the same. It's like my own personal carbon off-set.

To anybody who thinks I'm a hypocrite, I would simply reply that I'm a realist. I hope everybody participates in "Bike to Work Day": The world will be a better place, plus the traffic will be much lighter that day.

---

No disrespect to you on a personal level, but what I highlighted epitomizes a significant portion of the sanctimonious left (e.g., Hollywood elites) that makes them only convincing to those already on the left and to no one else. This is not about you personally because I haven't noticed you lecturing to us Republicans on this board like many others have, and you don't seem to pretend to be morally superior solely based on saying you support something that you don't support with your actions.

Guess what, though. Each peson is just ONE PERSON. Each vote for Trump was just one vote. Each vote for Brexit was just one vote. People voted for Brexit because they didn't think it would pass and they didn't think their vote would make a difference. Each person who turned a blind eye to genocide was just one person. And each ONE PERSON not even trying to make a difference because they don't think it matters collectively make a difference the wrong way. This kind of attitude is why I will never again be a Democrat.

calbear93;842853967 said:

---

No disrespect to you on a personal level, but what I highlighted epitomizes a significant portion of the sanctimonious left (e.g., Hollywood elites) that makes them only convincing to those already on the left and to no one else. This is not about you personally because I haven't noticed you lecturing to us Republicans on this board like many others have, and you don't seem to pretend to be morally superior solely based on saying you support something that you don't support with your actions.

Guess what, though. Each peson is just ONE PERSON. Each vote for Trump was just one vote. Each vote for Brexit was just one vote. People voted for Brexit because they didn't think it would pass and they didn't think their vote would make a difference. Each person who turned a blind eye to genocide was just one person. And each ONE PERSON not even trying to make a difference because they don't think it matters collectively make a difference the wrong way. This kind of attitude is why I will never again be a Democrat.

---

I am a little confused. You say you hate Dems because while they might vote for policies the fight GCC they are doing nothing at an individual level to fight GCC?
Well then I have two questions: 1. do you hate those Dems more or less than those Republicans who vote in favor of greater use of coal. AND do nothing at an individual level to fight GCC provided that they are not hypocrites.
2. Do you assume that most Dems are like the poster who votes to fight GCC but does nothing at a personal level?
I posit that there are more Dems whose personal lives in general are more in line with their voting preferences as they relate to GCC.
For one I have always voted in favor of measures that fight GCC plus I have converted most my back yard garden to drought tolerant shrubs and I have added solar panels to my house. And I know many other Progressive Dems who have done likewise.

GivemTheAxe;842853981 said:

---

I am a little confused. You say you hate Dems because while they might vote for policies the fight GCC they are doing nothing at an individual level to fight GCC?
Well then I have two questions: 1. do you hate those Dems more or less than those Republicans who vote in favor of greater use of coal. AND do nothing at an individual level to fight GCC provided that they are not hypocrites.
2. Do you assume that most Dems are like the poster who votes to fight GCC but does nothing at a personal level?
I posit that there are more Dems whose personal lives in general are more in line with their voting preferences as they relate to GCC.
For one I have always voted in favor of measures that fight GCC plus I have converted most my back yard garden to drought tolerant shrubs and I have added solar panels to my house. And I know many other Progressive Dems who have done likewise.

---

While I disagree strongly with those in my party who do not believe in global warming or who seek to avoid immediate economic sacrifice, no one in my party lectures me about how stupid others are for not believing in global warming and then live their lives on an individual basis as if global warming is not real. I have seen too many people during my time in LA and in San Francisco and saw how much resources people who claim to be liberal hoarded and wasted on themselves while shaking their heads at the less enlightened people. It is that hypocrisy that bothers me the most. It is the same instinct I suppose that would allow you to forgive more easily a rock star who never pretends to be morally superior and then gets caught doing drugs and being promiscuous versus some TV evangelist who would pretend to be morally superior and lectures others about promiscuity but then gets caught doing the same.

Not that it should matter to you, but I respect people like you who walk the talk and care enough about others to do something on a personal level even at a cost and sacrifice to you instead of expecting the government to force everyone to do what we should be doing anyway. I would be more inclined to be inspired by you, follow your lead and be persuaded by your points than someone who is all talk.

Unit2Sucks;842853855 Also I'm not sure how your complaint relates to the discussion on this message board since, as far as I can recall, no one has disclosed their carbon footprint.[/QUOTE said:

---

For all a you pretenders and wannabe's out there, just so ya know. I'm one who walks the walk.

I built a solar heated house (heating of the interior, not just a few solar panels on the roof for hot water) in 1980 in a cold, wintery climate. I owned it for 10 years and kept detailed records. The least I ever spent on fossil fuel was $75 for the YEAR. The most was $125 and the average was about $90...per year. And, I learned a lot.

I bought one of the first Honda Civics (Tonka toy) offered for sale in my state and while others were getting 15 on their chevy's, I was getting 30.

I don't smoke. I don't drink. I eat very little beef; mostly chicken and fish. I had a 1/4 acre garden and a big freezer and my veggies lasted pretty much through the whole year.

I believe we should be good stewards of the planet, but should not bankrupt ourselves while others laugh up their sleeves and expect us to pay for everything, especially on the basis of questionable (at best) science.

Now, along will come somebody to say, "Well, goody, goody for you; you self-righteous denier." And, thereby will they hoist themselves by their own petard.

Big C_Cal;842853920 said:

---

Here's the deal: Okay, so I drive a Chevy Tahoe, eat a lot of beef and have five kids (the oldest of whom is in charge of watering our giant lawn). Why? Because I want to. It's my thing and I'm not breaking any laws. Do I understand that, collectively, we are destroying Mother Earth? Sure, but I AM JUST ONE PERSON! Thus, I feel that the most impact I can have is to join the Sierra Club and vote for Hillary Clinton and support the U.S. being with the Paris accords... and to make a decent effort to get others to do the same. It's like my own personal carbon off-set.

To anybody who thinks I'm a hypocrite, I would simply reply that I'm a realist. I hope everybody participates in "Bike to Work Day": The world will be a better place, plus the traffic will be much lighter that day.

---

Oh, tragedy of the commons. So we're just the opposable thumbs version of a parasite?

Rushinbear;842854006 said:

---

For all a you pretenders and wannabe's out there, just so ya know. I'm one who walks the walk.

I built a solar heated house (heating of the interior, not just a few solar panels on the roof for hot water) in 1980 in a cold, wintery climate. I owned it for 10 years and kept detailed records. The least I ever spent on fossil fuel was $75 for the YEAR. The most was $125 and the average was about $90...per year. And, I learned a lot.

I bought one of the first Honda Civics (Tonka toy) offered for sale in my state and while others were getting 15 on their chevy's, I was getting 30.

I don't smoke. I don't drink. I eat very little beef; mostly chicken and fish. I had a 1/4 acre garden and a big freezer and my veggies lasted pretty much through the whole year.

I believe we should be good stewards of the planet, but should not bankrupt ourselves while others laugh up their sleeves and expect us to pay for everything, especially on the basis of questionable (at best) science.

Now, along will come somebody to say, "Well, goody, goody for you; you self-righteous denier." And, thereby will they hoist themselves by their own petard.

---

Am I allowed to say good for you without the snarky part?

I'm about halfway to where you are in terms of reducing my own carbon footprint. My personal best guess is that individual action like yours (and partially mine) is necessary but also by itself insufficient. I know you don't quite see it that way.

But that does not take anything away from doing the right thing, as you are.

Go Bears!

I hear you guys on individual responsibility but collective action can make a huge difference. California has the second lowest per capital carbon footprint of any state - and the number varies wildly by state with many having 3-5x as much and some having even more than that. Our national average is almost 2x the California number. Here's my source: link

It is reasonable to think that the existence of influencers contributes to our low footprint by contributing to the demand for renewable energy from our state's regulators and energy producers. If you look at the states with the largest carbon footprints per capita, it will not surprise you.

While it's all well and good for relatively affluent people to reduce their carbon footprint on an individual basis you can see in the data the impact from pushing for collective action.

So, while I applaud any carbon neutral individual in Wyoming, the fact remains that per capita they emit more carbon than 10 people in California.

Unit2Sucks;842854044 said:

---

I hear you guys on individual responsibility but collective action can make a huge difference. California has the second lowest per capital carbon footprint of any state - and the number varies wildly by state with many having 3-5x as much and some having even more than that. Our national average is almost 2x the California number. Here's my source: link

It is reasonable to think that the existence of influencers contributes to our low footprint by contributing to the demand for renewable energy from our state's regulators and energy producers. If you look at the states with the largest carbon footprints per capita, it will not surprise you.

While it's all well and good for relatively affluent people to reduce their carbon footprint on an individual basis you can see in the data the impact from pushing for collective action.

So, while I applaud any carbon neutral individual in Wyoming, the fact remains that per capita they emit more carbon than 10 people in California.

---

Interesting but may be misleading depending on methodology because the states that are big fossil fuel energy producers- Texas, Wyoming,West Virginia, Pennsylvania - are of course saddled with the emissions to produce energy but this represents an industry contribution not the footprint of its residents. If you're burning coal in Wyoming all the emissions from that are going up a stack in Wyoming but a lot of the electricity may be distributed to other states.

calbear93;842853967 said:

---

No disrespect to you on a personal level, but what I highlighted epitomizes a significant portion of the sanctimonious left (e.g., Hollywood elites) that makes them only convincing to those already on the left and to no one else. This is not about you personally because I haven't noticed you lecturing to us Republicans on this board like many others have, and you don't seem to pretend to be morally superior solely based on saying you support something that you don't support with your actions.

Guess what, though. Each peson is just ONE PERSON. Each vote for Trump was just one vote. Each vote for Brexit was just one vote. People voted for Brexit because they didn't think it would pass and they didn't think their vote would make a difference. Each person who turned a blind eye to genocide was just one person. And each ONE PERSON not even trying to make a difference because they don't think it matters collectively make a difference the wrong way. This kind of attitude is why I will never again be a Democrat.

---

No disrespect to you on a personal level, either, but even though the subject of this thread is serious and tremendously important, the thread itself seems to cry out for a little levity.

OneKeg;842854028 said:

---

Am I allowed to say good for you without the snarky part?

I'm about halfway to where you are in terms of reducing my own carbon footprint. My personal best guess is that individual action like yours (and partially mine) is necessary but also by itself insufficient. I know you don't quite see it that way.

But that does not take anything away from doing the right thing, as you are.

Go Bears!

---

Thank you, although doing those things has had its own rewards.

I'm not a saint, by any means, but I wanted to show through my own witness that people with viewpoints such as mine can and do lead clean lives.

GB54;842854049 said:

---

Interesting but may be misleading depending on methodology because the states that are big fossil fuel energy producers- Texas, Wyoming,West Virginia, Pennsylvania - are of course saddled with the emissions to produce energy but this represents an industry contribution not the footprint of its residents. If you're burning coal in Wyoming all the emissions from that are going up a stack in Wyoming but a lot of the electricity may be distributed to other states.

---

So back to individual effort. I love it when comments from "collectivists" dispense with individual action with eight words ("I hear you on individual responsiblity but....") and then on to the important stuff. If we had more rushinbears versus entertainers & pols (do as I do, not as I say), I suggest the GW problem would be even in better shape. This goes for so many issues.

OdontoBear66;842854082 said:

---

So back to individual effort. I love it when comments from "collectivists" dispense with individual action with eight words ("I hear you on individual responsiblity but....") and then on to the important stuff. If we had more rushinbears versus entertainers & pols (do as I do, not as I say), I suggest the GW problem would be even in better shape. This goes for so many issues.

---

Both are important but it's pull-push. Government sets policies that punish behavior we don't want and rewards behavior we do. Individual efforts don't mean much if there are no renewable options for electricity or no high mileage cars.

Sources of greenhouse gasses, EPA
Electricity production, 29%
Transportation, 27%
Industry, 21%
Commercial and residential, 12%
Agriculture, 9%

From the above, travel less and use less electricity but don't drive to the farmers market and think you're doing good- that's another argument. Same with recycling which is not important.

But it is government's role to provide options and models. It's difficult to do this when one of America's parties refuses to admit there is a problem

OdontoBear66;842854082 said:

---

So back to individual effort. I love it when comments from "collectivists" dispense with individual action with eight words ("I hear you on individual responsiblity but....") and then on to the important stuff. If we had more rushinbears versus entertainers & pols (do as I do, not as I say), I suggest the GW problem would be even in better shape. This goes for so many issues.

---

Interesting to me is the collective thing but let's leave China and India out..

No, but recycling may be important for other reasons (landfill problems, etc.). It is an error when well-meaning folk (I'm not going to bother with ill-meaning folk) try to use GCC as the reason/excuse for everything.

You see, now we can have a discussion around reasonable policy choices instead of overheated rhetoric. (As an aside, one of the things I treasure about this forum is that even the individuals I may disagree with are intelligent and articulate--for the most part--and have positions that are worth considering) You say we shouldn't bankrupt ourselves, etc., and we could now have a discussion about whether or not the major proposals th combat GCC are economically disastrous (I believe that they may lead to short term dislocation and long term prosperity, but that's a different debate from the overheated rhetoric that we hear) or not. FWIW, if it is true that the consequence of GCC would be a catastrophe and if it is true that there are ways to prevent it, then it might be necessary to "bankrupt" ourselves (analogy: it was necessary for the UK to wreck its economy to defeat the Nazis in WWII). I agree that neither of these conditions have been demonstrated. But I much prefer this level of discourse than the "your a one-world terrorist who is trying to enslave America" or "you're a trogladyte denier who's a tool of Rush Limbaugh..."

Goobear;842854093 said:

---

Interesting to me is the collective thing but let's leave China and India out..

---

Seems like China is getting very serious about emissions:
http://www.dw.com/en/how-chinas-climate-revolution-can-stop-global-warming/a-36580195

UrsaMajor;842854102 said:

---

No, but recycling may be important for other reasons (landfill problems, etc.). It is an error when well-meaning folk (I'm not going to bother with ill-meaning folk) try to use GCC as the reason/excuse for everything.

---

Recycling is a resource and solid waste issue, not necessarily a green house gas or energy issue. It pains me to see all this food waste turned into compost and trucked all over creation

UrsaMajor;842854104 said:

---

You see, now we can have a discussion around reasonable policy choices instead of overheated rhetoric. (As an aside, one of the things I treasure about this forum is that even the individuals I may disagree with are intelligent and articulate--for the most part--and have positions that are worth considering) You say we shouldn't bankrupt ourselves, etc., and we could now have a discussion about whether or not the major proposals th combat GCC are economically disastrous (I believe that they may lead to short term dislocation and long term prosperity, but that's a different debate from the overheated rhetoric that we hear) or not. FWIW, if it is true that the consequence of GCC would be a catastrophe and if it is true that there are ways to prevent it, then it might be necessary to "bankrupt" ourselves (analogy: it was necessary for the UK to wreck its economy to defeat the Nazis in WWII). I agree that neither of these conditions have been demonstrated. But I much prefer this level of discourse than the "your a one-world terrorist who is trying to enslave America" or "you're a trogladyte denier who's a tool of Rush Limbaugh..."

---

+1

UrsaMajor;842854104 said:

---

You see, now we can have a discussion around reasonable policy choices instead of overheated rhetoric. (As an aside, one of the things I treasure about this forum is that even the individuals I may disagree with are intelligent and articulate--for the most part--and have positions that are worth considering) You say we shouldn't bankrupt ourselves, etc., and we could now have a discussion about whether or not the major proposals th combat GCC are economically disastrous (I believe that they may lead to short term dislocation and long term prosperity, but that's a different debate from the overheated rhetoric that we hear) or not. FWIW, if it is true that the consequence of GCC would be a catastrophe and if it is true that there are ways to prevent it, then it might be necessary to "bankrupt" ourselves (analogy: it was necessary for the UK to wreck its economy to defeat the Nazis in WWII). I agree that neither of these conditions have been demonstrated. But I much prefer this level of discourse than the "your a one-world terrorist who is trying to enslave America" or "you're a trogladyte denier who's a tool of Rush Limbaugh..."

---

I think a forced switch to primarily passive solar, wind and other "sustainable" power sources would be economically catastrophic at this time. Maybe in 50 years, if those technologies continue to make the advances they have been. But, their implementation has been subsidized while minimizing, if not denying, the role it has played in it's (subsidy) financial costs.

I don't see the comparison with the UK in WWII. First, they didn't defeat the Nazis and second, their economy was destroyed by Nazi bombings and rationing. You lost me there.

Rushinbear;842854143 said:

---

I think a forced switch to primarily passive solar, wind and other "sustainable" power sources would be economically catastrophic at this time. Maybe in 50 years, if those technologies continue to make the advances they have been. But, their implementation has been subsidized while minimizing, if not denying, the role it has played in it's (subsidy) financial costs.

---

You talk about "forced switch," but eventually the switch has to happen, right? I'm not sure anyone expects it to change quickly, like turning on the kitchen light. Are there things that can be done now to prepare ourselves for the eventual need?