Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SansSanctity t1_izst6q6 wrote

Reply to comment by Taalnazi in [OC] Yearly Average Temperature in the UK, 1884 - 2021 by PieChartPirate

That's not true, the USA has had drastic decreases in carbon emissions over the last two decades in spite of not having these kinds of policies that would specifically harm the poorest in our society. How is someone supposed to warm their home in the winter or fill their car with gas for work when you've taxed energy so drastically?

I am sick and tired of the unscientific catastrophizing around this topic.

11

MrScaryEgg t1_izsx83b wrote

> How is someone supposed to warm their home in the winter or fill their car with gas for work when you've taxed energy so drastically?

This question seems to be based on the misconception that energy = fossil fuels. The point such a tax would be to account for the true cost of using fossil fuels, rather than renewables, for energy.

10

DanoPinyon t1_iztmh6l wrote

...we've merely shifted our manufacturing pollution to Asia.

2

SansSanctity t1_iztmrno wrote

No we haven’t, the USA is one of the least involved developed economies in terms of its trade with the rest of the world. Much of our reductions come from the phasing out of coal fired plants and the increase in the use of much cleaner (albeit it not entirely emissions free) natural gas.

1

DanoPinyon t1_iztnfhy wrote

You could strengthen your assertion by showing a chart over time of manufacturing output in USA.

1

Taalnazi t1_izsw942 wrote

Well, for that you have to thank politicians who were deeeeep in the oil and gas pockets. They did nothing to construct clean energy stuff.

So now we are paying the price for that. No one of us wanted this, except for the greedy companies and some politicians.

You can wear thermo clothing. You can drive an electric car or bicycle and demand better infrastructure and public transport. Plenty of opportunities.

Not doing anything and crying about not having enough gas, which itself harms the climate, is not the solution.

The US has decreased some emissions, but far too few and little. It needs to go to zero.

0

Individual_Ad2579 t1_izsww76 wrote

I just don’t think you understand the impact on the economy it would be to go to zero

2

Taalnazi t1_izsxdfy wrote

The impact would be larger if we did nothing. Have you got any better ideas?

0

Individual_Ad2579 t1_izysmxf wrote

Have a good economy so we can better fund actual policies instead of ramping up spending to where we inflate the currency so much we can’t afford to put in policies that will actually effect climate change

0

SansSanctity t1_izswma2 wrote

Did you just say oil and gas interests are responsible for the drastic decrease in USA's emissions?

"You can drive an electric car"

"Emissions need to go to zero."

You don't know how electric cars are made, do you?

−4

Taalnazi t1_izsx1re wrote

I see talking with you is talking on deaf ears... You are not actually willing to learn. I have constructively answered you, and you keep returning with personal attacks. You know that you can be better than this.

Bless your heart. I disengage.

4

EclecticKant t1_izsy5cy wrote

Drastically? The CO2 emissions per Capita have been reduced by less than a quarter in the last 30 years. And the total emissions are almost at an all time high.

A few developed countries have reduced significantly their emissions, mostly the Eu, but the USA is not one of them, the only reductions are caused by an increased efficiency in the technology used, definitely not because of efficient climate policies or a shift in the public opinion on the matter.

The USA is the richest country on earth by far, and it's doing nothing, and the problem is not that people wouldn't be able to heat their homes or fuel their cars, there is plenty of wealth to spare, but people just don't care enough, even though doing something is in their best interest, but it doesn't benefit them in the short term

0

SansSanctity t1_izsygg6 wrote

I was talking about total emissions, which are down, not at an all-time high.

5

EclecticKant t1_izt064x wrote

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/

We are 20% down from the all time high. Basically the same level of the eighties. Is this what you would describe as "drastically reduced"?

1

SansSanctity t1_izt0fyt wrote

Why did you describe a 20% reduction from the ATH in the 1980s as " the total emissions are almost at an all-time high."?

7

EclecticKant t1_izt1l7x wrote

Mostly because they have started to increase again. My point still stands, emissions aren't being reduced, not nearly enough to have any meaningful impact on our effect of climate change.

What about your point? How can you describe people's opinions as "unscientific catastrophizing" when your opinion is based on wrong facts

−2

SansSanctity t1_izt1sim wrote

I stated that we are trending down over the last 20 years. You’re the one with “wrong facts” who said we are at an all time high.

2

EclecticKant t1_izt7fda wrote

"ALMOST at an all time high" seems more fitting than "drastically reduced" when referring to a 20% reduction.

Your initial argument is that the USA "drastically" reduced emissions without harming the poorest part of the population, and my point is that it is simply not true. The USA produces the same emissions that it did 50 years ago, does it seem enough to you? The USA hasn't suffered from climate change policies because it has not put in place any meaningful climate policy.

2

fjccommish t1_iztbmts wrote

Reduced is reduced.

−1

EclecticKant t1_iztgl78 wrote

And drastically means Nothing.

Praising the US policis for such a small reduction is ridiculous and pointless.

1

fjccommish t1_izvamly wrote

Turn off your computer. Stop driving. Turn off your electric appliances. Show us the way.

0

EclecticKant t1_izw7j6c wrote

The only options are a 20% reduction or returning to the bronze age?

Following the same path of the EU would be more than enough, and probably more than anyone expects or asks from the USA, the EU produces roughly half the tons of Co2 both per Capita and per dollar of value produced compared to the US. And the US is probably richer than the average European country, so the lack of money is probably not the problem.

1

fjccommish t1_izy6rvt wrote

I agree. You first.

1

EclecticKant t1_izy75bn wrote

I'm European. I already went first.

1

fjccommish t1_izyjszh wrote

What have YOU done that you are demanding Americans do to stop fake global warming?

1

EclecticKant t1_j014bwk wrote

Pollute less?

1

fjccommish t1_j03020n wrote

What have I polluted?

1

EclecticKant t1_j030qka wrote

16 tons of co2 each year, on average.

1

fjccommish t1_j0369fq wrote

CO2 isn't a pollutant. Plants need it to grow and thrive.

You've measured the CO2 I put out?

1

EclecticKant t1_j03ahed wrote

Co2 is an infrared absorber, that's the problem.

And yes, people measured, the fact that co2 absorbs infrared makes it easy to measure its quantity. People measured how much the USA releases, then they divided it by the population to get an average.

1

fjccommish t1_j03as1x wrote

I asked what am I polluting.

CO2 is not a pollutant.

1

EclecticKant t1_j03eghx wrote

From Wikipedia

A pollutant or novel entity[1] is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource.

Co2 has the unwanted and negative effect of absorbing infrared emissions of the earth surface, so it is a pollutant. I'm really curious as to why co2 is not a pollutant according to you, because plants use it?

1

fjccommish t1_j04eraf wrote

From scientists:

"A new study published recently by three veteran researchers reveals that "EPA's basic claim that CO2 is a pollutant is totally false.""

"The authors - Drs. Jim Wallace, John Christy and Joe D'Aleo - stated there is "very, very little doubt but that EPA's claim of a Tropical Hot Spot, caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world.""

1