Do you REALLY want to do something about CO2 emissions?

Or do you just want to feel good about yourself?

Published on October 13, 2007 By Draginol In Politics

One of the things that I find maddening about the American left is its penchant for saying something is bad or that something should be done and then sitting back and doing nothing themselves about it.

Whether the case be health care (where they simply expect other people to pay for their "compassion") or more notoriously, global warming.

The United States produces (for now) the most CO2 on the planet. Eventually China will catch up (who isn't govered by Kyoto incidentally - and people wonder why the US rejected it) and far surpass the US in CO2 emmissions because environmentalism is just a catch phrase there.

So do you believe CO2 from humans is primary causing global warming? And if so, do you think it is a life threatening thing?

Then morally, aren't you obligated to do something about it? Right now?

Commuting to work more than 10 miles one way. One third of our CO2 emissions come from driving. It's not the gas mileage that's the problem. Nobody likes to talk about our dirty little secret: Americans drive too much. If you're driving more than 20 miles a day, you're part of the problem. Quit it. Move closer to your job. Don't say you can't. You can. You just don't want to. If CO2 generated global warming is really a global crisis, how can you sit back and do nothing?
Get rid of your air conditioner. Electrical Power for homes represents nearly 40% of our CO2 emissions. Eliminate that second refrigerator. Get rid of the outdoor lights. Get rid of that dryer. Don't take baths, shower instead. Don't say you can't. You can. If it's the difference between life and death, you certainly can. Quit watching TV. A typical TV uses far more power than a typical computer. You may not want to but if global warming is the end of the world, it's the least you can do.
No more long distance vacations. Whether you're driving (which is worse) or flying, there's no justification for driving or flying to a vacation destination. Not if lives are on the line.

If you truly believe that human produced CO2 is the root cause of global warming and that it will result in the deaths of millions, then how can you possibly not do the above 3 things?

Comments (Page 5)

danielost

on Oct 16, 2007

sorry wrong thread

CharlesCS

on Oct 16, 2007

as I said, it would not affect the consumers until they will want to buy a new (really NEW) car. The only affected party - when it comes to car - would be the car manufacturers/sellers, and they would have to pay a carbon tax proportionnal to the excess pollution emmited by their car, while company who makes more fuel-efficient car will have higher income because of it.

Yes, but the downside is those of us who stay behind not being able to afford an ecco-friendly car will be seen as the ones damaging the planet and I would think that would not be fair.

Look at it this way, I pay a high electrical bill as it is; I can't afford to set up a solar powered home, but if the electrical company decideds to try alternative fuels for electricity, who do you think is gonna pay the conversion bill?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for doing the right thing, eating healthy, driving ecco-friendly cars, getting rid of oil all together and stuff, but lets be realistic here. This would cost an arm and a leg and those of us still at the bottom of the food chain will be the ones most affected.

Jewbu

on Oct 16, 2007

I can not afford to get any of these cars at the moment. Will I have to pay the price because I can not afford to save my planet?

Perhaps you could afford a Honda Fit, though, better gas mileage than the hybrids (as I recall, better check this), and under 15,000 new.

CharlesCS

on Oct 16, 2007

Perhaps you could afford a Honda Fit, though, better gas mileage than the hybrids (as I recall, better check this), and under 15,000 new.

Again, in my current financial condition I can barely maintain the vehicle I have. Any trip to the mechanic means a hole in my budget. I can not afford, with my credit score, the payments I would get on any car, or the insurance or the deposit for that matter. I'm sorry but people who sell these cars are more interested in making money than saving the planet and this makes it hard for people like me to make a difference when money is what really can save this planet.

Draginol

on Oct 16, 2007

On the other hand, I know that America is by far one of the most conservative (economicly) country in the world, and I think it would be healthy for it to be a little more liberal.

That's like saying it would be healthy for it to be a little poorer.

Quebec, sorry to say, had the per capita GDP of a third world country. It's impoverished relative to the United States. No thanks.

Draginol

on Oct 16, 2007

Wow. What a profound lack of understanding of markets and economics.

Companies pass on their costs by raising prices. All cars would cost more.

A pretty significant luxury tax for something that has little scientific evidence to support it.

Draginol

on Oct 16, 2007

I can live my values by turning my air conditioning off in the summer without imposing them on anybody else.

This is why I like you. You have your beliefs and you live by them.

Cikomyr

on Oct 16, 2007

Yes, but the downside is those of us who stay behind not being able to afford an ecco-friendly car will be seen as the ones damaging the planet and I would think that would not be fair.

I.. god.. damn.. AS I SAID, IF you buy an non-ecco-friendly car, the carbon tax imposed on the manufacturer would balance out for the ecological bad side produced by your car. So you would not have to feel in any way guilty about it, since it's bit would have been paid.

On the other hand, it would become less "selfless" to drive a eco-friendly car, since there is more profit in making them. So people who drive eco-friendly car would stop being smug about them.

I'm sorry but people who sell these cars are more interested in making money than saving the planet and this makes it hard for people like me to make a difference when money is what really can save this planet.

Than again, if there is money to make saving the planet, they would start saving it!

All cars would cost more.

No. Only eco-unfriendly ones, while the eco-friendly would cost less

That's like saying it would be healthy for it to be a little poorer.

Liberal does not equal poorer

Quebec, sorry to say, had the per capita GDP of a third world country. It's impoverished relative to the United States. No thanks.

Since we have been handicaped by anglophone economic domination until the 60s, and lost many business in 1976, I say we are slowing improving since. Liberal-oriented politics have nothing to do with it. On the other hand, the mentality of some of my people may have.

Draginol

on Oct 16, 2007

Liberal does not equal poorer

Most certainly does. The more left-wing the society, the poorer the people are.

That is because the left-wing deplores income inequality. The only way to solve that is to bring the top earners down. It's a lot easier to get people to not work as much than it is to get the dregs of society to produce.

Quebec GDP per capita is $29k. USA GDP per capita is $44k. That's a massive difference.

Rest of Canada is $35k which is still pretty awful. I mean, as others have pointed out, the US has a huge illegal immigration problem which dramatically lowers our GDP per capita. Canada does not.

What is Canada's excuse for having such a poor GDP per capita compared to the United States?

Here's other left-leaning countries per capita GDP:

France $31k
Germany $32k
Sweden $32k
Denmark $37k
Finland $33k

And consider how poor the exchange rate has been between the US dollar and native currencies. This should make the gap a lot less.

The fact of the matter is that European countries and Canada are become second-tier economies and the grap is growing worse.

danielost

on Oct 16, 2007

how many of these countries would be able to stand up if we cut off our aid.

Jythier

on Oct 16, 2007

I personally love income disparity. It gives me something to work for. If everyone got the same income, you would not get a raise every year, unless everyone else got the same raise. The new hire with no experience would get the same pay as you. Is that fair? Sure is.

Dr Guy

on Oct 17, 2007

Good thesis statement for perhaps a longer article.

Jythier

on Oct 17, 2007

Oh no, I've been called out.

KarmaGirl

on Oct 17, 2007

Probably not luck -- he bought the ranch as a campaign prop before his first run for Texas governor

Please post where we can read on this. This sounds like more liberal bs.

Maybe all these people bought their houses in an era when people didn't look at politicians' houses, or when it was a big grand house instead of a green house that got you respect?

So, people's persception on your house is what should dictate what you buy? If they had the money to buy a grand house, why wouldn't htey have the money to install eco friendly additions? Are solar panels or on-demand water heaters not available to install after the fact?

Dr Guy

on Oct 17, 2007

Maybe all these people bought their houses in an era when people didn't look at politicians' houses, or when it was a big grand house instead of a green house that got you respect?

Something for the apologists to consider is the house that Warren Buffet lives in (the 2nd richest man in the world). And how that compares to these brown mansions that the priests of global warming are wallowing in.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!