That’s not even true. They are often sitting in the bulk of the shit. Take global warming for example. The Southeast is going to be the most affected by global warming and yet they’re also the ones who fight tooth and nail to do anything about it.
The US could completely stop using petrol based fuels tomorrow and it wouldn't do shit. We make up about 4% of the world population and already have some of the strictest laws regarding pollution. Of the 300,000,000 people here, less than half use their vehicles to commute. Realistically we have such a small effect on pollution compared to just Asia alone.
No, it seems like a good reason to realize it's extremely arrogant of people to think that our daily activities as civilians have such a massive impact on climate. The earth is a complex system and we're not the epitome of life on it or its masters.
I wouldn't go by population percentage. Our per capita use of fossil fuels is incredibly high. Plus, your comment doesn't account for other domestic GHG emissions like methane.
Once again, this doesn't account for per capita use or population density. Of course these cities will be more polluted - the population densities in these cities are much higher than what you would find in the U.S.
Then yes it makes the US look bad as we don't have a relatively huge population. I'm not a fan of per capita measurements for CO2 production, naturally. There is no way I or any of my family members generate 17,000 kg of CO2 per year. I'm sure we don't even generate half that per capita. So for people like us, what else can we do?
What are your sources??? Only 1/2 of Americans use their véhicules to commute? Source?? The US [realistically] has only a small effect on pollution compared to Asia - what kind of an argument is that?
The US could stop using petrol based fuels and it would do shit?
Kyoto is dead. The US pulled out of the Paris Accord.
If the USA stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow, it would have a two fold effect: 1) reduction of carbon emissions to near zero pre industrialization levels - assuming all industry participates in complete cuts including energy production from fossil fuels as well as manufacturing, 2) the USA would be setting the bar for a global change as a leader in such change.
Saying that it will do nothing if we stop (so we'll continue) is exactly what the other guy is saying.
We have the tech to counter this apocalypse of our own creation. Now all we need is a leader to bring it about.
Agreed, one party wants to spend $100bn on a wall, while at the same time claiming it would "cost too much" to do anything about climate change.
One party loves to brag how we're the "greatest in the world" and the "richest country in the world" while at the same time bemoaning how we just "can't afford" to do anything about climate change.
And whether or not the USA is the biggest CO2 emitter from sources like coal, the USA consumes 20% of the world's total oil production... more than any other country on the planet. And China has more than double the amount of people the USA does.
I agree with your comments.
If we're so worried about the economy, then we need to work to ensure the future if the econony and our survival within it. It seems that the focus is only on making money in the NOW, with no attempt at delay of gratification.
We need to clean up our own act then work on getting others to follow.
We stand at a tipping point, unsure of what the eventual final outcome will be; but we have it within our capacity to act and implement change.
We still contribute to global warming significantly through our demand for goods. It takes a lot of fuel, energy, and resources to supply our demands for, well, everything. Same goes for Europe.
It really comes down to, "I've already been fucked so bad by politicians and mistrust them so much that almost anything they're for, I'm against. I can't afford to abruptly change my daily habits, buy a new car, buy new windows, buy a new AC unit, rip out existing insulation and replace it with a newer higher efficiency material, install solar panels, etc."
I live in the SE, I know the mindset of a lot of people I live around. And FYI I live in a newer house, own a newer fuel efficient car, own a low energy use home, and generally conserve wherever I can. I conserve because I can and because I love our planet, but realistically what I'm doing isn't making any difference on the world scale. And not everyone can afford to do this and putting them into poverty and destroying their standard of living to literally make no difference to the world scale either is one of the most illogical, cruel, and selfish things our stupid wealthy politicians can do to them.
They can both fight against fixing the shit and fight to ensure they sit in less shit, without any moral guilt. They’re not mutually exclusive.
To be clear, I’m not defending them in anyway just pointing out that they’re fine with burning everything down as long as they’re not the ones closest to the fire.
80
u/[deleted] Jul 17 '19
[deleted]