Except we aren't.
Things were going in the right direction during the pandemic, but of course we knew that would be short-lived. The pandemic proved that we can reduce emissions and keep them down if we make it a priority. But in many people's mind's today it's not even on the RADAR. All we care about are the horrors of inflation and high gas prices.
Agreed and given the supposed "
revenge flying" we've seen there's not a lot of hope that reducing emissions in anything other than a superficial way will ever be on enough people's radar.
I can'r say I know anybody who's in a heat-or-eat lifestyle situation. Sure, I've read about them but today's inflation is easily dealt with by cutting down resturant visits and eating more at home. Some people figured this out during the pandemic (remember all that bread making?) where some went the other way and "supported local business" by ordering constant meal delivery. Yes, inflation has been worse in the past, remember Whip Inflation Now ?
Anybody who who wants to lower their transportation costs knows what to do. The pandemic proved that much of the traveling we do is unnecessary. Many jobs can be done remotely, you can still enjoy the holidays without that trip to Europe etc.
Exactly. There's still some work from home going on, mostly part time, half time in the office, half at home which is still significant if a worker has a substantial commute but things like COP still
had to happen in person. Why, you ask? It seemed it was too much of an ask to expect delegates to stay up late or get up early do deal with the upcomming "mass extinction".
Canada alone just had to send 335 delegates.
Kind of drives a stake into the whole working from home argument.
Before laying on the snark you might try actually looking at the numbers. Currently the biggest emitter by far is China. But who is largely responsible for that? The West, because they make products for us. We're not emitting so much CO2 outselves because we exported it to China.
Yes, I'm well aware of why China is the world's top emitter and I've dealt with the MTCO2/pp argument (China vs West) before but we just gotta have those massive inflatable Halloween decorations for our front yards, for the kids you know. I'm also aware of just how much of our "recycling" we've shipped of to China in the past however as a developing nation China is somewhat exempted from too much Thunberg scrutiny.
She tried it once and the Chinese media fat shamed her but she was strangely quiet when COP 26 ended up in a China+India led boondoggle
Most 'developing' countries are having negligible impact because they are too poor to afford a western lifestyle. OTOH they are suffering way more from the consequences. Take the tiny Island nation of Tuvalu for example, one of the least-developed countries in the world:-
Yes, Tuvalu is going to become a dive site, as is Kiribati , The Maldives, etc.. Those populations are going to need relocation (Tuvalu has already digitized it's entire culture and uploaded it to Facebook). Relocation would have been a good topic for COP rather than tossion huge amounts of cash at them until the inevitable happens. Maybe COP 83 will attempt to deal with this.
So why are these countries such low emitters ? Well of course it's because they're living a lifestyle most western Thunbergophiles are totally terrified of.
You seem to be very confused. Thunberg has excoriated conservatives and liberals alike for not doing enough. And where did she suggest eliminating money and making everything free? Only in the fevered imagination of a 'conservative' who thinks anyone not happy with destroying the world for profit is a communist.
No confusion, she's limited her chastising to governments and if you want to include liberal governments in there, then I agree, she's chastised liberals too. Point is, this whole approach of saying you want your government to make you stop burning fossil fuels while you burn as much fossil fuel as you can while living the best life that you can, isn't hasn't and won't do anything to save the planet.
I said her her demand that we eliminate the use of fossil fuels was
like the idea of ending money, I didn't attribute that idea to her. Both are impossible ideas that pretty much nobody wants.
Well articulated counter to conservative fear mongering.