Cont: Global warming discussion V

I assume this is Myriad's pathetic answer to my post 1,839:
Myriad said:
The Denmark Archipelago will be a lovely place in a few centuries.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/d4c5r9/map_of_a_flooded_northern_sea_sea_level_rise_of
I hope they develop good trade relations with the inhabitants of the Island of New England, especially the tideskippers of the Hudson Strait.
Click to expand...
'Ha, ha! In a couple of centuries, your country will have disappeared!'

As if I hadn't already pointed that out:
dann said:
List of countries by average (!) elevation (Wikipedia)
Top (or bottom) 10:
Maldives 1.5 m
Tuvalu 1.8 m
Kiribati 2 m
Marshall Islands 2 m
Singapore 15 m
Qatar 28 m
Netherlands 30 m
Denmark 34 mGambia 34 m
Estonia 61 m

I think 98% of Denmark will have disappeared at 66 m.
Click to expand...
I am not quite sure what Myriad's point is. Could it really be that he is trying to save Denmark, one cold shower at the time?
This is exactly the reason why more than the virtue signalling of taking cold showers and recycling your cans is necessary. And why some countries are doing it while others go, 'Drill, baby, drill.' With the alternative being, 'We can both drill, baby, drill and pretend that we are protecting the environment at the same time. We are Americans. We can do both.'
 
arthwollipot said:
What is your purpose in continuing this argument?
Click to expand...
To demonstrate that I was telling the truth, and not 'maliciously reframing' your points. I don't like being described that way: it's both rude and hurtful.
I note that, after I took the trouble to show that I was accurately recalling and retelling your posts, suddenly you have nothing to say. Interesting.

There is another point as well. Your determination to dissuade anyone reading your posts from changing their life choices so as to reduce carbon emissions is counterproductive in terms of fighting global warming, and playing into the hands of the fossil fuel companies. I think it worthwhile to combat this narrative.
 
Drill baby drill is simply a reaction to the public's insatiable demand for oil with the added bonus of energy security.

Fun fact: My neighbour's kid figured out it was actually cheaper to fly to see a concert in Poland than it was to see the same act locally. There's 16K km/person's worth of CO2 squirted into the atmosphere just for a weekend away.
 
Stout said:
My neighbour's kid figured out it was actually cheaper to fly to see a concert in Poland than it was to see the same act locally. There's 16K km/person's worth of CO2 squirted into the atmosphere just for a weekend away.
Click to expand...
That's either an incredibly cheap airfare, or the local concert tickets are ridiculously expensive. I guess tickets are cheaper in Poland because the people there are poorer. Poor people don't take 16 thousand km weekend flights to concerts.

The solution is simple - just make airline operators pay the true cost of the fossil fuels they are burning - including the cost to suck it back out of the atmosphere. Then ticket prices will quadruple and people will fly a lot less. This will also have the benefit of relieving pressure on air traffic controllers.

When I was kid nobody in our family could afford a plane trip to anywhere, let alone Europe. Back in the 1960's we were 'poor' but still had enough to feel good about life. Every year the boss and his wife would go for a holiday in Europe, while we went on low-cost camping holidays. I reckon we got more enjoyment from that they did spending hours and hours cooped up in an airliner hoping it wouldn't crash and kill them (which it eventually did).

My point is - people today complain about how their lifestyles would be negatively affected if we did what's needed to stop global warming, but they aren't even happy with the affluent lifestyles they are currently living. It's not just nostalgia that makes me wish we were back in the 60's. We appreciated what we had a lot more back then. But that's not what I'm talking about.

In 1965 the global population was 3.3 billion. Now it's 8.2 billion, 2.5 times higher. That alone is enough to put a severe strain on the environment. Western countries have managed to reverse the increasing carbon footprint per person in recent years, but getting to net zero is a lot harder now than if we had started earlier.

History of climate change science
In 1965, the landmark report "Restoring the Quality of Our Environment" by U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson's Science Advisory Committee warned of the harmful effects of fossil fuel emissions:

The part that remains in the atmosphere may have a significant effect on climate; carbon dioxide is nearly transparent to visible light, but it is a strong absorber and back radiator of infrared radiation, particularly in the wave lengths from 12 to 18 microns; consequently, an increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide could act, much like the glass in a greenhouse, to raise the temperature of the lower air.

The committee used the recently available global temperature reconstructions and carbon dioxide data from Charles David Keeling and colleagues to reach their conclusions. They declared the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to be the direct result of fossil fuel burning. The committee concluded that human activities were sufficiently large to have significant, global impact—beyond the area the activities take place. "Man is unwittingly conducting a vast geophysical experiment", the committee wrote.

Nobel Prize winner Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairperson of the United States Atomic Energy Commission warned of the climate crisis in 1966: "At the rate we are currently adding carbon dioxide to our atmosphere (six billion tons a year), within the next few decades the heat balance of the atmosphere could be altered enough to produce marked changes in the climate--changes which we might have no means of controlling even if by that time we have made great advances in our programs of weather modification."
Click to expand...
 
arthwollipot said:
What I said was very clear. I don't care any more what you think I said.
Click to expand...
It was very clear, and I reposted it so it was even clearer. If you don't want to achnowledge what you said, that's your choice, but it smacks of dishonesty. I showed, in considerable detail, how my description of your comments matched very, very closely what you actually said. Your sulky refusal to explain where I've misunderstood does you no credit at all.
Be that as it may. I will continue to act so as to mitigate, as far as I am able, my impact on global warming, and to encourage others to do the same thing.
 
It was to see Taylor Swift. I didn't do any research on the financial benefits of this but I did see Vancouver ticket prices and the cost of a flight to Europe was less than the ticket cost. Don't know wat tickets went for in Poland.

For years now, the hot topic has been bike lanes and a constant comparison to Europe. We got the bike lanes, complete with the cute little bicycle stop lights and there's still bitching. The latest trend is to post photos/videos of cycling infrastructure in Europe and ask..."Why can't we have THIS?". Problem being, of course is we don't have anywhere near that cycling infrastructure that Europe has. Not even close. Don't get me wrong here, I don't mind having these bike lanes all to myself and I've even give the odd cyclist the side eye while wondering just what the hell they're doing on MY bike lane. I doubt we'll ever get that sort of culture, I've been waiting for it ever since I got caught up in the morning bicycle rush hour in Amsterdam, in 1985.

I'm not a huge fan of making things more expensive as a vehicle to combat AGW and the public has spoken as to their desire to continue on with the modern lifestyle that fossil fuels bring them by...burning fossil fuels. I can't help but laugh at things like the woman in Seattle who's suing oil companies because her mother died in the 2021 heat dome while, ironically, burning fossil fuels.
 
dann said:
I assume this is Myriad's pathetic answer to my post 1,839:

'Ha, ha! In a couple of centuries, your country will have disappeared!'

As if I hadn't already pointed that out:
Click to expand...

I was just pointing out that the issue has some rather serious implications, as a subtle (perhaps too subtle) suggestion that rejecting one approach because you claim it's less effective than another might be a bit foolish when we don't know that even the sum total of all known approaches will be sufficient to prevent long-term disaster. My town's mean elevation is 6 meters.

The elevation of Blatten, Switzerland was over 2,500 meters.

The problem with bad-mouthing "austerity" as useless virtue signaling is that everyone regards any change they make, that inconveniences them or limits their experiences in any way, as austerity. Anything from recycling cans to not riding on a Blue Origin flight is "austerity" to somebody.

Does government-subsidized solar power make imported fresh produce out of season, electronics replaced often due to fashion trends or careless treatment, fast-fashion clothing, travel to worldwide vacation destinations, sprawling lawns, or cruise ships carbon-neutral? They do not and they cannot in the foreseeable future. Does government-subsidized solar power reduce the carbon emissions from food production, construction and construction materials, and transportation so much that the global carbon budget can easily afford imported fresh produce etc. at their current or even higher future levels? No, it does not and cannot in the foreseeable future.

And yet, those and a thousand other benefits and luxuries are all things many people like and would miss, so reducing any of them is someone's austerity.

Climate change doesn't threaten the planet (Earth will be fine), or the biosphere (it's recovered from worse), or the human species (we're more resilient than cockroaches). But the map shows quite a bit is at stake even so.

If you'd be clearer about whatever agenda you think is such a singular and perfect solution to climate change that nothing else is necessary, I might feel differently. But regarding the situation in my own country, you've told me that voting is useless (I agree), conventional activism like protesting is useless (I agree), hoping that things will just change by themselves is useless (I agree), running for office to effect change from within is useless (I agree), voting with my wallet by refusing carbon-wasteful products and services is "austerity" and therefore somehow worse than useless, and acting outside the law is out of the question. But nonetheless I should get off my butt and do that one obvious easily doable necessary thing that will fix everything but you don't wanna tell what it is. Whatever you think you're gaining by that kind of taunting, it's not going to keep the ocean away from any of our respective major cities.

My best theory at the moment is that for some reason you think I have the means to invest amounts of money large enough to influence the course of industry and finance. My second best theory is that you want me to participate in violent revolution and for some reason you think I'd be too shocked or complacent to hear such a thing, as if violent change wasn't already going on here. (Please don't try to claim anything in this paragraph is a straw man. There are no straw men here, just wild guesses, which are there because you won't speak plainly.)
 
Stout said:
I'm not a huge fan of making things more expensive as a vehicle to combat AGW and the public has spoken as to their desire to continue on with the modern lifestyle that fossil fuels bring them by...burning fossil fuels. I can't help but laugh at things like the woman in Seattle who's suing oil companies because her mother died in the 2021 heat dome while, ironically, burning fossil fuels.
Click to expand...
The flaw in democracy is that everybody votes for their own personal welfare, not the welfare of everybody. This won't change until people see how it's going to affect them personally - which means global warming has to get worse before it gets better. Fortunately our leaders do have to consider the welfare of everybody (if they are to stay in power). Most take their job seriously, which is why actions are being taken at government level - except in a few places like the US and New Zealand where the people have given their governments a mandate to do nothing.

The good news is that the World's biggest emitter, China, is getting a lid on it as they rapidly switch to renewables. This is rubbing off on other countries too, as China has massively reduced the cost - making renewables cheaper than fossil fuels. Once people see that it's saving them money the transition will accelerate (even in countries like the US and New Zealand), because now it's benefiting them personally.

How could China manage to do it when we couldn't? Because they aren't a democracy.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
The flaw in democracy is that everybody votes for their own personal welfare, not the welfare of everybody. This won't change until people see how it's going to affect them personally - which means global warming has to get worse before it gets better. Fortunately our leaders do have to consider the welfare of everybody (if they are to stay in power). Most take their job seriously, which is why actions are being taken at government level - except in a few places like the US and New Zealand where the people have given their governments a mandate to do nothing.

The good news is that the World's biggest emitter, China, is getting a lid on it as they rapidly switch to renewables. This is rubbing off on other countries too, as China has massively reduced the cost - making renewables cheaper than fossil fuels. Once people see that it's saving them money the transition will accelerate (even in countries like the US and New Zealand), because now it's benefiting them personally.

How could China manage to do it when we couldn't? Because they aren't a democracy.
Click to expand...
That last bit pretty much nails it. Having a single party state allows China to ram through projects like The Three Gorges and the proposed Yarlung Tsangpo projects without having to worry about the party's chances of reelection. Locally, hydroelectric never makes it onto the list of demands for renewables, nor does nuclear and I can only assume that the demanders are willing to live with the limitations of wind and solar.

​

 
Stout said:
That last bit pretty much nails it. Having a single party state allows China to ram through projects like The Three Gorges and the proposed Yarlung Tsangpo projects without having to worry about the party's chances of reelection. Locally, hydroelectric never makes it onto the list of demands for renewables, nor does
nuclear and I can only assume that the demanders are willing to live with the limitations of wind and solar.

​

Click to expand...
The British government has just announced it will begin building another nuclear plant, Sizewell C. This is on top of the ongoing construction of Hinkley Point, another nuclear power station.
Your claim about hydroelectric power is also inaccurate. The US ranks 4th in the world for its use. Canada and Brazil rank second and third after China.
en.wikipedia.org

Hydroelectricity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Cosmic Yak said:
The British government has just announced it will begin building another nuclear plant, Sizewell C. This is on top of the ongoing construction of Hinkley Point, another nuclear power station.
Your claim about hydroelectric power is also inaccurate. The US ranks 4th in the world for its use. Canada and Brazil rank second and third after China.
en.wikipedia.org

Hydroelectricity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Well good on the British...after trying to con us with Drax.

Most of the hydroelectric stuff in North America is old. True, Canada has Site C but that wasn't without opposition from, ironically enough, environmentalists. Throw in all this Indigenous land stuff and hydroelectric is way way down on the list of "acceptable" forms of renewal energy.

China moved 1.4 million people to build the Three Gorges dam. That sure wouldn't fly in NA.
 
Stout said:
Well good on the British...after trying to con us with Drax.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't get the reference.
Stout said:
Most of the hydroelectric stuff in North America is old.
Click to expand...

Does this invalidate my point in any way?
Stout said:
True, Canada has Site C but that wasn't without opposition from, ironically enough, environmentalists. Throw in all this Indigenous land stuff and hydroelectric is way way down on the list of "acceptable" forms of renewal energy.
Click to expand...

And yet Canada is still 2nd in the world behind China, so I have to wonder again how this invalidates my point.
Stout said:
China moved 1.4 million people to build the Three Gorges dam. That sure wouldn't fly in NA.
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't. Are mega-projects like this the only way to employ hydroelectricity?
 
Drax, the fake renewable energy plant, complete with bonus carbon sequestration scheme.

Yet Canada still burns buckets of fossil fuels, despite the hydroelectric. The answer is, of course, more hydroelectric but, really, it's not all that much in the favour of the people who run around, well, used to run around, bleating about fossil fuels and how we need more wind and solar.

All that run-of-the-river small scale hydroelectric crashed and burned years ago.
 
Stout said:
Drax, the fake renewable energy plant, complete with bonus carbon sequestration scheme.
Click to expand...

OK, now I know what it is. Doesn't seem to be especially important or relevant. Why do you bring it up?
Stout said:
Yet Canada still burns buckets of fossil fuels, despite the hydroelectric. The answer is, of course, more hydroelectric but, really, it's not all that much in the favour of the people who run around, well, used to run around, bleating about fossil fuels and how we need more wind and solar.
Click to expand...

Canada gets 70% of its energy from hydro. Plus there's nuclear and renewables. Is this part of your argument to prove renewables aren't happening? Because it isn't working.

Energy Fact Book, 2024-2025: Clean power and low carbon fuels | Canadian Centre for Energy Information

The development of clean power and low carbon fuels is critical for Canada to meet climate goals. The majority of electricity generation in Canada comes from non-greenhouse gas emitting sources and Canada is a world leader in hydroelectricity, nuclear power and hydrogen.
energy-information.canada.ca energy-information.canada.ca
Stout said:
All that run-of-the-river small scale hydroelectric crashed and burned years ago.
Click to expand...
Not according to the Canadian government. What is your source for this claim?
 
Drax was heralded as being sort of a big deal. Turns out it wasn't

I'm not making an argument about renewables not happening, what I'm saying is that new hydro electric projects are not in the list of demands for renewables, in fact, there is/was significant opposition to them.

I watched the small projects develop, and die. They were like tidal and wave generating stations. Somebody came up with the idea, somebody else, usually government funded them, they were tried out...and failed. Think of the present day Climeworks projects.
 
Stout said:
Drax was heralded as being sort of a big deal. Turns out it wasn't
Click to expand...

Well, it produces 6% of the UK's electricity, so it looks fairly significant to me.
Stout said:
I'm not making an argument about renewables not happening, what I'm saying is that new hydro electric projects are not in the list of demands for renewables, in fact, there is/was significant opposition to them.
Click to expand...

Well, no. Your first point was that hydroelectric projects only happen in authoritarian states. I pointed out this was untrue, and, rather than acknowledge that, you simply moved on to state that Canada was heavily reliant on fossil fuels. Once again, I showed that this was incorrect, and once again you ignored that correction and have moved on to claim that new hydroelectric projects are not happening.
Now, I can post sources about new HE projects in the UK, but, if you continue like this, I don't see the point. It's just an endless regression of claims with you: debunk one, and you just retreat to the next one, without ever revising your position in light of the evidence.
Stout said:
I watched the small projects develop, and die. They were like tidal and wave generating stations. Somebody came up with the idea, somebody else, usually government funded them, they were tried out...and failed. Think of the present day Climeworks projects.
Click to expand...
I looked up Climeworks: incorrect claim again. Not bothering with links, though. Currently not worth the effort.
 
Read up on Drax then go watch the heroic climate activist walk up to the place and kick it square in the crotch. Even the guy she was interrogating confessed that the whole thing was nothing more than a showpiece.

Where did I say that hydroelectric ONLY happens in authoritarian states. I men, I'm not writing a lot of words here and I just said, yes really, I just said Canada brought Site C online after years of delays and there probably won't be another project like this on the books, possibly ever. China OTOH has another massive one on the books though.

Outside of the sheer number of Climeworks plants we'd need just to keep up with yearly emissions, even if the things worked as advertised (do the math on this, it's hilarious) they're not delivering.
 
Stout said:
Read up on Drax then go watch the heroic climate activist walk up to the place and kick it square in the crotch. Even the guy she was interrogating confessed that the whole thing was nothing more than a showpiece.
Click to expand...

So your point about Drax is not that it's fake, or insignificant, but that it's not that eco-friendly? You could just have said that, like days ago.
Stout said:
Where did I say that hydroelectric ONLY happens in authoritarian states. I men, I'm not writing a lot of words here and I just said, yes really, I just said Canada brought Site C online after years of delays and there probably won't be another project like this on the books, possibly ever. China OTOH has another massive one on the books though.
Click to expand...

Once again, that's another completely untrue claim, but hey, let's not masturbate over facts, right? Much better to keep throwing out untruths so we can feel better about being cynical and apathetic, right?
Stout said:
Outside of the sheer number of Climeworks plants we'd need just to keep up with yearly emissions, even if the things worked as advertised (do the math on this, it's hilarious) they're not delivering.
Click to expand...
Do the math? Like, data math? No, sorry, I've already spent my load over Canadian hydropower.
OTOH, you could always back up your own claim with evidence. Sceptics' forum and all that.
 
Cynical? Yea, sure. Decades of "raising awareness" and international conferences certainly haven't led to significant Global reductions, maybe we could try joining hands, and sing a chant to Gaia and try to heal the world that way. These little bandaid-on-a-brain tumor solutions aren't getting us anywhere near to dealing with this "climate emergency" where the world as we know it is going to end once we hit 1.5C worth of warming.

It feels good to pretend to care, which is why most people do it.

I thought data was your thing and you'd jump at the chance to rub one out with the Climeworks calculation. I could spoiler it for you and point out that I've already done it upthread.
 
Stout said:
Cynical? Yea, sure. Decades of "raising awareness" and international conferences certainly haven't led to significant Global reductions,
Click to expand...

Wasn't true the first time you said this, still isn't true now.
Stout said:
maybe we could try joining hands, and sing a chant to Gaia and try to heal the world that way.
Click to expand...

Also still the same strawman. Untrue the first time, untrue and boring the second time.
Stout said:
These little bandaid-on-a-brain tumor solutions aren't getting us anywhere near to dealing with this "climate emergency" where the world as we know it is going to end once we hit 1.5C worth of warming.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.
Stout said:
It feels good to pretend to care, which is why most people do it.
Click to expand...

That's just your personal cynicism, and I fail to see how it will help to generate any kind of solution to the problem of global warming.
Stout said:
I thought data was your thing and you'd jump at the chance to rub one out with the Climeworks calculation. I could spoiler it for you and point out that I've already done it upthread.
Click to expand...
I do like evidence: it tells me whether my conclusions are correct or not. Maybe that's just me. You, however, have explicitly rejected evidence as any kind of deciding factor in your own conclusions, so I see no point in showing you any.
If you have, in fact, already posted some data, I have obviously missed it. Perhaps you could re-post it?
 
There is no "solution" anymore. That ship sailed long ago and anything being done with renewables will only serve to slow down the process a little. Lifestyle absolutely curb stomped concern for global warming on the list of people's priorities and continues to do so. All that bad stuff they've been warning you about? That's going to happen and the best thing you can do now is to hope your government is working on resilience by creating the soon to be needed infrastructure to cope with the climate changes that are already happening.

The evidence is in. The only stat that matters is global emissions are increasing. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, skeptic.
 
Stout said:
Cynical? Yea, sure. Decades of "raising awareness" and international conferences certainly haven't led to significant Global reductions, maybe we could try joining hands, and sing a chant to Gaia and try to heal the world that way. These little bandaid-on-a-brain tumor solutions aren't getting us anywhere near to dealing with this "climate emergency" where the world as we know it is going to end once we hit 1.5C worth of warming.
Click to expand...
Before Paris Agreement, we were looking at about a 4C increase. After all the COPs etc, we are looking at about 2.4C With a margin for error depending on whether actions happen that have been pledged and assuming no additional action is taken).

That is significant.

Yes its not enough, but its not a binary issue.
 
Stout said:
There is no "solution" anymore. That ship sailed long ago and anything being done with renewables will only serve to slow down the process a little. Lifestyle absolutely curb stomped concern for global warming on the list of people's priorities and continues to do so. All that bad stuff they've been warning you about? That's going to happen and the best thing you can do now is to hope your government is working on resilience by creating the soon to be needed infrastructure to cope with the climate changes that are already happening.
Click to expand...

Cynicism and apathy. Like I said. Very sad to see.
Stout said:
The evidence is in. The only stat that matters is global emissions are increasing. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, skeptic.
Click to expand...
OK, here's some data for you to mock.
CO2 emissions have fallen in every continent except Asia, with a small increase in South America.
ourworldindata.org

CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change. The world needs to decarbonize to reduce them.
ourworldindata.org ourworldindata.org

You can also see (if you bother to click the link, that is) that quite a number of countries have managed to combine economic growth with reducing CO2 emissions.
No, we're not there yet, but we have made significant progress, and that progress will continue. I will add that, if people follow the likes of stout, then the impetus will falter. Only by keeping the pressure on can we ensure that politicians continue to make the right decisions.
Or you could just sit back, like stout, and watch the world go to ◊◊◊◊. I'm not sure the small measure of satisfaction to be gained from this will outweigh the enormous damage the would ensue, but some here seem to think it a price worth paying to get that little hit of 'told ya' smugness. I do not count myself among that number.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
You can also see (if you bother to click the link, that is) that quite a number of countries have managed to combine economic growth with reducing CO2 emissions.
No, we're not there yet, but we have made significant progress, and that progress will continue.
Click to expand...

Notably, China's emissions look to have fallen in 2024 and continued to fall in the first three months of 2025 despite increased production.

www.carbonbrief.org

Analysis: Clean energy just put China’s CO2 emissions into reverse for first time - Carbon Brief

For the first time, the growth in China’s clean power generation has caused the nation’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to fall despite rapid power demand growth.
www.carbonbrief.org www.carbonbrief.org
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Or you could just sit back, like stout, and watch the world go to ◊◊◊◊. I'm not sure the small measure of satisfaction to be gained from this will outweigh the enormous damage the would ensue, but some here seem to think it a price worth paying to get that little hit of 'told ya' smugness. I do not count myself among that number.
Click to expand...
Dude! I'm the one saying we need to make massive reductions in emissions in order to have any meaningful impact on AGW while you're the one saying these feeble reductions that we're currently making are good enough. Please pay attention.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Do please quote me as saying that.
Click to expand...
You know, you may be on to something there. Here I was thinking that all the eco-activists had hung up their signs because they'd com to the realization that they actually couldn't live without the benefits of oil but maybe....maybe they've just decided that the status quo approach is enough and all this fearmongering about mass extinctions and gluing themselves down like speed bumps might just have been a little over the top.

Carry on then.
 
Stout said:
You know, you may be on to something there. Here I was thinking that all the eco-activists had hung up their signs because they'd com to the realization that they actually couldn't live without the benefits of oil but maybe....maybe they've just decided that the status quo approach is enough and all this fearmongering about mass extinctions and gluing themselves down like speed bumps might just have been a little over the top.

Carry on then.
Click to expand...
So that's a 'no', then.
 
I know, it can be painful to herald a couple of examples of emissions reductions only to have them called feeble. almost as painful as facing up to the fact that your lifestyle is responsible for killing the planet. It's not your fault though. You've had years of activists telling you that it really isn't that you a "victim" of Big Oil and really all you need to do is beak off about climate change and demand someone, anyone...do something.
 
Stout said:
I know, it can be painful to herald a couple of examples of emissions reductions only to have them called feeble.
Click to expand...

Strawman. You said I'd claimed these reductions were enough. That is not true.
Stout said:
almost as painful as facing up to the fact that your lifestyle is responsible for killing the planet.
Click to expand...

Again, I will ask you what about my lifestyle is killing the planet.
Stout said:
It's not your fault though. You've had years of activists telling you that it really isn't that you a "victim" of Big Oil and really all you need to do is beak off about climate change and demand someone, anyone...do something.
Click to expand...

No idea what you're talking about. Not anything in my life, that's for sure. To whom were you talking here?
 
If you're living in a developed nation, then your lifestyle is killing the planet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom