It’s slowed down significantly; but I’m so sick of getting a reply to every comment I post, disguised as the video creator, trying to phish me over to telegram or some other external bullshit.
Honestly, it’s very frustrating because I rely on YouTube as a Creator and avid Commentator and I absolutely won’t give out the credentials used to post things to another party.
The thing is billionaires will always use more resources than you. They will have more stuff. It’ll have more houses. They will have boats, private planes, huge mansions, and more money than they know what to do with. They will always use more resources than you. If your whole statement is we shouldn’t try to solve global warming because some people are rich, and we’re doomed to all die. And by the way, The billionaires will have a nice air-conditioned bunker while the rest of us die.
I’m all for trying to solve wealth inequality, but it shouldn’t get in the way of solving a major environmental disaster.
Well, I can’t help but notice it’s mostly those billionaires and the people who work for them who are telling us there’s a climate issue and WE need to solve it while they continue to fly everywhere on their private jets and buy more waterfront mansions they tell us will be underwater in 10 years.
So IDK man… I’m certainly not a climate scientist but something doesn’t add up here.
More people than billionaires are telling you there’s a climate issue. Scientists are, normal people are, etc. It’s the biggest environmental issue of our lifetimes. And there are some celebrities that are also trying to use their popularity to promote the message to get the government to create a set of rules that will actually impact out much CO2 we’re putting into our atmosphere. The right-wing talking heads have found that it’s really effective to point at them and say “LOOK! They have big houses! They fly around in private jets! They use more resources that 100 of you normal folks, therefore we shouldn’t do anything.”
The reality is that they’re using more resources than 100 of us normal folks, but there are 100k of us normal folks to each of them so we make a much more significant impact on the climate than they do. And yes, lets make the laws affect them also. But the “they’re flying around in jets” talking point is lame. They’re going to be flying around in jets no matter what. They’re going to have big houses no matter what. So lets make them have lots of solar panels on their big houses or make flying around in private jets more expensive. That’s just a reason to make the laws affect them also, it’s NOT a reason to do nothing and let the world burn.
Sorry, but you’re putting the cart before the horse there. More people than billionaires are telling us there’s a climate issue BECAUSE celebrities are using their clout to promote this issue. And most of these people, including the celebrities, aren’t climate scientists either, they just parrot stuff they’ve heard from people they trust.
So you only heard about climate change when celebs like Taylor Swift started promoting it? The writing has been on the wall for decades (from scientists) and we’ve been hearing about it for that amount of time. If you think that the only reason you know about it is from celebs then apparently they were needed in order to reach you.
If your whole statement is we shouldn’t try to solve global warming because some people are rich
I don’t think that’s what they’re saying at all. Any solution to climate change is incomplete if it doesn’t also address inequality and overconsumption
Well, one version of ‘solving inequality’ would be making sure the other 99% create as much emissions as that 1%, which taking your statistics at face value would be a massive bump in emissions.
My dog does this, too. I come in carrying every bag, to avoid the dreaded second trip, and she pulls me down further, by sticking her nose in each bag, one-by-one to see if anything good is inside.
i really do not understand where this idea that plastic has something to do with the climate came from, how do people imagine that to work?
No, the point of not using plastic is to not have plastics blowing around on the street for 50 years before it’s degraded into microplastics that instead enter our bodies.
Some materials have higher carbon emissions than others, in terms of refinement, processing, and transportation. The third point is location dependant, but creating and shaping different materials will have different contributions to global warming.
Edit: There are also concerns with the product’s end of lifespan. How long it takes to biodegrades, how easily recyclable it is, and how much the available disposal methods will effect the environment. Plastic is not great on several of these accounts. Recycling plastic water bottles isn’t very efficient either, compared to glass bottles for instance.
I recently visited China, to meet my wife’s extended family.
Let me tell you, the sheer amount of single-use plastics that are consumed by any individual throughout a regular day in a metropolitan environment, is absolutely and mind-numbingly depressing.
Given that there are 1.3b people there, and that no matter how much we in the US/AU/EU reduce/reuse/recycle - we will never be able to truly offset that sheer amount of plastic pollution produced.
Now I’m not saying this to be a doomer, but more-so to say that individuals can’t enact sufficient change to save this planet, we need Government and corporate incentives to shift towards sustainable alternatives, and punitive policies to disincentivise plastic production globally.
the reduction is plastic waste generation in China is far more than that of US^1^.
so, what I mean to say is that more people ≠ more pollution. but I do agree that the problem is to be tackled with active participation of the government, which won’t be there because of muh economy.
[1]: By 2016, China’s overall plastic waste production had fallen to 21.60 million tons, a reduction of nearly 28 million tons (for comparison, U.S. production fell less than 4 tons during the same time period). Moreover, despite being one of the largest overall producers of plastic waste, China’s per capita production of plastic waste was one of the lowest in the world in 2016 at 15.6 kilograms a year per person.
I did the ambulance thing for a bit. CPR calls, the back of the ambulance, despite being covered in fluids, looked like a recycling center. And none of it gets recycled, obviously, all just gets red bagged or containered. Everything is individually wrapped, and for obvious reasons, but I’d have days where I could match my family’s plastic use for the week or more in 12 hours.
Though in that particular scenario, while it feels wasteful, for an average person is exceedingly rare. The only paramedic supply I’ve had used on me in my lifetime was when my car got rear ended badly and they gave me a blanket because I just conversationally mentioned it was kind of cold while they were checking in with me. Going for a dental cleaning or a physical there’ll be some single use plastics to be sure, but again, only like 3 times a year usually.
The majority of Chinese residents don’t live in metro zones, work office jobs, and eat fast food, though.
Also, very common to find reusable metal straws (and cups and utensils) outside the US. Korea and Japan both overwhelmingly favor washable utensils, as do cities south of the US border (I stopped seeing disposables once I got outside Mexico City proper and I never saw them in Jamaica or Cozemel outside the airport/seaport). There are zero disposables in Havana. The very idea is alien to them.
Lots of places in the US won’t recycle the supposedly “recyclable” plastics, it ends up in a landfill regardless of what you do. I remember all the educational initiatives about the importance of recycling when I was a kid. Turns out it was all just propaganda to make us feel responsible for problems caused by corporations.
lemmy.today
Active