Come on, about 10% of greenhouse gas emissions come from flying. Amd that’s done almost exclusively by the common folks, not the tiny minority. A kilometre by train causes 99 % less (electric) or about 70 % less (diesel) emissions per kilometre than an airplane does, and is a viable way to travel, but people still fly. Because they prefer being assholes and kil their own children if not doing.so would inconvenience them evem just a little.
Similarly, feeding one person with red mean causes about as much greenhouse gas emissions as feeding 10 vegetarians. No need to go full vegan, but decreasing consumption of meat would make another 10 to 20 %.
And then there are the private cars, something in the ballpark of 5 %.
About a quarter of oyr greenhouse gas emissions are caused.by things that.are completely unnecessary. Yeah, at the moment all of those three would be inconveniences, but only because others don’t do the same. High-speed railways take less resources to operate per passenger and reach about half the speed of an airplane (if you take time spent at airports into account), but the service is unusably.bad because everyone flies. And all the nice ready-made food is meat-based, because the other stuff doesn’t have enough markets and is therefore too expensive, thus staying on the shelves
And also, public transit is not comfortable because it isn’t used by the rich, so there’s no motivation to.keep it at the level it has in Switzerland, where even the richest typically commute by train.
The greenhouse gas emissions.don’t need to be brought to zero fot us to.survive. We common.folk have the capacity to lower them by almost a fifth, which makes a huge difference in pur future
Yeah, the remaining 80-ish % is in the hands of the few, but in this case even our 20 % is relevant enough that your excuse is appalling.
I find it hard to believe that emissions would drop by 80% just by getting rid of all the billionaires. Or did you mean all of Western civilization when you said “those responsible for the other 80%”?
Why do you think we shouldn’t? (Or, alternatively, how do you come to a conclusion that someone thinks we shouldn’t go after those responsible for the majority of emissions)
Your thinking is extremely foreign to me and I would be interested in hearing your reasoning!
You’re right, it’s actually the poors fault! Lol /s what a stupid fucking take. Thanks for adding the same thing to the conversation that oil lobbyists were saying in the 70s
The oil lobbyists have been saying since the 70’s that they are responsible to the biggest share of greenhouse gas emissions?! Please show me even one place where they’ve made that claim.
“A handful of people”?!
Come on, about 10% of greenhouse gas emissions come from flying. Amd that’s done almost exclusively by the common folks, not the tiny minority. A kilometre by train causes 99 % less (electric) or about 70 % less (diesel) emissions per kilometre than an airplane does, and is a viable way to travel, but people still fly. Because they prefer being assholes and kil their own children if not doing.so would inconvenience them evem just a little.
Similarly, feeding one person with red mean causes about as much greenhouse gas emissions as feeding 10 vegetarians. No need to go full vegan, but decreasing consumption of meat would make another 10 to 20 %. And then there are the private cars, something in the ballpark of 5 %.
About a quarter of oyr greenhouse gas emissions are caused.by things that.are completely unnecessary. Yeah, at the moment all of those three would be inconveniences, but only because others don’t do the same. High-speed railways take less resources to operate per passenger and reach about half the speed of an airplane (if you take time spent at airports into account), but the service is unusably.bad because everyone flies. And all the nice ready-made food is meat-based, because the other stuff doesn’t have enough markets and is therefore too expensive, thus staying on the shelves And also, public transit is not comfortable because it isn’t used by the rich, so there’s no motivation to.keep it at the level it has in Switzerland, where even the richest typically commute by train.
The greenhouse gas emissions.don’t need to be brought to zero fot us to.survive. We common.folk have the capacity to lower them by almost a fifth, which makes a huge difference in pur future Yeah, the remaining 80-ish % is in the hands of the few, but in this case even our 20 % is relevant enough that your excuse is appalling.
So because we can account for 20% of emissions ourselves we shouldn’t bother going after those responsible for the other 80%?
I find it hard to believe that emissions would drop by 80% just by getting rid of all the billionaires. Or did you mean all of Western civilization when you said “those responsible for the other 80%”?
Guess who, in the end, owns all the factories, the powerplants, the cargo ships, the mines, and who lobbies in favor of them.
Who buys and uses all the stuff produced by those factories and delivered by those cargo ships?
Why do you think we shouldn’t? (Or, alternatively, how do you come to a conclusion that someone thinks we shouldn’t go after those responsible for the majority of emissions)
Your thinking is extremely foreign to me and I would be interested in hearing your reasoning!
You’re right, it’s actually the poors fault! Lol /s what a stupid fucking take. Thanks for adding the same thing to the conversation that oil lobbyists were saying in the 70s
The oil lobbyists have been saying since the 70’s that they are responsible to the biggest share of greenhouse gas emissions?! Please show me even one place where they’ve made that claim.