thegreekdog wrote:Informing the public and fixing his own contribution to the problem are not mutually exclusive. He can do both; he chooses not to do both because he is, in fact, a hypocrit. And I'm not rationalizing my own hypocrisy because I am, for the most part, doing what I can do to be environmentally friendly. A reasoned, measured approach to the issue of climate change would be much more appropriate and effective than a "the sky is falling" attitude that most environmental activists have.
Climate scientists have a fairly decent understanding of what is going on, and on that basis have made predictions for what will happen in the coming decades. This is hard science, it's not subjective. We know what will happen if we continue to consume non-renewable resources at the expected rate, and the result will be a global increase in temperature. We have some measure of control over what that increase will be, by reducing our usage compared to those projections. But the bottom line is that unless we radically reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, in the coming decades the global temperature will rise by several degrees (Celsius), and that will have devastating effects on life on this planet. Yes, it is up to the politicians to decide what level of warming they are willing to tolerate. But environmental activists are surely going to push for the least amount of damage to the planet, as that is objectively the best long term plan, from the perspective of minimizing damage to the planet (and there is no doubt that this will result in devastating impacts on coastal communities, mid-latitude nations, etc.). It is up to the policy makers to decide how much of that long term plan can be implemented without messing things up in the short term. But if they weren't there pushing people to do what they can to reduce carbon emissions by the largest possible amount, there would be no counterweight to the oil and natural gas industries, which are pushing people to do the least they can to reduce carbon emissions.
At any rate, it's very slimy to suddenly change the discussion to "environmental activists," because that implies that reducing carbon emissions is only about saving "the environment." No. Reducing carbon emissions will have a direct impact on the future health of our own species.
If more people were like her... you mean if more people were extremely wealth and had the resources to donate money to a charitable cause? I never criticize a famous person for doing this; but I will critcize her if she gets up on her high horse and demands that people with much less wealth make similar "sacrifices."
As we discussed in the other thread a while back, most of us have some control over disposable wealth. The percentage of that may be much smaller for middle and lower income families than it is for celebrities. I would say that the point here isn't really the quantitative impact you can make when you're donating 0.5% percent of your income. It is the general spirit of sacrifice that is necessary to make this all happen. If everyone recognizes that they must contribute, to the extent that they can afford, then when it comes time to make an effective long term policy that reduces carbon emissions, everyone will understand
why it must happen, even if they disagree on the steps that must be taken to reduce emissions.
What you don't seem to understand is that your sacrifice in the name of environmentalism is a lot less onerous than others' sacrifices. Al Gore's sacrifice, even if we went completely environmentally friendly, is a lot less onerous than others' sacrifices. This rather large and disturbing lack of empathy is what has slowed down the environmental movement. There are a whole host of people who provide for themselves and their families with jobs that would be gone if environmental activists had their way. Let's say, for example, that all coal mines are shut down. Al Gore, you, and Leonardo DiCaprio would be just fine; all the coal miners and those who are employed supporting coal miners and the coal miners' families would be shit out of luck. Sure, this is an acceptable result for Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio and you, because you have sacrificed nothing. There needs to be a transition, and a lengthy one, in order to get a buy-in from people who sacrifice a lot.
This argument is a non-starter, because this is just the way of the world. As technology changes, people will lose old jobs and have to find new ones. For example, we're going to run out of oil in a few decades if we don't reduce consumption. So whether it's now or later, people are going to have to transition to new methods of generating income. The only thing that we can control, at this point, is how severe the transition will be. If we start now, we
can get that lengthy transition you want. If we delay, then the transition will happen a lot more suddenly.
