It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Danke
a reply to: amazing
So let's say that even if the data has not been manipulated, and the idea being pushed(even by NASA) that 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW is real isn't total misinformation, what is the point of the incredible amount of global warming fear mongering in the MSM on a daily basis?
originally posted by: Danke
a reply to: amazing
The average person this fear mongering campaign is geared towards cares about the environment. That same average person is too poor to leave a big carbon footprint, even if they wanted to.
I agree with you on a lot of what you say we can do, and many of those things we are doing. A lot of the things that would make a big difference in reducing CO2 emissions comes down to technology that we just don't have yet.
Without fossil fuels we wouldn't have the medical/technology breakthroughs which allowed us to get to this point, and have the exponentially greater standard of living we do now VS even just 100 years ago.
Put your emotions on hold for a minute. Think about who controls the solutions to AGW that you proposed. It isn't in the hands of the average person this fear mongering is pushed onto...
originally posted by: pl3bscheese
originally posted by: Danke
a reply to: amazing
The average person this fear mongering campaign is geared towards cares about the environment. That same average person is too poor to leave a big carbon footprint, even if they wanted to.
That makes zero sense. The average american's carbon footprint is 10x the average for the rest of the world. It's our way of life, our habits, and our living arrangements.
I agree with you on a lot of what you say we can do, and many of those things we are doing. A lot of the things that would make a big difference in reducing CO2 emissions comes down to technology that we just don't have yet.
Without fossil fuels we wouldn't have the medical/technology breakthroughs which allowed us to get to this point, and have the exponentially greater standard of living we do now VS even just 100 years ago.
Put your emotions on hold for a minute. Think about who controls the solutions to AGW that you proposed. It isn't in the hands of the average person this fear mongering is pushed onto...
I'd definitely disagree with this as well. People can choose different lifestyles, and different living arrangements.
originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Danke
You're contradicting yourself. You can't say that the poor in the US have no means to leave a high carbon footprint, then say Africans leave little footprint because they have nothing. Our poor trumps the upper middle class in many nations around this globe.
How to reduce your footprint? Tune your ac up or heat down, get rid of the vehicle, get a bike for starters. Longer term would require choosing different housing communities that provide more necessities within walking distance. Developers assume demand, and we fulfill it.
Look into the stats of the average trip distance in an automobile. If you take out long trips, then you see the average trip is within biking or walking distance. How much do you think that would reduce the footprint?
I do get your take, and it's the same gripe I have against the punishments for a DWI. I think human nature attempts to maximize short term benefits at the expense of potential long term consequences. In my mind the stats of drinking and driving won't much change until we tech out of it with driverless cars.
Kinda strange how this is all working out, in that by lowering the standards of living here, we would otherwise be helping the planet, yet the means in which we achieved this seems to cause the opposite (or at least offsetting the decline) by raising the standards elsewhere.
I think there's more that can be done, but they seem radical and people roll with assumptions that their current options are limited by recent options.
a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3
kid, it's the US of A. The 1% are not even close to the 99% in terms of collective footprint. We are the world's elite.
originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Danke
You most certainly contradicted yourself. Just get over it, it's not a big deal.
Dude, don't get defensive or passive aggressive, I'm not great, not too wise, and certainly not calling you out for your life choices, rather poking holes in your reasoning. It's just too easy.
So, you do realize a lot of those green things don't amount to much, right? Anyways, back to the point. People don't need those fancy "green" things. They could just make better decisions in day to day actions. Your statement about "can't work from home". How old are you? I'm curious. There's been a large increase in the at-home workforce in the last 15 years. It's not the majority, no, but that's not what I mentioned.
The average person can bike or walk to many more places. Don't sidestep the facts. Most people drive for no good reason on most of their trips.
Anyways, you seem irritated for no good reason, so I'll leave you to figure that out. Nice chatting with ya.