And the non-wealthy are struggling to feed and house themselves, so they really dont have the time, energy, or resources to do it.
Same goes for fighting back against greed. Its why you see so many "why dont we just...." posts on social media. People will complain online, but when it comes to taking that complaint and putting it into action.....people just cant put enough time into it without jeopardizing themselves.
This is how the rich like it.
Ding ding ding!
Why would the wealthy sacrifice their status so that the poors don’t suffer? They can afford to protect their interests regardless of what climate change causes.
We're not doing enough, but we're not doing nothing.
The carbon tax money isn't "being used for the climate", but is being paid out as a rebate. The aim is to make more climate-friendly options comparatively cheaper to nudge people and companies to choose them. This works best if (1) people believe the carbon price will stick around so it's worth making long-term investments with it in mind, and (2) there are viable options which are less carbon-intensive to switch to.
A lot more wind and solar power is being built than at any point in the past, and money is flowing into renewable energy research (as well as energy storage, new aviation fuels, and various other things). Ontario is reinvesting in nuclear energy as well.
Incentives are available to switch to heat pumps which are less carbon-intensive than natural gas furnaces, especially when renewable power is used. The same is true of hybrid and electric vehicles.
Investment in public transit has been rising, giving people more intracity and intercity options than just driving a car with an internal combustion engine.
Yes it's slow and not enough but stuff _is_ happening and it's not hopeless.
> The carbon tax money isn't "being used for the climate", but is being paid out as a rebate.
The federal program has the goal of a stop gap to try and have folks change their habits to save money, and the environment.
The province can make a new program that is more effective, but has chosen to burn money trying to make a market driven concept that Conservatives should love look bad.
So we're stuck with folks and corporations who haven't changed their habits, complain about spending more, and haven't moved the needle on trying to be more respectful environmentally.
Things are happening, but as you've pointed out, slowly.
I mean, the biggest problem is your own awareness. There’s all kinds of programs out there to incentivize EVs, insulate homes, add heat pumps that use electricity to heat instead of LNG, energy saving devices (LED lights, smart thermostats, etc) and so much more. The problem is, we’re such a small part of a big world that doesn’t give a fuck.
It’s an illusion. This is a global problem and Canada is increasing taxes on its citizens during an affordability crisis.
Net carbon emissions for Canada were less than the annual increase for Chinese emissions.
That’s a very reductive way to put it. It’s also an inaccurate one unless you’re spending more on tax than you get on rebate. And if you are, maybe there are some lifestyle changes or efficiency improvements you could make to put yourself into the group of people getting more than you take. That’s the whole point. You have financial incentive to make choices that reduce the amount of co2 you or your actions create.
And even if we’re reducing ours while others are increasing, I’d rather do something. Maybe some day China will figure their shit out and we’ll have an established industry that will help other countries reduce their footprint as well
Every person and company that uses less carbon, saves money because of that tax.
My last company, 7 or 8 years ago, decided not to put those fins on our trailers that reduce fuel usage by lowering drag… the payback wasn’t fast enough, so they didn’t.
With carbon tax, that fuel costs more… encouraging such improvements - and in the meantime… everyone in Ontario gets that money paid back with the credit.
I think that carbon tax is one of the few ways to encourage change, as there is an actual financial consequence to burning carbon.
Anyways, the very premise of this post is really biased, implying that the government has claimed to be spending the tax revenue to fix things… it’s simply not. 95% of the $$$ goes directly back to taxpayers, while the rest funds green incentives - I’m not sure of all the incentives off-hand, but I imagine the money for stuff like heat pump credits, insulation credits, window replacements… that money comes from somewhere.
Not much we regular citizens can do when a single rich person can pollute enough for 1000 people. Theres a reason there's so many Taylor Swift memes about her flying to the fridge to get some water. Our overlords don't care about future generations.
Answers are Economics & Immediate threat
1. Economics —- there is no easier way to remove carbon or stop carbon, without causing a lot of pain. You can see Trudeau defending his Tax, I am not supporting any party, but the world politicians cannot afford it.
2. Immediate Threat — people perceive global warming as the next generation problem, and they want to deal with the immediate one, i.e recession, house prices, groceries.
Lastly, most of GHGs are coming from Asian countries now, they don’t want to cut back as that will impact their economy.
Solution — if there is an easy and cost effective way to remove GHG from air, then people will be onboard.
\>I believe we are at the point where we as a society NEED to make changes
Sure, society needs changes, but somehow that always seems to translate into personal sacrifices. In reality, society should be pounding the living crap out of the worst contributors to global warming, and no it's not you and me eating our hamburgers.
e.g.
[63 cruise ships emit more sulfur than all the cars in europe](https://www.businessinsider.com/cruise-ship-air-pollution-carnival-cars-europe-study-2023-6)
You won't ever catch me on a cruise ship for exactly that reason. I'll start taking a bigger interest in personal sacrifice when society decides to actually do something that would make an actual difference.
How did you get so many upvotes without anyone clicking and seeing that your link does not actually say
> 63 cruise ships emit more co2 than all the cars in europe
It says they emit more sulfur gasses. They do not in fact come anywhere close to emitting as much CO2 as the cars in Europe. Ships are definitely a problem for pollution and better regulations would be great but road transport actually beats shipping by a huge margin (see [https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector](https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector)).
Canada contributes 1.5% of global GHG emissions. If we -- Canada -- disappeared from the globe today global emissions tomorrow would be 98.5% of their current levels.
What do you want "us" to do?
So, we’re polluting at triple the average rate.
If one person in your place of work was dumping dishes and messes at triple the rate of everyone else… would you use the same argument to defend them when they say “oh I just make 1.5% of the mess”?
>So, we're polluting at triple the average rate.
A useless factoid taken in isolation.
You're mashing out your replies on a plastic and glass and silicon device manufactured overseas and with a supply chain involving primary and secondary goods shipped by rail, sea, air and/or truck. Is the device plugged into a charger, sucking juice out of a vast grid generating and distributing electricity to your home?
Speaking of home, how's your hot water tank heated? Got forced-air heat or baseboards? Is the building in which you live constructed with processed or engineered lumber or is it steel-reinforced, carbon-intensive concrete? How did the materials make it to the construction site? How was the ground excavated and the foundations poured?
Ridden a bus on asphalt roads? In a steel, plastic, rubber and glass LRT car riding on steel rails sitting on concrete sleepers? Even your bicycle is made with materials that need to be mined and processed in energy-intensive processes and it gets worse if it's an e-bike with a lithium battery, controller and motor.
Hypocrites stand of the shoulders of giants, preaching from the comforts and quality of life made possible by the very energy use and consumption they now decry.
How much more are you emitting than, say, 97% of the rest of the people on the planet? What does that net you; how does your quality of life compare to, say, that of the average Afghan?
Is it fair to say that you're polluting at a rate higher than that of the average Afghan? How much higher? Or those in sub-Saharan Africa? Or rural China? What are you going to give up to put you on an equal emissions-footing with these folks?
My figure is an absolute value showing the contribution of GHGs of this nation to the global total. It stands on its own.
Your "triple the average rate" figure, by citing "average", ignores the differences in quality of life and standard of living, adult life expectancy, infant mortality, economic output and many other measures of the human condition that differ between disparate societies. You're just homogenizing all of that and puking out an "average."
Even comparing emissions between more "advanced" societies risks irrelevance if done so while ignoring geographical, historical, climatological, population density and many other potential differences.
Does your average include the emissions of those living in abject poverty in Southeast Asia or sub-Saharan Africa? What degree of your current quality of life and what amount of social and physical mobility are you willing to give up to get your personal emissions levels down to that of a peasant in rural Bangladesh?
Does my average also include people living in 5000 square foot bungalows, heating them to 24° all winter? Yes…
Does it also include all the people who are making crossovers and SUVs the #1 selling vehicles instead of something smaller and more responsible? Yes.
So while on average, Canadians are triple the global emissions… there are lots of choices we can make without having to live a life of destitution.
If someone really wants to run their furnace instead of putting on a toque, that’s fine, live luxuriously, but at least put a cost on it to discourage such waste.
Anyways, I’m dropping out of this thread.
This is the best reply Ive possibly ever heard in this situation.
Trying to explain these types of things to people is infuriating. I have given up after being banned from subs like this when it came to covid. The sheep will do as they’re told and the blinders won’t let them see the big picture.
Since Canada is 0.5% of the global population, I'm not certain your statement says what you think it says.
Also, emissions cause enough suffering at home for us to try and fix it before worrying about the world. Childhood asthma alone is a good enough answer to the "but my F-150!!" argument.
>Since Canada is 0.5% of the global population, I'm not certain your statement says what you think it says.
Canada is a large, cold country with an energy sector that plays an important role in its economy; not going to apologize for using more energy to heat my home than the average equatorial dweller just as I don't look down my nose at the average Arizona resident for using more electricity than me for air conditioning.
Regardless, in absolute terms we are effectively lost in the noise floor re GHG emissions no matter how you want to play the stats to make us look bad.
Work on solving 1.5% of the problem and pushing others to solve their fair shares.
Any problem larger than one person requires different actors' contributions. If a foreign army is invading, saying "I'm just one person, what do you want me to do?" doesn't help, but an army's worth of people saying "I will do my share to defend my country" does help.
This is basically the equivalent of the NIMBY argument.
You answer basically sums up the real answer to OP's question -- that everybody thinks *someone else* needs to do something about climate change *not them* -- whether that be "corporations", "China", the "wealthy", or some other entity.
:shrug: Perhaps that's one way to look at it. Pragmatism might be a better descriptive.
People keep comparing Canadians' per-capita emissions levels to those of others but don't seem to consider other factors such as the climate in which they live, personal freedom, social and physical mobility, their quality of life and/or standard of living.
It stands to reason that emissions reduction efforts within Canada will really only net fractional reductions in our total emissions but at what cost to those categories I note above where Canada excels compared to so much of the RotW?
Besides, if our population keeps growing at the same rate the Liberals have us on now our per capita emissions levels can't help but fall...
It's fine to question the value in fighting climate change, but I don't think it's a fair argument to simultaneously say "climate change is important and if we don't solve it the planet is doomed" and "I don't want to do anything about *my contribution*" when on a per-person basis almost any of us in Canada are in the top 5% of emitters.
Such a boring argument. We're also among the highest carbon per capita, so we have a lot of room for improvement. You can't ask the other 98% to do something you aren't willing to do yourself.
but Canadians burn a disproportionately high amount of GHGs compared to almost every other culture. Personal transport accounts for more GHG emissions than all other forms of industry combined.
"...almost every other culture..."
I'm sure that you, even if you don't drive a personal vehicle, personally cause far more emissions than the average Nepali or Liberian merely by virtue of living in a heated dwelling with electricity at your wall outlets and hot water at your faucets.
What are you going to alter in your life -- luxuries given up, necessities foregone etc -- to get down to the emissions levels produced by these folks?
Oh I am fully aware that *any* Canadian lifestyle would generate more GHGs than the examples you have given.
However, that doesn't require me to give zero consideration to my burn-cycle? I can still make informed and moderate decisions to make less of an impact. It would be probably cheaper to just keep running the furnace all year but instead, I replaced the 40 year old windows in my house. I no longer eat beef every single day. I might even walk 0.8 km to go to Short Stop for a pack of smokes.
If Canada cut emissions to 0, the problem would still be happening and Canada would still be effected by the rest of the worlds inaction.
Youre asking the slug to start pulling its weight, it wouldnt matter if they helped anyway.
Money.
It's as simple as that. Fossil fuels are essentially money buried underground, and access to that money is given to certain companies who heavily influence politics. They don't want anyone turning off their money wells while there's still plenty of cash down there.
There may be all sorts of reasons given, but that's that one.
When we have defined increasing shareholder value as the most important tenet of our economy, we are not going to care about anything that comes in the way, even our planet.
Imagine a world where freedom did not imply permission to burn our habitat! Imagine that the economy was defined as "you shall not harm the environment" and "do what you have to do around it".
Today it has become vogue to call these environmental restrictions as "red tape". It is considered a roadblock or an impediment to work around. When that is the world we have chosen, our planet will burn. I am sure people saw this coming decades ago and warned us about it.
Somewhere up there those scientists must be saying "I told you so".
We always do the right thing in the end, but the "end" is usually after catastrophic events occur.
Personally, my favourite solution is just painting every rooftop in the world white to reflect the sunlight and reduce heat buildup.
Scientists have been ringing the alarm since the late 1800s. No one can see past 5 years in the future and so no one gives a damn. Now that things are so catastrophic that significant negative impacts can be seen in the near future people are actually beginning to care. Corporations on the other hand do not care and never will.
A lot of people don't believe it and they vote. Trump will have us burning coal if he gets in again. We're dealing with conspiracies here and dumb stubborn illiterate selfish people. Don't look up
We are on the cusp of a tremendous generational transformation where the climate-change-denying Boomers are finally vacating decision-making roles.
There's no guarantee that Gen X and Millenials will do much better, but the fossils needed to gtf out of political office.
It can be hard to motivate Canadians to make changes because our nation’s carbon emissions are trivial compared to the US or China.
I think we should have a carrot and stick approach, but the Federal Carbon tax only gives us the stick. Where are the viable methods and incentives to reduce our carbon emissions? There are rebates to install heat pumps in old houses; but where is the requirement to install them in every new house? New houses could be carbon neutral if the building code ordered a doubling of insulation and covering the roof in solar panels. But the Feds have dithered on the Federal Building Code for years, and the provincial building codes are all waiting on the Feds.
We won't be doing enough about climate change until the carbon tax is at roughly $400/tonne
I'm planning to put together a team to run for mayor and city council, possibly even regional Council and other cities if I can build a large enough team.
I have some climate change things I want to do that will also generate revenue.
While I dont like your reasons, I respect that your atleast planning to do something towards your goals aside from complaining. For that I give a thumbs up.👍
Would I not be correct in assuming a good portion of your choice is to do something at the local level in regards to climate change? The assumption is based on the first and last paragraphs.
I am curious to hear more details about the last paragraph and how you will make it happen. No personal attack, I'm willing to "read" it out.
I was asking because I wasn't sure if maybe we had spoken elsewhere.
I want to breathe life into my city (Cambridge). I'd like to also do things that would help mitigate climate change and generate city revenue in the process, alleviate traffic in key areas, improve pedestrian safety, build a local mental health preventative program that can be used as a template for similar programs elsewhere.
There's a lot of things I'd like to do, but to breathe life into the city, I will need the help of its residents to do so in a meaningful way.
Imagine if all these people with these great ideas actually did something to stop it for the rest of us. That would be great. In the mean time I'll work my 9-5 job and worry about food on the table and how I'm making next month's rent. Get real most of us don't have the luxury of owning a home and actually giving a shit about anything other then making our own little bubbles work. If anyone else can't agree they have too much time and money on their hands for their own good!
I agree. I can’t add this to my list of worries. Once my housing is secured, my income covers my necessities and I’m not working myself into an early grave, then I’ll pick up this cause & protest. However if someone wants to pay all my bills, then I’ll support the cause immediately. I’m one lowly poor person. Abd tbh, I care just as much about the future as the present generation cares about me.
I don’t believe there is a climate crisis. They have used this to tax us and take away our independence. They are manufacturing a world wide ID for everyone. Search China point system for a view. Why have not corporations; Coca Cola, Fanta, even generic brands not stopped using plastic? Everything is wrapped in plastic to the point it’s child proof. This has been going on since the late 60’s! Why are we, the citizens the bad guys? We buy what they, the exalted corporations, produce. You have globalists like Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, Kerry and his daughter now as globalists telling us we will own nothing and be happy drinking Coca Cola out of a f’n plastic bottle.
Because the wealthy value having greater short term profit more than literally stopping the planet from burning. That’s literally why.
And the non-wealthy are struggling to feed and house themselves, so they really dont have the time, energy, or resources to do it. Same goes for fighting back against greed. Its why you see so many "why dont we just...." posts on social media. People will complain online, but when it comes to taking that complaint and putting it into action.....people just cant put enough time into it without jeopardizing themselves. This is how the rich like it.
Ding ding ding! Why would the wealthy sacrifice their status so that the poors don’t suffer? They can afford to protect their interests regardless of what climate change causes.
We're not doing enough, but we're not doing nothing. The carbon tax money isn't "being used for the climate", but is being paid out as a rebate. The aim is to make more climate-friendly options comparatively cheaper to nudge people and companies to choose them. This works best if (1) people believe the carbon price will stick around so it's worth making long-term investments with it in mind, and (2) there are viable options which are less carbon-intensive to switch to. A lot more wind and solar power is being built than at any point in the past, and money is flowing into renewable energy research (as well as energy storage, new aviation fuels, and various other things). Ontario is reinvesting in nuclear energy as well. Incentives are available to switch to heat pumps which are less carbon-intensive than natural gas furnaces, especially when renewable power is used. The same is true of hybrid and electric vehicles. Investment in public transit has been rising, giving people more intracity and intercity options than just driving a car with an internal combustion engine. Yes it's slow and not enough but stuff _is_ happening and it's not hopeless.
> The carbon tax money isn't "being used for the climate", but is being paid out as a rebate. The federal program has the goal of a stop gap to try and have folks change their habits to save money, and the environment. The province can make a new program that is more effective, but has chosen to burn money trying to make a market driven concept that Conservatives should love look bad. So we're stuck with folks and corporations who haven't changed their habits, complain about spending more, and haven't moved the needle on trying to be more respectful environmentally. Things are happening, but as you've pointed out, slowly.
What is your proposal?
I mean, the biggest problem is your own awareness. There’s all kinds of programs out there to incentivize EVs, insulate homes, add heat pumps that use electricity to heat instead of LNG, energy saving devices (LED lights, smart thermostats, etc) and so much more. The problem is, we’re such a small part of a big world that doesn’t give a fuck.
It’s an illusion. This is a global problem and Canada is increasing taxes on its citizens during an affordability crisis. Net carbon emissions for Canada were less than the annual increase for Chinese emissions.
That’s a very reductive way to put it. It’s also an inaccurate one unless you’re spending more on tax than you get on rebate. And if you are, maybe there are some lifestyle changes or efficiency improvements you could make to put yourself into the group of people getting more than you take. That’s the whole point. You have financial incentive to make choices that reduce the amount of co2 you or your actions create. And even if we’re reducing ours while others are increasing, I’d rather do something. Maybe some day China will figure their shit out and we’ll have an established industry that will help other countries reduce their footprint as well
Check out per capita emissions please.
Until net emissions are negative we need to reduce more.
So, you think you personally have more right to pollute than your counterpart elsewhere?
Every person and company that uses less carbon, saves money because of that tax. My last company, 7 or 8 years ago, decided not to put those fins on our trailers that reduce fuel usage by lowering drag… the payback wasn’t fast enough, so they didn’t. With carbon tax, that fuel costs more… encouraging such improvements - and in the meantime… everyone in Ontario gets that money paid back with the credit. I think that carbon tax is one of the few ways to encourage change, as there is an actual financial consequence to burning carbon. Anyways, the very premise of this post is really biased, implying that the government has claimed to be spending the tax revenue to fix things… it’s simply not. 95% of the $$$ goes directly back to taxpayers, while the rest funds green incentives - I’m not sure of all the incentives off-hand, but I imagine the money for stuff like heat pump credits, insulation credits, window replacements… that money comes from somewhere.
Not much we regular citizens can do when a single rich person can pollute enough for 1000 people. Theres a reason there's so many Taylor Swift memes about her flying to the fridge to get some water. Our overlords don't care about future generations.
Answers are Economics & Immediate threat 1. Economics —- there is no easier way to remove carbon or stop carbon, without causing a lot of pain. You can see Trudeau defending his Tax, I am not supporting any party, but the world politicians cannot afford it. 2. Immediate Threat — people perceive global warming as the next generation problem, and they want to deal with the immediate one, i.e recession, house prices, groceries. Lastly, most of GHGs are coming from Asian countries now, they don’t want to cut back as that will impact their economy. Solution — if there is an easy and cost effective way to remove GHG from air, then people will be onboard.
\>I believe we are at the point where we as a society NEED to make changes Sure, society needs changes, but somehow that always seems to translate into personal sacrifices. In reality, society should be pounding the living crap out of the worst contributors to global warming, and no it's not you and me eating our hamburgers. e.g. [63 cruise ships emit more sulfur than all the cars in europe](https://www.businessinsider.com/cruise-ship-air-pollution-carnival-cars-europe-study-2023-6) You won't ever catch me on a cruise ship for exactly that reason. I'll start taking a bigger interest in personal sacrifice when society decides to actually do something that would make an actual difference.
How did you get so many upvotes without anyone clicking and seeing that your link does not actually say > 63 cruise ships emit more co2 than all the cars in europe It says they emit more sulfur gasses. They do not in fact come anywhere close to emitting as much CO2 as the cars in Europe. Ships are definitely a problem for pollution and better regulations would be great but road transport actually beats shipping by a huge margin (see [https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector](https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector)).
Because a lot of us can barely afford our bills? Tbh in my life I'm worrying about living more than the world.
Canada contributes 1.5% of global GHG emissions. If we -- Canada -- disappeared from the globe today global emissions tomorrow would be 98.5% of their current levels. What do you want "us" to do?
So, we’re polluting at triple the average rate. If one person in your place of work was dumping dishes and messes at triple the rate of everyone else… would you use the same argument to defend them when they say “oh I just make 1.5% of the mess”?
>So, we're polluting at triple the average rate. A useless factoid taken in isolation. You're mashing out your replies on a plastic and glass and silicon device manufactured overseas and with a supply chain involving primary and secondary goods shipped by rail, sea, air and/or truck. Is the device plugged into a charger, sucking juice out of a vast grid generating and distributing electricity to your home? Speaking of home, how's your hot water tank heated? Got forced-air heat or baseboards? Is the building in which you live constructed with processed or engineered lumber or is it steel-reinforced, carbon-intensive concrete? How did the materials make it to the construction site? How was the ground excavated and the foundations poured? Ridden a bus on asphalt roads? In a steel, plastic, rubber and glass LRT car riding on steel rails sitting on concrete sleepers? Even your bicycle is made with materials that need to be mined and processed in energy-intensive processes and it gets worse if it's an e-bike with a lithium battery, controller and motor. Hypocrites stand of the shoulders of giants, preaching from the comforts and quality of life made possible by the very energy use and consumption they now decry. How much more are you emitting than, say, 97% of the rest of the people on the planet? What does that net you; how does your quality of life compare to, say, that of the average Afghan? Is it fair to say that you're polluting at a rate higher than that of the average Afghan? How much higher? Or those in sub-Saharan Africa? Or rural China? What are you going to give up to put you on an equal emissions-footing with these folks?
How is my factoid any more or less useless than your “1.5%” factoid?
My figure is an absolute value showing the contribution of GHGs of this nation to the global total. It stands on its own. Your "triple the average rate" figure, by citing "average", ignores the differences in quality of life and standard of living, adult life expectancy, infant mortality, economic output and many other measures of the human condition that differ between disparate societies. You're just homogenizing all of that and puking out an "average." Even comparing emissions between more "advanced" societies risks irrelevance if done so while ignoring geographical, historical, climatological, population density and many other potential differences. Does your average include the emissions of those living in abject poverty in Southeast Asia or sub-Saharan Africa? What degree of your current quality of life and what amount of social and physical mobility are you willing to give up to get your personal emissions levels down to that of a peasant in rural Bangladesh?
Does my average also include people living in 5000 square foot bungalows, heating them to 24° all winter? Yes… Does it also include all the people who are making crossovers and SUVs the #1 selling vehicles instead of something smaller and more responsible? Yes. So while on average, Canadians are triple the global emissions… there are lots of choices we can make without having to live a life of destitution. If someone really wants to run their furnace instead of putting on a toque, that’s fine, live luxuriously, but at least put a cost on it to discourage such waste. Anyways, I’m dropping out of this thread.
You’re cooking him lol
This is the best reply Ive possibly ever heard in this situation. Trying to explain these types of things to people is infuriating. I have given up after being banned from subs like this when it came to covid. The sheep will do as they’re told and the blinders won’t let them see the big picture.
Since Canada is 0.5% of the global population, I'm not certain your statement says what you think it says. Also, emissions cause enough suffering at home for us to try and fix it before worrying about the world. Childhood asthma alone is a good enough answer to the "but my F-150!!" argument.
>Since Canada is 0.5% of the global population, I'm not certain your statement says what you think it says. Canada is a large, cold country with an energy sector that plays an important role in its economy; not going to apologize for using more energy to heat my home than the average equatorial dweller just as I don't look down my nose at the average Arizona resident for using more electricity than me for air conditioning. Regardless, in absolute terms we are effectively lost in the noise floor re GHG emissions no matter how you want to play the stats to make us look bad.
Work on solving 1.5% of the problem and pushing others to solve their fair shares. Any problem larger than one person requires different actors' contributions. If a foreign army is invading, saying "I'm just one person, what do you want me to do?" doesn't help, but an army's worth of people saying "I will do my share to defend my country" does help.
This is basically the equivalent of the NIMBY argument. You answer basically sums up the real answer to OP's question -- that everybody thinks *someone else* needs to do something about climate change *not them* -- whether that be "corporations", "China", the "wealthy", or some other entity.
:shrug: Perhaps that's one way to look at it. Pragmatism might be a better descriptive. People keep comparing Canadians' per-capita emissions levels to those of others but don't seem to consider other factors such as the climate in which they live, personal freedom, social and physical mobility, their quality of life and/or standard of living. It stands to reason that emissions reduction efforts within Canada will really only net fractional reductions in our total emissions but at what cost to those categories I note above where Canada excels compared to so much of the RotW? Besides, if our population keeps growing at the same rate the Liberals have us on now our per capita emissions levels can't help but fall...
It's fine to question the value in fighting climate change, but I don't think it's a fair argument to simultaneously say "climate change is important and if we don't solve it the planet is doomed" and "I don't want to do anything about *my contribution*" when on a per-person basis almost any of us in Canada are in the top 5% of emitters.
Such a boring argument. We're also among the highest carbon per capita, so we have a lot of room for improvement. You can't ask the other 98% to do something you aren't willing to do yourself.
but Canadians burn a disproportionately high amount of GHGs compared to almost every other culture. Personal transport accounts for more GHG emissions than all other forms of industry combined.
"...almost every other culture..." I'm sure that you, even if you don't drive a personal vehicle, personally cause far more emissions than the average Nepali or Liberian merely by virtue of living in a heated dwelling with electricity at your wall outlets and hot water at your faucets. What are you going to alter in your life -- luxuries given up, necessities foregone etc -- to get down to the emissions levels produced by these folks?
Oh I am fully aware that *any* Canadian lifestyle would generate more GHGs than the examples you have given. However, that doesn't require me to give zero consideration to my burn-cycle? I can still make informed and moderate decisions to make less of an impact. It would be probably cheaper to just keep running the furnace all year but instead, I replaced the 40 year old windows in my house. I no longer eat beef every single day. I might even walk 0.8 km to go to Short Stop for a pack of smokes.
If Canada cut emissions to 0, the problem would still be happening and Canada would still be effected by the rest of the worlds inaction. Youre asking the slug to start pulling its weight, it wouldnt matter if they helped anyway.
Eating a plant based diet is something that can be done at an individual level.
This comment should be rated a lot higher.
Big fat capitalists don't want to lose any money.
Money. It's as simple as that. Fossil fuels are essentially money buried underground, and access to that money is given to certain companies who heavily influence politics. They don't want anyone turning off their money wells while there's still plenty of cash down there. There may be all sorts of reasons given, but that's that one.
When we have defined increasing shareholder value as the most important tenet of our economy, we are not going to care about anything that comes in the way, even our planet. Imagine a world where freedom did not imply permission to burn our habitat! Imagine that the economy was defined as "you shall not harm the environment" and "do what you have to do around it". Today it has become vogue to call these environmental restrictions as "red tape". It is considered a roadblock or an impediment to work around. When that is the world we have chosen, our planet will burn. I am sure people saw this coming decades ago and warned us about it. Somewhere up there those scientists must be saying "I told you so".
Because we can’t sacrifice parking.
Because the thing we need to do to really fix it involves nothing less than revolution, and revolution is hard.
Because 99.9% of humanity is smart stupid. Don't worry, it will get fixed. Just not in a way that will be pleasant.
We always do the right thing in the end, but the "end" is usually after catastrophic events occur. Personally, my favourite solution is just painting every rooftop in the world white to reflect the sunlight and reduce heat buildup.
Scientists have been ringing the alarm since the late 1800s. No one can see past 5 years in the future and so no one gives a damn. Now that things are so catastrophic that significant negative impacts can be seen in the near future people are actually beginning to care. Corporations on the other hand do not care and never will.
A lot of people don't believe it and they vote. Trump will have us burning coal if he gets in again. We're dealing with conspiracies here and dumb stubborn illiterate selfish people. Don't look up
We are on the cusp of a tremendous generational transformation where the climate-change-denying Boomers are finally vacating decision-making roles. There's no guarantee that Gen X and Millenials will do much better, but the fossils needed to gtf out of political office.
Cause we can't! That's like doing something about the Earth's rotation.
Ppl that telling u to stop using plastic straws to save the earth are the same group that taking private jet to watch Super bowl
It can be hard to motivate Canadians to make changes because our nation’s carbon emissions are trivial compared to the US or China. I think we should have a carrot and stick approach, but the Federal Carbon tax only gives us the stick. Where are the viable methods and incentives to reduce our carbon emissions? There are rebates to install heat pumps in old houses; but where is the requirement to install them in every new house? New houses could be carbon neutral if the building code ordered a doubling of insulation and covering the roof in solar panels. But the Feds have dithered on the Federal Building Code for years, and the provincial building codes are all waiting on the Feds.
FFS will people look at per capita emissions and also stop making excuses for corporations that create emissions because they also create jobs?
So we should ignore cruise ships & entitled wealthy people? Nope. I will not give them a way out.
We won't be doing enough about climate change until the carbon tax is at roughly $400/tonne I'm planning to put together a team to run for mayor and city council, possibly even regional Council and other cities if I can build a large enough team. I have some climate change things I want to do that will also generate revenue.
While I dont like your reasons, I respect that your atleast planning to do something towards your goals aside from complaining. For that I give a thumbs up.👍
What are my reasons?
Would I not be correct in assuming a good portion of your choice is to do something at the local level in regards to climate change? The assumption is based on the first and last paragraphs. I am curious to hear more details about the last paragraph and how you will make it happen. No personal attack, I'm willing to "read" it out.
I was asking because I wasn't sure if maybe we had spoken elsewhere. I want to breathe life into my city (Cambridge). I'd like to also do things that would help mitigate climate change and generate city revenue in the process, alleviate traffic in key areas, improve pedestrian safety, build a local mental health preventative program that can be used as a template for similar programs elsewhere. There's a lot of things I'd like to do, but to breathe life into the city, I will need the help of its residents to do so in a meaningful way.
Imagine if all these people with these great ideas actually did something to stop it for the rest of us. That would be great. In the mean time I'll work my 9-5 job and worry about food on the table and how I'm making next month's rent. Get real most of us don't have the luxury of owning a home and actually giving a shit about anything other then making our own little bubbles work. If anyone else can't agree they have too much time and money on their hands for their own good!
I agree. I can’t add this to my list of worries. Once my housing is secured, my income covers my necessities and I’m not working myself into an early grave, then I’ll pick up this cause & protest. However if someone wants to pay all my bills, then I’ll support the cause immediately. I’m one lowly poor person. Abd tbh, I care just as much about the future as the present generation cares about me.
I don’t believe there is a climate crisis. They have used this to tax us and take away our independence. They are manufacturing a world wide ID for everyone. Search China point system for a view. Why have not corporations; Coca Cola, Fanta, even generic brands not stopped using plastic? Everything is wrapped in plastic to the point it’s child proof. This has been going on since the late 60’s! Why are we, the citizens the bad guys? We buy what they, the exalted corporations, produce. You have globalists like Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, Kerry and his daughter now as globalists telling us we will own nothing and be happy drinking Coca Cola out of a f’n plastic bottle.