Is there evidence that the flights of frequent fliers can be significantly reduced without adding new flyers to do the same jobs, i.e., increasing the median number of flights and keeping the total number about the same?
The cost to offset the carbon for flights is pretty miniscule in comparison (maybe $20) - the amount of loyalty that frequent flyers bring, the airlines should be offsetting these amounts themselves
Something can be a grift or a cult and still be based on life-and-death reality.
If my doctor tells me I have to lose 100 lbs or I will die, then I can start counting calories, restrict myself to a certain number, and do it honestly or I can start eating only "diet" food.
And then when I don't lose weight, I can rationalize that diet food is really expensive, so I need help to afford more of it. Maybe there is a weight loss club I can join for discounts.
If I eliminate half of the non-diet food I'm eating, and double the amount of diet food, am I closer to my goal?
I think this is basically the definition of classical tragedy.
Oddly enough I’ve had many intelligent friends and colleagues lose interest or begin to question “climate change” in recent years, most notably since Covid.
I suspect the idea that it’s a grift (Even though it’s happening) has played a role. Or maybe it’s linked to a broader questioning of narratives. Idk
I’ve noticed this trend lately as well, I’ve even commented about it on here a few times, and I attribute it to an increased push from opponents to climate reform because real climate legislation has actually started to be passed and enforced. Just look at how the Supreme Court has started to neuter the EPA as soon as they actually started to clamp down on emissions.
That's a total non sequitur. Have you read the Supreme Court decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)? It wasn't based on opposition to climate change legislation. The actual issue was a lack of legislation. The EPA clearly exceeded their statutory authority. We need Congress to pass real climate change legislation and stop the administrative state from sneaking things in through the back door.
That's one very obtuse way to read into the opinion. And just linking it there, like it's self-evident. Like people don't debate the meaning of supreme court opinions.
What’s obtuse is thinking that Congress hid the power to restructure the energy mix of the country in a provision giving the EPA power to require particular kinds of pollution control equipment.
To be sure, there’s a lot of legitimate debate over the meaning of Supreme Court decisions. But a chunk of it is simply not undertaken in good faith. It is made to seem like a debate because one side simply doesn’t like the implications of things that are obviously true, such as “Congress hasn’t yet passed major laws addressing climate change” or “the Constitution doesn’t say anything about abortion.”
And I’m not speaking out of partisanship here. The US is simply extreme among developed nations at how creatively our Supreme Court reads our Constitution and laws. The Europeans don’t just read sweeping new provisions into decades-old laws. The EHCR, for example, has repeatedly declined to find a right to same-sex marriage or abortion in the EU Convention of human rights (because those rights plainly are not in there).
The US is more like second-tier democracies such as India or Bangladesh, where high court judges will just dl whatever they want with only tenuous support in the constitution or laws.
As opposed to Al Gore, who was awarded a Nobel Prize for his novel efforts at answering the age old question, "How can I force other people to change what they're doing so I don't have to change anything about how I live?"
Al Gore could change everything about his life and effectively change nothing about the climate, what’s your point? It’s a complete non-sequitur to point out one advocate’s lifestyle when it’s a global problem. It’s actually just disingenuous.
Raindrops don't ever get the feeling that one river looks particularly full and tries to divert their fellow raindrops into another river.
Influencing culture, groupthink, mindshare is the most powerful thing one can do to affect change. This highlights that vegans are not solely interested in minimizing meat consumption but rather also put weight on the burden of their own conscious. A raindrop is nothing compared to a flood.
I feel this may also be in part from panic-fatigue (for lack of a better word). I'm 23 and it feels as if since the earliest memories of childhood I've seen commercials and initiatives about how the environment is in horrible shape and we need to fix it or we're all going to die.
That's not an exaggeration, truly it's been a subject that's been fear-mongered on for decades now. Perhaps the fear-mongering is justified. It is a real issue. But it's a but difficult to continue caring when you've been told that we're facing imminent doom since childhood and nothing directly observable has happened yet.
The solution to climate change is for progressive elitists to fly in their private jets to climate change conferences at luxury resorts, where they tell everyone else to take the bus.
