Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'd argue it's not just the environment, but most "concerns" they have they just pretend to care. We saw this with how they handled sexual assault allegations against Biden. They only care if they can get something out of it(this is why they pretended to care about what Al Franken was accused of doing)

But as to your question: the signaling of the virtue is always the easy part. It's easy for them to cry about the climate. Practicing what they preach has never been their strong suit.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Environmental issues are a first world problem, caused by the first world, need sorting by the first world.

Originally posted by cdtm
Because they're not being asked to sacrifice anything. They're getting angry over OTHER people not wanting to sacrifice something.



And a lot of environmental policy is a sham to oppress developing nations anyways. They depend on cheap coal power to build up their economies, and the world powers don't WANT them to build an economy, because that would threaten their cushy spots in the status quo.


China would never have built themselves into the power house they are if they followed environmental guidelines.

Originally posted by Artol
Fake and Fairweather Environmentalists
I think a lot of people care only as long as it doesn't affect them too much. And certainly some people enjoy being seen as environmentally friendly and passionate about the environment without having to do anything. I do think a lot of people that say they care about the environment do try to limit their impact to a degree as well, and I think that is true across the aisle.

Limits of Personal Ability
However what you can do yourself is limited in two ways, first because you are only one part of the bigger ecosystem and if all your neighbors and all the other people don't do anything, you will still be affected by the destruction of the environment. Secondly the destruction of the environment is very unequally skewed. We often hear about how China and first world countries are responsible for the vast majority of emissions (certainly historically), but it is skewed in within these countries as well. Most Americans are much more environmentally friendly than a few of the very richest Americans and certainly the biggest companies (who are also owned by certain people, which you could feasible allot some of the blame for the emissions to)

Neessity of Systemic Solutions
Those factors make it necessary that environmental protection comes from a system place. The personal is important, and it is great, but unless our governments, and our companies mandate that pollution and the destruction of the environment stops it is at best a drop in the bucket.

Originally posted by cdtm
Because they're not being asked to sacrifice anything. They're getting angry over OTHER people not wanting to sacrifice something.



And a lot of environmental policy is a sham to oppress developing nations anyways. They depend on cheap coal power to build up their economies, and the world powers don't WANT them to build an economy, because that would threaten their cushy spots in the status quo.


China would never have built themselves into the power house they are if they followed environmental guidelines.

That is a very good point as well, global solutions to environmental destruction should include compensation for developing nations who a) were and are exploited for their environment and b) do not have the ability to develop the way rich nations have. Something like development aid with the requirement of environmental protection could be a way to approach it.

Originally posted by Artol


Limits of Personal Ability
However what you can do yourself is limited in two ways, first because you are only one part of the bigger ecosystem and if all your neighbors and all the other people don't do anything, you will still be affected by the destruction of the environment. Secondly the destruction of the environment is very unequally skewed. We often hear about how China and first world countries are responsible for the vast majority of emissions (certainly historically), but it is skewed in within these countries as well. Most Americans are much more environmentally friendly than a few of the very richest Americans and certainly the biggest companies (who are also owned by certain people, which you could feasible allot some of the blame for the emissions to)

I'm still waiting for Greta Thunberg to visit China and go scream at Xi.

In all seriousness though, I feel like at the very least if you're a rich celebrity you should either not talk about climate change or avoid the whole "flying around in private jets" thing.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
https://i.imgur.com/PCDjCi0.jpg

Originally posted by Surtur
That pisses me off. Canada is beating us?

Megawatt hours

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Environmental issues are a first world problem, caused by the first world, need sorting by the first world.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
https://i.imgur.com/PCDjCi0.jpg

Originally posted by Flyattractor
No. Its because China is a True Lefty Utopia that Blesses the Surface of the Earth......

It's a first world problem, having stable electricity is a third world problem.

Originally posted by cdtm
Because they're not being asked to sacrifice anything. They're getting angry over OTHER people not wanting to sacrifice something.



And a lot of environmental policy is a sham to oppress developing nations anyways. They depend on cheap coal power to build up their economies, and the world powers don't WANT them to build an economy, because that would threaten their cushy spots in the status quo.


China would never have built themselves into the power house they are if they followed environmental guidelines. Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Damn good post.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Could be a multitude of reasons. A lot of people rent or live in apartment buildings so there will be much less scope for doing their own modifications to their household beyond insulation or changing to an energy supplier that uses clean generation.

Those who do own their own home but might have restrictions on planning/zoning. (I had this issue with trying to upgrade my father's house after he passed away. He lived in a 400 year old "bothy" that had historic significance so getting permits for some of the upgrades was nigh on impossible)

Money might be another factor. A lot of green options aren't very cheap depending on where you live. Solar panels in the UK no longer get subsidised so may not be worth it as the savings over the lifetime of the installation may not cover the initial costs.

For some people a collectivist method is the only viable option and that's usually done via taxation. Although I have seen it done more locally. My friend lives on a street where one of his neighbours convinced the street to collectively buy a wind turbine that now provides all their electricity and allows them to sell a little back to the grid. Apparently the hoops you have to jump through to do this don't really help in it becoming more common though.

China is below the UK

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
China is below the UK Average per capita earnings in China is only $4,000 per year also.

Originally posted by Badabing
Average per capita earnings in China is only $4,000 per year also. exactly!