@@EnterJustice no. Climate taxes favors the rich. The rich don't care as they already are at the general maximum of spending. The poor would spend every penny more in their pockets instantly. But if you take a few more pennies they stop buying home made products and they start buying cheap products that are extra bad for the economy. At the current state what climate taxes are is milking a dead cow. And let's be honest. For everyone who isn't murrican there is no difference between Reps and Dems. At the end the Dems will also favor the rich as they are paying rich people to advise them and they one day want to have a safe break in one of those "Think Tanks" (are those tanks named after that one thing they never do?). Well...or their families get a place in those companies.
And so deeply unrealistic of what a US president can and can't do. A 1 gigaton emission reduction has gargantuan consequences. The things on the top of the list as stuff a president can do as litte about as voters' lovesickness.
I know few people from my wider surroundings who always talks about climate or enviroment. None of them do as they preach. All of them have cellphones, cars, go on vaccations with airplanes, use plastics... in general they are no less "evil" for the climate than me or you. What they do seem to like is the "moral high ground", the pat on back, post on social media about how good they are, they like to tell others what not to do or attack rights of others under the banner of "greater good". I guess there are people who really care about the climate but i think the majority of those people are simply posers or individuals who like to shout at others. You see, in order to achieve their goal, they need you or to be precise, they need to get rid of your way of life and after that the better people can continue to enjoy everything like before. Or why exactly the most rich people can always avoid any inconvenience it brings.
Phone and plastic use have virtually no climate effect. Travel does, about 1/10 of emissions come from that, but only in total travel. Air transport is about 3%, but it is neither vacation trips (most don't have many vacations), nor billionaires zipping around (they travel a lot, but there are very few billionaires). Most important group is the frequent flyers, they are many and travel a lot. Similar for cars, "superusers" are making the most miles. Housing matters (to build, but mostly to heat and cool), food too (but nobody likes being told what to eat). Shifting power away from coal plants matters a lot, as does shifting from gas to electricity. "Green behaviour" is not important, the things that really matter are on an industrial level.
@@jaxvoice718Phone and plastic consumption is a significant driving factor to anthropogenic climate change. Because they both cause enormous amounts of manufacturing, and so electricity use, especially in factories and data centers. The majority of that electricity is generated with fossil fuels.
@@irtnyc Neither are even close to being significant to climate change. If we add up the entire IT and communication sector, that phones are a part of, it adds up to 1% to 3% of total emissions. You could worry, as you should, that this sector will keep growing, as it will. However its impact will not grow. Data centres could be considered machines that turn electricity into heat and cat videos. The heat is low-quality, but still usable, heat. New power generation is almost exclusively renewable globally, legacy power is of course largely fossil, but these fade out. Likewise component production is fast getting cleaner. Plastics is more complicated. A third of total emissions come from oil, mostly burnt as fuel in transport, only a sixth isn't burnt and goes to products like plastics. Plastics in turn don't have to use fossil oil as raw material, but as long as this is cheapest, it will. It has other environmental consequences, e.g. much of your garbage is likely to be plastics that should be disposed of properly, but for the climate your consumption won't matter. For normal people that would basically boil down to where you live, how you travel, and what you eat. And sure, you could live in a house of straw, on a diet of carrots and bananas, and jolly well for you if you do, but it would not really make any impact. Steel and concrete, anything weighing more than you do, anything that burns or sucks way more energy than a battery-powered device, or is particularly nasty, that will make a difference.
Climate change is natural thing in past Sahara was lush farmland, we only need adept to changes and do not end as bronze age civilisation that collapsed to droughts that last 50+ years
The climate change experienced during the Bronze Age, while severe, only lasted 100 or so years. The climate change we are experiencing right now affects much more of the world and it will not get any better. Right now is the best the climate will be for the 10,000 years. And it will only get worse.
Obviously the climate changes constantly, but not as fast as it's currently changing, except during mass extinctions. Shut up and listen to the climate scientists who actually know what they're talking about.
@@nathangamble125 It is happening world-wide, we reached global peak birth in 2012, but over such a long timescale that it can be handled with other means. By prognosis we will reach peak population in 2082, and about same population in 2200 as in 2000 (or maybe a little earlier).
@@jaxvoice718 yeah. The US will take care that this won't happen in their borders by starting a war every decade. In China no one cares if a sack of rice falls down. In India they anyway rape and murder everyone who isn't fast enough on a tree. In Africa they start civil wars and murder everyone they think is a little different. In south America they have gang wars and dictatorships to keep the population in check. It clears itself natural. Btw. it already does and did for ever. In Africa people were always starving and...China has a shrinking population. So it's just India and 2 other continents. Btw...if we would do good agriculture we could feed enough people for centuries.
Sure we do. But in Germany we had 3 years of Green and Red (economical and social) and all we have seen was selfish embezzlement. I would expect that from the yellow (liberals) but the two parties that always talks high morals? So...detailed fixing and fair share of costs does not work. So better...cut the tax and we go under happy...saying this feels like being a musician of the Titanic. btw the detailed fixing also doesn't work as one or two countries alone can't counter what countries like China, India or entire Africa does. And you can't convince anyone with high morals when their people are starving. And when trying to force any of those countries...our wealth comes from those countries. A part of our wealth is "mistreating" the Chinese and Asian markets and using Africa as a junkyard.
There is a long time lag, especially in Germany, a NIMBY superpower. Everything, including new policies, takes longer time in Germany. From an outside Swedish view, you are on the right track, you just should have started earlier and moved faster.
First off I am on your side. However, I am going to criticize this video. It's offensive and probably counterproductive. At times, the speaker comes across as arrogant. Regarding anthropogenic climate change: Many voters don't care. It's not even a top ten issue. Many voters will vote against anyone talking about it. Lastly, many people disbelieve there is a problem with the climate. Separately, it is both a scientific and rhetorical mistake to link or conflate "climate change" and "the environment" the way the speaker is doing in this video. These are entirely separate issues. For example if you ask a conservative Republican in Texas, is it OK to spend money on windmills so we don't destroy the atmosphere/climate they'll say: fuck you, Drill baby drill. If you ask the same person, is it OK if the factory you work at poisons your drinking water, and your children get brain tumors, and your grandchildren have birth defects... it hits different. Lastly, this is not a US domestic political issue. The way you are talking about "Republicans" is wrong and bad. That's not the name of the problem. The way you can tell this is true is because there are only about 100,000,000 Republicans in the world which is about 1.25% of the human population of earth and less than one billionth of the mammals. For example there are more deer on this planet than Republicans in the United States.
My issue is a vacuum left where there used to be cute young girls which were actually my real concern with climate change. There is no need to try to save a world without them. They were the reason to save the world in the first place.
It's pretty hard to give a damn when we can barely afford groceries.
"climate taxes" have the opposite effect of what politicians think they do.
They don't. They have exactly the impact politicians, who are essentially on the payroll of lobbyists, want them to have.
@@EnterJustice no. Climate taxes favors the rich.
The rich don't care as they already are at the general maximum of spending.
The poor would spend every penny more in their pockets instantly. But if you take a few more pennies they stop buying home made products and they start buying cheap products that are extra bad for the economy.
At the current state what climate taxes are is milking a dead cow.
And let's be honest. For everyone who isn't murrican there is no difference between Reps and Dems. At the end the Dems will also favor the rich as they are paying rich people to advise them and they one day want to have a safe break in one of those "Think Tanks" (are those tanks named after that one thing they never do?). Well...or their families get a place in those companies.
voting rights and climate change being at the bottom of the list speaks to weird contrasts in todays world… old and young
Probably because both aren't really a big issue right now, compared with the other issues
And so deeply unrealistic of what a US president can and can't do. A 1 gigaton emission reduction has gargantuan consequences. The things on the top of the list as stuff a president can do as litte about as voters' lovesickness.
If starting with a faulty premise, it's amazing where seemingly logical argumentation can take one
What is the faulty premise?
Almost as if people percieve the inflation as a greenflation.
Hearing green talking points makes them think about inflation.
big NO
YES....just not very much
14%? Sounds about right
"Don't tell the Republicans" ??? You uploaded this to UA-cam.
I know few people from my wider surroundings who always talks about climate or enviroment. None of them do as they preach. All of them have cellphones, cars, go on vaccations with airplanes, use plastics... in general they are no less "evil" for the climate than me or you. What they do seem to like is the "moral high ground", the pat on back, post on social media about how good they are, they like to tell others what not to do or attack rights of others under the banner of "greater good". I guess there are people who really care about the climate but i think the majority of those people are simply posers or individuals who like to shout at others. You see, in order to achieve their goal, they need you or to be precise, they need to get rid of your way of life and after that the better people can continue to enjoy everything like before. Or why exactly the most rich people can always avoid any inconvenience it brings.
Phone and plastic use have virtually no climate effect. Travel does, about 1/10 of emissions come from that, but only in total travel. Air transport is about 3%, but it is neither vacation trips (most don't have many vacations), nor billionaires zipping around (they travel a lot, but there are very few billionaires). Most important group is the frequent flyers, they are many and travel a lot. Similar for cars, "superusers" are making the most miles.
Housing matters (to build, but mostly to heat and cool), food too (but nobody likes being told what to eat). Shifting power away from coal plants matters a lot, as does shifting from gas to electricity.
"Green behaviour" is not important, the things that really matter are on an industrial level.
@@jaxvoice718Phone and plastic consumption is a significant driving factor to anthropogenic climate change. Because they both cause enormous amounts of manufacturing, and so electricity use, especially in factories and data centers. The majority of that electricity is generated with fossil fuels.
@@irtnyc Neither are even close to being significant to climate change. If we add up the entire IT and communication sector, that phones are a part of, it adds up to 1% to 3% of total emissions. You could worry, as you should, that this sector will keep growing, as it will. However its impact will not grow. Data centres could be considered machines that turn electricity into heat and cat videos. The heat is low-quality, but still usable, heat. New power generation is almost exclusively renewable globally, legacy power is of course largely fossil, but these fade out. Likewise component production is fast getting cleaner.
Plastics is more complicated. A third of total emissions come from oil, mostly burnt as fuel in transport, only a sixth isn't burnt and goes to products like plastics. Plastics in turn don't have to use fossil oil as raw material, but as long as this is cheapest, it will. It has other environmental consequences, e.g. much of your garbage is likely to be plastics that should be disposed of properly, but for the climate your consumption won't matter. For normal people that would basically boil down to where you live, how you travel, and what you eat.
And sure, you could live in a house of straw, on a diet of carrots and bananas, and jolly well for you if you do, but it would not really make any impact. Steel and concrete, anything weighing more than you do, anything that burns or sucks way more energy than a battery-powered device, or is particularly nasty, that will make a difference.
Climate change is natural thing in past Sahara was lush farmland, we only need adept to changes and do not end as bronze age civilisation that collapsed to droughts that last 50+ years
The climate change experienced during the Bronze Age, while severe, only lasted 100 or so years. The climate change we are experiencing right now affects much more of the world and it will not get any better. Right now is the best the climate will be for the 10,000 years. And it will only get worse.
@@flyingpugs3678 We still cannot predict climate models error margins are higher than predicted change
Obviously the climate changes constantly, but not as fast as it's currently changing, except during mass extinctions. Shut up and listen to the climate scientists who actually know what they're talking about.
What is really scary is that nobody talks about a coming actual world-wide disaster - population collapse.
Because it's not happening world-wide. Duh.
@@nathangamble125 Nobody cares about 3rd world.
Maybe people don't see it as a world wide disaster. It is probably better that we reduce our population over 100yrs by 50% than add 50%
@@nathangamble125 It is happening world-wide, we reached global peak birth in 2012, but over such a long timescale that it can be handled with other means. By prognosis we will reach peak population in 2082, and about same population in 2200 as in 2000 (or maybe a little earlier).
@@jaxvoice718 yeah. The US will take care that this won't happen in their borders by starting a war every decade.
In China no one cares if a sack of rice falls down.
In India they anyway rape and murder everyone who isn't fast enough on a tree.
In Africa they start civil wars and murder everyone they think is a little different.
In south America they have gang wars and dictatorships to keep the population in check.
It clears itself natural. Btw. it already does and did for ever.
In Africa people were always starving and...China has a shrinking population.
So it's just India and 2 other continents.
Btw...if we would do good agriculture we could feed enough people for centuries.
Clean air and water are also republican values so no gain there..
Sure we do. But in Germany we had 3 years of Green and Red (economical and social) and all we have seen was selfish embezzlement. I would expect that from the yellow (liberals) but the two parties that always talks high morals?
So...detailed fixing and fair share of costs does not work. So better...cut the tax and we go under happy...saying this feels like being a musician of the Titanic.
btw the detailed fixing also doesn't work as one or two countries alone can't counter what countries like China, India or entire Africa does. And you can't convince anyone with high morals when their people are starving.
And when trying to force any of those countries...our wealth comes from those countries. A part of our wealth is "mistreating" the Chinese and Asian markets and using Africa as a junkyard.
There is a long time lag, especially in Germany, a NIMBY superpower. Everything, including new policies, takes longer time in Germany.
From an outside Swedish view, you are on the right track, you just should have started earlier and moved faster.
You are saying "um", way too often.
First off I am on your side. However, I am going to criticize this video. It's offensive and probably counterproductive. At times, the speaker comes across as arrogant.
Regarding anthropogenic climate change:
Many voters don't care. It's not even a top ten issue. Many voters will vote against anyone talking about it. Lastly, many people disbelieve there is a problem with the climate.
Separately, it is both a scientific and rhetorical mistake to link or conflate "climate change" and "the environment" the way the speaker is doing in this video. These are entirely separate issues.
For example if you ask a conservative Republican in Texas, is it OK to spend money on windmills so we don't destroy the atmosphere/climate they'll say: fuck you, Drill baby drill.
If you ask the same person, is it OK if the factory you work at poisons your drinking water, and your children get brain tumors, and your grandchildren have birth defects... it hits different.
Lastly, this is not a US domestic political issue. The way you are talking about "Republicans" is wrong and bad. That's not the name of the problem. The way you can tell this is true is because there are only about 100,000,000 Republicans in the world which is about 1.25% of the human population of earth and less than one billionth of the mammals.
For example there are more deer on this planet than Republicans in the United States.
I sure hope not.
Completely irrelevant grifting.
My issue is a vacuum left where there used to be cute young girls which were actually my real concern with climate change.
There is no need to try to save a world without them. They were the reason to save the world in the first place.