Comment by eastbound
1 day ago
We’ve succeeded to make people vote for the fight against global warming, which clearly says people have to reduce their lifestyle, so I think there can be enough audience to make this topic the platform of one party.
1 day ago
We’ve succeeded to make people vote for the fight against global warming, which clearly says people have to reduce their lifestyle, so I think there can be enough audience to make this topic the platform of one party.
Have we? I don't recall that option ever being on the ballot in the US.
Well, one party’s stated solution for high oil imports was not to reduce consumption but rather “drill baby, drill!”
Inefficient regulation also incentivizes car companies to make larger less efficient vehicles because they can’t make the smaller ones efficient enough. And the public has no problem buying enormous vehicles… (Doesn’t everyone need an off road extended cab 4x4 truck for commuting to the office?)
Frankly, I do feel there is a segment that seems to over focus on conservation to the point of impracticality.
However, the “single use” consumption has got to end. I don’t even see the debate here. Plastic lids, styrofoam containers, gotta go. Maybe not outright ban, but the culture has to change. Ordered a pastry in a bakery — clerk put it into a large styrofoam container, inch thick stack of napkins, plastic grocery bag, plastic fork/knife.
Unfortunately I was eating it there… All that waste for one pastry baked there?
On the other hand, I wonder if Amazon is the devil we assume. If I drive my car around town to get a few items, maybe it’s more fuel efficient to just have them delivered with others’ ?
> Well, one party’s stated solution for high oil imports was not to reduce consumption but rather “drill baby, drill!”
It's important to note that the other party's response to that was "Who says we don't want to drill!?" followed by a disaster in the Gulf of Mexico (or "America" I think we're supposed to say now.)
It's never on the ballot unless it truly does not matter to anyone with any power.
1 reply →
> Well, one party’s stated solution for high oil imports was not to reduce consumption but rather “drill baby, drill!”
The idiotic lie here is that the US doesn’t really have the right refinement plants to handle US based oil, so they have to swap oil with other countries who do. Building out new refinement plants isn’t easy or quick, yet would be necessary to actually reduce oil imports and become self sufficient.
This is not a serious conversation. One party pays lip service while simultaneously trying to appease people who want lower gas prices by approving more drilling and pumping, seemingly assuming we can somehow entrepreneurship our way out of the pit we're digging ourselves. The other side actively wants to drive us off a cliff. No candidate for president in either party has ever offered even a serious evaluation about the threat global warming poses our way of life.
1 reply →