Tommy Siegel | Bluesky | website

Transcript

Comic in 4 Panels:

Header: It’s That Easy!

Panel 1: The year is 1994. A dad with short black hair, in a blue shirt, red shorts, and white sneakers with calf high white socks, kneels with one arm resting on a knee and the other raised demonstratingly in front of a kid in a green ball cap, yellow shirt, blue pants, and green sneakers. There is a round metal trash can behind them.

Dad: Pick up your litter and save the Earth!

Panel 2: The year is 2004. Same dad, but in brown cargo shorts, brown shoes, and ankle high white socks speaking to the same kid. There is a green recycle bucket behind them.

Dad: Recycle and you can save the Earth!

Panel 3: The year is 2014. Same dad, but wearing a bike helmet, black athletic pants, and black sneakers to the same kid. A bike is behind them.

Dad: Reduce your carbon footprint and you can save the Earth!

Panel 4: The year is 2024. Same dad, but he’s in the same outfit from panel 1. There is a massive fire behind them.

Dad: Completely restructure global economic systems and you may be able to save a remnant of humanity!

  • FishFace@piefed.socialEnglish
    0·
    18 days ago

    So in other words, the unnecessary actions of a very, very limited few alone consume nearly a third of the entire country’s use of a pretty basic comfort.

    I have absolutely no idea where you’re getting “nearly a third” from.

    No, the fact is reducing a portion of 7% of energy use (because again, we’re excluding health reasons and such which are ever more relevant in 40+C summers) will not have any noticeable impact on climate change. It just won’t.

    What is a sector that we should concentrate on? Presumably not private jets (100× less effective than AC) or aviation in general (commensurable, with AC perhaps somewhat less). You suggest meat, but livestock is about 4.2% of US emissions.

    Every time the topic of emissions come up, I’ll be right there with you saying we should be reducing our consumption of meat! But could you agree that the implication of this is that sectors which contribute 5 or so percent to emissions are actually important?

    I wanted to get more data about air conditioning usage in the US. From what I could find, AC is responsible for 8.6% of US energy demand, and that energy generation constitutes about 60% of US emissions, making AC responsible for 4.9% of US emissions.

    So, to me it looks like you’re saying that from an environmental standpoint we absolutely should criticise people for eating meat, but absolutely shouldn’t criticise people for using AC, when meat consumption is in the same ballpark in terms of how much it contributes, at least in the US.

    That doesn’t make sense to me given that, where I live (not in the US), AC is definitely not necessary for most people at home.