Lonan said:
You say that you shouldn't help out at your local soup kitchen because it's people in Africa need more help. That may be the case, but unless you go to Africa, it's all you've got. So I suggest you help out at that soup kitchen instead of saying that people thousands of kilometres from you have it even worse. First of all, the people in Africa are fine, they live like that. People like you are referred to as the "white elephant" because you go over there with you're shining armour and claim to have all the solutions to all of Africa's problems.
You did not get the point at all. It was an evaluation of your mindset on the topic using example that I reinforced later. Try and re-read it again if you care to carry on the conversation, because I can't think of a way to better explain it than I already did.
You say my mindset scares you. You're mindset terrifies me. You talk about "starting somewhere." The reality is that the western world needs to stop using everything right about now. If people realised how bad it really is they would be panicking and rioting on the streets. The idea of "starting somewhere" is a truly terrifying way of thinking. We need to be ending the whole greenhouse gas emissions thing very soon to avoid disaster, not "start somewhere."
Of course, because starting us down the track of stopping our excess use is terrible. We should of course wave the magical wand of wonder to eliminate all of our greenhouse gas emissions in one blow. Do you have any idea of what it takes to start a movement? It takes little steps, it takes "Starting Somewhere," even if that place is small. Look back to the Africa argument. Right now we have multiple charities that provide food to those who need it in Africa. How did these organizations get started? They took little steps and "Started somewhere."(I don't care how inefficient these systems are, that wasn't the point).
Every little bit helps yes, but the transportation sector AS A WHOLE accounts for less greenhouse gas warming potential than cattle flatulence.
We stop what we can at the time. Right now saying that we should stop the raising of large amounts of cows would go over worse than saying that for an hour a day we close the drive thru windows at McDonalds. We could eventually develop it to where it is permanently closed. That's the end goal. However, you have to keep in mind peoples mind sets and what they view as acceptable change. If you don't do this, you will never recruit anyone to your side.
Remember back when people were saying that you couldn't stop greenhouse gas emissions because you would have to shut down every car, every building, all electricity, and basically shut down the whole global economy? That's still true.
That's why we recognize that we have to do little bits, like closing down a drive thru for an hour. It's not all of it, but it does help. Even if the help is minuscule, it is still help. This you cannot deny.
Also, this argument directly contradicts an earlier argument you made. You said we need to end all of the greenhouse gas problem right now, yet you argue here that it would destroy all that we know. Sorry, I can't follow you on this.
There's still a level of risk even if emissions stop now. Species have already gone extinct because of global warming, (first in 1985, in Australia I think, the Golden Spotted Toad) and you want to complain about the greenhouse gas emissions of an operation on another continent.(oddly, Canada is on the same continent as the USA-Jboking) I heard this quote from Calvin and Hobbes "Do what you can, where you are, with what you have."
hum...you could possibly take a bit of your own advice. "Do what you can, where you are, with what you have." sounds an awful lot like taking little steps and starting somewhere.
You seem intent on complaining about something that absolutely will not stop, and will accomplish nothing by doing so.
Re-read that again, I have an empirical example of Stake and Shake doing this, so it can happen. They already close down their drive through for an hour. It's entirely possible to follow through with the plan and stop tons of gasses from being released. As I said earlier, it will lower the emissions, so it is doing something.
Or you good rally your community to make some real reductions in their energy consumption, which will hopefully catch the attention of more and more people, and will hopefully inspire them to do what you're doing.Or you can say "every little bit helps" and attack the miniscule pollution from one operation on another continent. I guarantee you that any American power plant emits more than the oilsands, a collosal operation employing thousands of people. You are mistaken if you think that it will be easier to get Canada to reduce it's emissions through than the United States. I'm really starting to think we should fuck the whole western world and make a trade union with China.
Rally my community to make some real reductions. Where would you suggest these reductions come from? You seem intent on criticizing my ideas but provide damn near non of your own.
Would you like me to get my government to sign the kyoto protocol? We already have people pushing for this. There is one problem though, and china can attest. The international protocol didn't work. China is still producing near the same amount of greenhouse gasses because the companies the protocol are directed at are finding ways around it. We've revised it. They found a new way. What is it you recommend I do, oh god of knowledge?
Also, are you justifying the oilsands by saying that there is something out there that is bigger. That's a logical fallacy. Just because there is a bigger problem somewhere doesn't give you the right to continue making your own. We've been over this.
So you know what? I'll do what I know I can do. I'll stop what I'm causing. If that's wrong, I would like to know why.
You claim that I should quit looking at how others can solve the problem and I have two things to say to you. One, when you look at the US people and say how we should rally to stop all of this,
you are doing the exact thing you criticize. Two, I am looking at how I can solve the problem. That's why I'm limiting my emissions to the best of my ability and stopping drive-thru windows is a part of my ability.
Clearly though, your line of thought is that if it isn't a
giant change, then it wasn't worth making. I say this is dangerous because everyone can look at their aerosol can and say, "Oh well, this isn't a big deal. It isn't near as much of a problem of cow flatulence, I should just use it anyway." What happens when hundreds of millions of people think this way? It becomes a big problem. So we use the "Every little be counts" mentality to prevent larger problems.
