do you know anyone in this affluent area that has altered their lifestyle to reduce CO2 emissions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also believe in history - the ice has been receding for thousands of years. Most of the U.S. was buried in ice. One OCD individual cannot stop it. That my dear is delusional IMO.

By your logic, the action of any individual is pointless if it runs contrary to the actions of most other members of society.

If one believes in this bleak logic, then any social change is impossible. Society is simply frozen in place.

I don't share your bleak view.

We don't talk about stopping hurricanes. We simply prepare for them. I think what's bleak is the lack of any acceptance of what preparations are needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also believe in history - the ice has been receding for thousands of years. Most of the U.S. was buried in ice. One OCD individual cannot stop it. That my dear is delusional IMO.

By your logic, the action of any individual is pointless if it runs contrary to the actions of most other members of society.

If one believes in this bleak logic, then any social change is impossible. Society is simply frozen in place.

I don't share your bleak view.

We don't talk about stopping hurricanes. We simply prepare for them. I think what's bleak is the lack of any acceptance of what preparations are needed.

NP--We actually DO talk about mitigating the impact of hurricanes through reducing our impact on the warming of the planet. Sure, we need to prepare, and tens of millions of individuals choosing to reduce their impact would be an enormous contribution to that preparation.

The 'one person can't make a difference argument' is deeply flawed in ways that should be obvious to intelligent people. One person can't run a large corporation. One athlete can't win a sports competition. One soldier can't win a battle. That doesn't stop many groups of people from choosing to act together to make things happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also believe in history - the ice has been receding for thousands of years. Most of the U.S. was buried in ice. One OCD individual cannot stop it. That my dear is delusional IMO.

By your logic, the action of any individual is pointless if it runs contrary to the actions of most other members of society.

If one believes in this bleak logic, then any social change is impossible. Society is simply frozen in place.

I don't share your bleak view.

We don't talk about stopping hurricanes. We simply prepare for them. I think what's bleak is the lack of any acceptance of what preparations are needed.

NP--We actually DO talk about mitigating the impact of hurricanes through reducing our impact on the warming of the planet. Sure, we need to prepare, and tens of millions of individuals choosing to reduce their impact would be an enormous contribution to that preparation.

The 'one person can't make a difference argument' is deeply flawed in ways that should be obvious to intelligent people. One person can't run a large corporation. One athlete can't win a sports competition. One soldier can't win a battle. That doesn't stop many groups of people from choosing to act together to make things happen.

Thank you for such a great rebuttal of the "one person can't make a difference argument". I like the examples you give above. Very helpful for motivating folks to begin working on reducing CO2, despite the fact that the problem is so huge compared to the size our our individual lives and our individual carbon footprints. We still have time to blunt the edge of climate change if people start to believe that their individual efforts can make a difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also believe in history - the ice has been receding for thousands of years. Most of the U.S. was buried in ice. One OCD individual cannot stop it. That my dear is delusional IMO.

By your logic, the action of any individual is pointless if it runs contrary to the actions of most other members of society.

If one believes in this bleak logic, then any social change is impossible. Society is simply frozen in place.

I don't share your bleak view.

We don't talk about stopping hurricanes. We simply prepare for them. I think what's bleak is the lack of any acceptance of what preparations are needed.

NP--We actually DO talk about mitigating the impact of hurricanes through reducing our impact on the warming of the planet. Sure, we need to prepare, and tens of millions of individuals choosing to reduce their impact would be an enormous contribution to that preparation.

The 'one person can't make a difference argument' is deeply flawed in ways that should be obvious to intelligent people. One person can't run a large corporation. One athlete can't win a sports competition. One soldier can't win a battle. That doesn't stop many groups of people from choosing to act together to make things happen.

This is true, but still -- and I say this as someone who has made a lot of of changes to my own life for climate reasons (installed solar panels, heat pumps and a rain barrel, bought an electric vehicle, commuting by bike or Metro almost exclusively) -- it is also true that none of those changes will actually make any real difference on their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also believe in history - the ice has been receding for thousands of years. Most of the U.S. was buried in ice. One OCD individual cannot stop it. That my dear is delusional IMO.

By your logic, the action of any individual is pointless if it runs contrary to the actions of most other members of society.

If one believes in this bleak logic, then any social change is impossible. Society is simply frozen in place.

I don't share your bleak view.

We don't talk about stopping hurricanes. We simply prepare for them. I think what's bleak is the lack of any acceptance of what preparations are needed.

NP--We actually DO talk about mitigating the impact of hurricanes through reducing our impact on the warming of the planet. Sure, we need to prepare, and tens of millions of individuals choosing to reduce their impact would be an enormous contribution to that preparation.

The 'one person can't make a difference argument' is deeply flawed in ways that should be obvious to intelligent people. One person can't run a large corporation. One athlete can't win a sports competition. One soldier can't win a battle. That doesn't stop many groups of people from choosing to act together to make things happen.

This is true, but still -- and I say this as someone who has made a lot of of changes to my own life for climate reasons (installed solar panels, heat pumps and a rain barrel, bought an electric vehicle, commuting by bike or Metro almost exclusively) -- it is also true that none of those changes will actually make any real difference on their own.

I'm curious if you have calculated your carbon footprint before and after the various lifestyle changes that you implemented. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you reduced your carbon by 50%. This demonstrates that an individual can indeed have a big impact on their own footprint. And since the aggregate footprint is simply the sum of our individual footprints, this suggests that a widespread CO2-reduction effort by most individuals and households could indeed have a non-trivial impact on aggregate emissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also believe in history - the ice has been receding for thousands of years. Most of the U.S. was buried in ice. One OCD individual cannot stop it. That my dear is delusional IMO.

By your logic, the action of any individual is pointless if it runs contrary to the actions of most other members of society.

If one believes in this bleak logic, then any social change is impossible. Society is simply frozen in place.

I don't share your bleak view.

We don't talk about stopping hurricanes. We simply prepare for them. I think what's bleak is the lack of any acceptance of what preparations are needed.

NP--We actually DO talk about mitigating the impact of hurricanes through reducing our impact on the warming of the planet. Sure, we need to prepare, and tens of millions of individuals choosing to reduce their impact would be an enormous contribution to that preparation.

The 'one person can't make a difference argument' is deeply flawed in ways that should be obvious to intelligent people. One person can't run a large corporation. One athlete can't win a sports competition. One soldier can't win a battle. That doesn't stop many groups of people from choosing to act together to make things happen.

This is true, but still -- and I say this as someone who has made a lot of of changes to my own life for climate reasons (installed solar panels, heat pumps and a rain barrel, bought an electric vehicle, commuting by bike or Metro almost exclusively) -- it is also true that none of those changes will actually make any real difference on their own.

I'm curious if you have calculated your carbon footprint before and after the various lifestyle changes that you implemented. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you reduced your carbon by 50%. This demonstrates that an individual can indeed have a big impact on their own footprint. And since the aggregate footprint is simply the sum of our individual footprints, this suggests that a widespread CO2-reduction effort by most individuals and households could indeed have a non-trivial impact on aggregate emissions.

I haven’t calculated any of that, though I’m sure our household emissions are lower than they’d be otherwise. But all or most individuals aren’t going to do all that — and even if we did, the effect would still be insignificant compared to industrial and corporate-related emissions. I’m all for doing whatever we can to help. I just am also realistic enough to know that it won’t be anywhere near enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In North Arlington, my wife and I feel like we are completely alone in our efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. We have just one car that we use sparingly, and we use bicycles for our local errands. We keep our thermostat at 65F in the winter (and wear sweaters) and 79F in the summer, using ceiling fans to make the bedrooms more comfortable. We greatly limit our international and domestic travel. We eat mostly vegetarian meals, and we never eat beef.

All of our neighbors have multiple large SUVs, and many neighbors have knocked their 2000 square foot houses down and replaced them with 5000 square foot homes. Some neighbors with 5000 square foot homes have only 1 child, so they don't truly need a huge living space. Many neighbors drive to work in their SUV without any other passengers to accompany them. They go on multiple international vacations a year (lots of CO2 per flight). Huge amounts of garbage are generated each week and placed on the curb, presumably to make way for yet more stuff that they are buying for their homes -- stuff that will probably end up on the curbside, destined for the landfill, a year or two down the road.

I've posted my frustrations in the "car and transport" section of this forum, only to be told by other posters that I'm jealous of my neighbor's SUVs and large homes. Despite a high level of education among DCUM posters, most don't appear concerned about the consequences of their consumerism, and can't even conceive of a high-income family exercising some restraint.

We are, in fact, a high net worth family, but we are striving to reduce our carbon footprint. We feel completely alone, like strangers in a foreign country. I'm curious if anybody else here feels the same way.

No none cares. And with good reason -- your sacrifice -- while perhaps noble ---- matters not a bit. And if everyone in Arlington did like you it would not matter -- and the same for the entire US. The issues are largely China and India. We contribute and if they cut back we could I suppose and maybe but not likely there would be some impact. There will be solutions but they are not driving less or keeping the temp in your house uncomfortable. There is really no reason right now to reduce your footprint. That is not what will solve the issues we have. It is a little like disinfecting your take out and groceries at the start of the pandemic. It may make you feel better but did not matter (maybe hurt?). Yet lots of people did it and some still do. We solve this by continued investment in wind and solar, massive expansion of nuclear, and breakthroughs in battery technology that are probably 20 years away. Not by being extra hot or cold or drive less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also believe in history - the ice has been receding for thousands of years. Most of the U.S. was buried in ice. One OCD individual cannot stop it. That my dear is delusional IMO.

By your logic, the action of any individual is pointless if it runs contrary to the actions of most other members of society.

If one believes in this bleak logic, then any social change is impossible. Society is simply frozen in place.

I don't share your bleak view.

We don't talk about stopping hurricanes. We simply prepare for them. I think what's bleak is the lack of any acceptance of what preparations are needed.

The actions of any individual often matter. But here you follow the science and they just do not. Sometimes a million small steps get you to your goal. But not here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also believe in history - the ice has been receding for thousands of years. Most of the U.S. was buried in ice. One OCD individual cannot stop it. That my dear is delusional IMO.

By your logic, the action of any individual is pointless if it runs contrary to the actions of most other members of society.

If one believes in this bleak logic, then any social change is impossible. Society is simply frozen in place.

I don't share your bleak view.

We don't talk about stopping hurricanes. We simply prepare for them. I think what's bleak is the lack of any acceptance of what preparations are needed.

NP--We actually DO talk about mitigating the impact of hurricanes through reducing our impact on the warming of the planet. Sure, we need to prepare, and tens of millions of individuals choosing to reduce their impact would be an enormous contribution to that preparation.

The 'one person can't make a difference argument' is deeply flawed in ways that should be obvious to intelligent people. One person can't run a large corporation. One athlete can't win a sports competition. One soldier can't win a battle. That doesn't stop many groups of people from choosing to act together to make things happen.

This is true, but still -- and I say this as someone who has made a lot of of changes to my own life for climate reasons (installed solar panels, heat pumps and a rain barrel, bought an electric vehicle, commuting by bike or Metro almost exclusively) -- it is also true that none of those changes will actually make any real difference on their own.

I'm curious if you have calculated your carbon footprint before and after the various lifestyle changes that you implemented. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you reduced your carbon by 50%. This demonstrates that an individual can indeed have a big impact on their own footprint. And since the aggregate footprint is simply the sum of our individual footprints, this suggests that a widespread CO2-reduction effort by most individuals and households could indeed have a non-trivial impact on aggregate emissions.

I haven’t calculated any of that, though I’m sure our household emissions are lower than they’d be otherwise. But all or most individuals aren’t going to do all that — and even if we did, the effect would still be insignificant compared to industrial and corporate-related emissions. I’m all for doing whatever we can to help. I just am also realistic enough to know that it won’t be anywhere near enough.

This is the key point that should, to borrow a phrase, be obvious to intelligent people. Even if every single person reduced their carbon footprint by 50%, it's a very small drop in a very large bucket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also believe in history - the ice has been receding for thousands of years. Most of the U.S. was buried in ice. One OCD individual cannot stop it. That my dear is delusional IMO.

By your logic, the action of any individual is pointless if it runs contrary to the actions of most other members of society.

If one believes in this bleak logic, then any social change is impossible. Society is simply frozen in place.

I don't share your bleak view.

We don't talk about stopping hurricanes. We simply prepare for them. I think what's bleak is the lack of any acceptance of what preparations are needed.

NP--We actually DO talk about mitigating the impact of hurricanes through reducing our impact on the warming of the planet. Sure, we need to prepare, and tens of millions of individuals choosing to reduce their impact would be an enormous contribution to that preparation.

The 'one person can't make a difference argument' is deeply flawed in ways that should be obvious to intelligent people. One person can't run a large corporation. One athlete can't win a sports competition. One soldier can't win a battle. That doesn't stop many groups of people from choosing to act together to make things happen.

Good lord. Not only have you come up with ridiculous analogies that ignore the fundamental science involved, you are snotty about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also believe in history - the ice has been receding for thousands of years. Most of the U.S. was buried in ice. One OCD individual cannot stop it. That my dear is delusional IMO.

By your logic, the action of any individual is pointless if it runs contrary to the actions of most other members of society.

If one believes in this bleak logic, then any social change is impossible. Society is simply frozen in place.

I don't share your bleak view.

We don't talk about stopping hurricanes. We simply prepare for them. I think what's bleak is the lack of any acceptance of what preparations are needed.

NP--We actually DO talk about mitigating the impact of hurricanes through reducing our impact on the warming of the planet. Sure, we need to prepare, and tens of millions of individuals choosing to reduce their impact would be an enormous contribution to that preparation.

The 'one person can't make a difference argument' is deeply flawed in ways that should be obvious to intelligent people. One person can't run a large corporation. One athlete can't win a sports competition. One soldier can't win a battle. That doesn't stop many groups of people from choosing to act together to make things happen.

This is true, but still -- and I say this as someone who has made a lot of of changes to my own life for climate reasons (installed solar panels, heat pumps and a rain barrel, bought an electric vehicle, commuting by bike or Metro almost exclusively) -- it is also true that none of those changes will actually make any real difference on their own.

I'm curious if you have calculated your carbon footprint before and after the various lifestyle changes that you implemented. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you reduced your carbon by 50%. This demonstrates that an individual can indeed have a big impact on their own footprint. And since the aggregate footprint is simply the sum of our individual footprints, this suggests that a widespread CO2-reduction effort by most individuals and households could indeed have a non-trivial impact on aggregate emissions.

I haven’t calculated any of that, though I’m sure our household emissions are lower than they’d be otherwise. But all or most individuals aren’t going to do all that — and even if we did, the effect would still be insignificant compared to industrial and corporate-related emissions. I’m all for doing whatever we can to help. I just am also realistic enough to know that it won’t be anywhere near enough.

This is the key point that should, to borrow a phrase, be obvious to intelligent people. Even if every single person reduced their carbon footprint by 50%, it's a very small drop in a very large bucket.

I'm the PP you're replying to -- I should add, I do still believe in contributing that very small drop in the very large bucket -- it's not a hardship to me, and there's no reason NOT to do something that marginally helps rather than something that marginally hurts. It's just that no one who's doing any of this should pretend that it's enough on its own without massive policy changes at national and international levels, too.

[Anonymous]

No none cares. And with good reason -- your sacrifice -- while perhaps noble ---- matters not a bit. And if everyone in Arlington did like you it would not matter -- and the same for the entire US. The issues are largely China and India. We contribute and if they cut back we could I suppose and maybe but not likely there would be some impact. There will be solutions but they are not driving less or keeping the temp in your house uncomfortable. There is really no reason right now to reduce your footprint. That is not what will solve the issues we have. It is a little like disinfecting your take out and groceries at the start of the pandemic. It may make you feel better but did not matter (maybe hurt?). Yet lots of people did it and some still do. We solve this by continued investment in wind and solar, massive expansion of nuclear, and breakthroughs in battery technology that are probably 20 years away. Not by being extra hot or cold or drive less.

In regard to China and India, much of what is produced in those countries is exported to the West. So a sizable portion of their emissions is associated with our consumption. I've seen estimates that about half of the U.S. carbon footprint is in the form of "embodied CO2" that is associated with our imports. In short, reduction of our consumption here in the U.S. could lead to less CO2 produced in China and India.

On a separate but related point: several prior posts mention that household CO2 is small relative to CO2 produced by industry, and, consequently, reductions in household CO2 can't have much impact. However, households are the ultimate destination for "final" goods. Without household consumption, industry would have no customers to serve. This means that downward adjustments of household consumption can have a downward impact on industrial CO2. This may lead to a smaller GDP -- or slower GDP growth -- but this is a worthwhile price to pay to reduce the effects of climate change.

One final thought: if we want to maintain our high consumption levels while simultaneously reducing emissions, I think the only way forward is to massively ramp-up our nuclear power production. So if you are an individual who believes that lowering consumption is pointless, and that household-level attempts to reduce CO2 are a waste of time, then perhaps you still help fight climate change by pushing leaders to expand our nuclear power production.

[Anonymous]

I really don't think about it. Some people have turned it into a moral game, the modern version of the cardinal sins. My attitude towards anything with quasi-religious followings is to shrug and just get on with life. We are not extravagant but we live well. I have no intention of regressing into some sort of stone age lifestyle to make the ideological happy because I also know no matter what I do, it will also never be good enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In North Arlington, my wife and I feel like we are completely alone in our efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. We have just one car that we use sparingly, and we use bicycles for our local errands. We keep our thermostat at 65F in the winter (and wear sweaters) and 79F in the summer, using ceiling fans to make the bedrooms more comfortable. We greatly limit our international and domestic travel. We eat mostly vegetarian meals, and we never eat beef.

All of our neighbors have multiple large SUVs, and many neighbors have knocked their 2000 square foot houses down and replaced them with 5000 square foot homes. Some neighbors with 5000 square foot homes have only 1 child, so they don't truly need a huge living space. Many neighbors drive to work in their SUV without any other passengers to accompany them. They go on multiple international vacations a year (lots of CO2 per flight). Huge amounts of garbage are generated each week and placed on the curb, presumably to make way for yet more stuff that they are buying for their homes -- stuff that will probably end up on the curbside, destined for the landfill, a year or two down the road.

I've posted my frustrations in the "car and transport" section of this forum, only to be told by other posters that I'm jealous of my neighbor's SUVs and large homes. Despite a high level of education among DCUM posters, most don't appear concerned about the consequences of their consumerism, and can't even conceive of a high-income family exercising some restraint.

We are, in fact, a high net worth family, but we are striving to reduce our carbon footprint. We feel completely alone, like strangers in a foreign country. I'm curious if anybody else here feels the same way.

We have started eating bugs to make the weather stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also believe in history - the ice has been receding for thousands of years. Most of the U.S. was buried in ice. One OCD individual cannot stop it. That my dear is delusional IMO.

By your logic, the action of any individual is pointless if it runs contrary to the actions of most other members of society.

If one believes in this bleak logic, then any social change is impossible. Society is simply frozen in place.

I don't share your bleak view.

We don't talk about stopping hurricanes. We simply prepare for them. I think what's bleak is the lack of any acceptance of what preparations are needed.

NP--We actually DO talk about mitigating the impact of hurricanes through reducing our impact on the warming of the planet. Sure, we need to prepare, and tens of millions of individuals choosing to reduce their impact would be an enormous contribution to that preparation.

The 'one person can't make a difference argument' is deeply flawed in ways that should be obvious to intelligent people. One person can't run a large corporation. One athlete can't win a sports competition. One soldier can't win a battle. That doesn't stop many groups of people from choosing to act together to make things happen.

This is true, but still -- and I say this as someone who has made a lot of of changes to my own life for climate reasons (installed solar panels, heat pumps and a rain barrel, bought an electric vehicle, commuting by bike or Metro almost exclusively) -- it is also true that none of those changes will actually make any real difference on their own.

I'm curious if you have calculated your carbon footprint before and after the various lifestyle changes that you implemented. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you reduced your carbon by 50%. This demonstrates that an individual can indeed have a big impact on their own footprint. And since the aggregate footprint is simply the sum of our individual footprints, this suggests that a widespread CO2-reduction effort by most individuals and households could indeed have a non-trivial impact on aggregate emissions.

But the aggregate impact also includes the impact of corporations, organizations and governments. So policy change is needed too.
Along with individual choices facilitated by climate-friendly policies.