1154
take their money and arrest those responsible (feddit.org)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
264 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/1097575

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 3 months ago (7 children)

because not purchasing anything that is produced or transported with energy from fossil fuels means fucking off into the woods to starve to death naked in a hut made of mud and twigs

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    As if there is nothing in between "don't do anything" and "go live in the woods"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Exactly. Cutting out all net resource consumption is really difficult, but almost all of the difficulty tends to come in the second half. The first half is worth doing.

    Somewhat counterintuitively, switching from a 15 mpg vehicle to a 20 mpg vehicle (and driving the same number of miles) represents a greater reduction in fuel consumption compared to switching from 20 mpg to 30 mpg. Side note, this is also why we probably should've always been talking about fuel consumption per unit distance rather than distance per unit fuel, but it's hard to change the conventions around this.

    So there are a ton of examples of products that use far more or less energy than alternatives, or simple changes in time of day that can make a huge difference in fossil fuel demand.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago*

    I understand and agree with your general point, I don’t believe it’s counter intuitive but accept than many people do. In any case, you used range distance disparities too close together to be accurate with a shift from a 5 to 10 mpg split. I'll just covert to a unit per distance, as you referenced (gallons per 100 miles):

    • 15 mpg = 6.67 gallons per 100 miles
    • 20 mpg = 5 gallons per 100 miles
    • 30 mpg = 3.33 gallons per 100 miles
    • 40 mpg = 2.5 gallons per 100 miles

    As calculated upgrading from 15 mpg to 20 mpg would take 1.67 fewer gallons to go 100 miles while upgrading from 20 mpg to 30 mpg would also take 1.67 fewer gallons to go 100 miles. Upgrading from 30 mpg to 40 mpg would only further reduce fuel required to go 100 miles by 0.83 gallons.

    Again, I agree with your broader point, 15 to 20 being the same improvement as 20 to 30 is likely just as impactful and also accurate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    if there's a minimum amount of consuming fossil fuels that's required to continue to live in society, and the goal is to eliminate that, then we need change on a societal level. individuals alone cannot solve the problem, and therefore cannot be blamed for the problem existing

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    I'm vegan and carfree. I'm probably closer to that minimum than most people in this thread. I looked up the stats once and saw that the average American produces ten times as much CO2 as the average Congenese person. Imagine that, ten times. If you're an average American, you can reduce way more of your emissions than that average Congenese person can! If you eat meat and drive a car, you've got so much opportunity for growth!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent