>Except that hybrids, electric cars requires tons of CO2 pollution to create.
Utterly wrong: http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cle...
"Comparing an average midsize midrange BEV with an average midsize gasoline-powered car, it takes just 4,900 miles of driving to “pay back”—i.e., offset—the extra
global warming emissions from producing the BEV. Similarly, it takes 19,000 miles with the full-size long-range BEV compared with a similar gasoline car."
Again, do some fucking research before making claims that you know nothing about.
>Not to mention that climate alarmists like dicaprio fly on private jets and have huge mansions/yachts/etc.
He drives a Prius, a Tesla Roadster, and a Fisker Karma. Big houses don't produce more CO2 unless they use more electricity, and he has solar. Flying produces less CO2 than driving, and is required for his job, so he can spend money on things that globally reduce CO2: http://www.businessinsider.com/leonardo-dicaprio-eco-resort-...
And note that there are no subsidies to be gained in Belize from using solar.
>But that's not my point? If truly, we are at a human extinction level, why are climate alarmists even driving hybrids/electic cars? Why are they even using solar panels? Shouldn't they give up all these luxuries to save the human species?
No, because coordination problems exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordination_failure_(economic...
You have two choices if you believe in climate change, and one is much more attractive than the other:
1: Live an awful, shitty life as an ascetic. The majority of the world continues polluting and your suffering is without purpose. Hope that enough of the world embraces asceticism to reduce climate change.
2: Try to convince everyone else to pay just a little more for cars and electricity, because a small sacrifice will totally avert global warming. Your suffering is small, and more likely to attract others to do the same.
>No need for that. If you want to discuss this, then fine. If you are going to toss around insults, then I won't respond any further. And it isn't a "conspiracy". It is a FACT. To put the entire carbon/energy system under global centralized control.
The cognitive gymnastics required to come to that conclusion are incredible. The carbon/energy cycle is under centralized control, because it's attached to the grid. Solar power lets you detach from the grid. All global climate change agreements have been completely distributed and countries are in charge of meeting their own goals. Basically, what the hell are you talking about?
>Yes. And the truth is that the alarmists have been proven wrong OVER AND OVER again. The climate change people are no different than the peak oil fanatics.
Right... could you link me to some proof? Because I already linked a 5000 page report of proof, and I've got plenty more where that came from. The temperature of the earth has changed and is changing. There's no controversy over that.
>The fact that you have to resort to ad hominems shows you have no argument. And 2.2% ANNUAL emission is significant.
Of transport-related CO2, 74% is from road transport. 12% is from airplanes[1]. 2.2% is from all ships. Oceangoing ships are literally the smallest source of concern with transport related greenhouse gases. You are totally wrong.
[1]: http://www.atag.org/facts-and-figures.html
>I'm sure you do. Feel free to run around screaming that the world is going to end. Why are you using the internet or a computer? The world is going to end right? Shouldn't you do your part and try to prevent it?
My computer, running 24/365, uses 1,300 kWh, about as much as a car driving 1500 miles. The average American drives ten times that. If I can convince one person every six years that they should buy an electric car, I've made up for using my computer. Go buy an electric car.