Carbon dioxide levels in atmosphere hit record high in May

That’s why Tesla creating eco cars that out-muscle most muscle cars is so brilliant. It can show people who would never back down from big powerful cars that their fuel of choice is weak sauce.

I think it will be more effective than appealing to them with carrot juice and sprouts.

So... my advice is buy/lease a Tesla and show it around. At the very least you’ll have fun.

Going vegetarian makes a tiny difference. Tirelessly badgering everyone you know until 10 of them go vegetarian makes a difference 10 times as big.

Convincing 10 or 50 people to call their senators/reps about putting a price on carbon could have an impact an order of magnitude larger.

Lawmakers listen to their constituents when there is sufficient unity of thought among the constituency. And it has to be regular people that cultivate that unity of thought, through constant discussion of the problems and solutions with everyone they know.

...Now I just need to start to practice what I'm preaching...

The solution is nothing short of a political revolution. Need to elect and support politicians who will go after these big corps because they only fear tough legislations and nothing else.

China and now India coming online as industrialized nations with increasing quality of living can't possibly happen while reducing global emissions. We're talking about billions of additional people shifting towards the western quality of living.

Outsourced would be a better description.

So, some Musk-type crazy fella is going to solve it for everyone, become the town hero, get paid handsomely.

And we will just go one with our lives like nothing's happened... Dumb and belligerent.

One of many examples; single use plastic packaging should be expensive, but it's long term costs are all externalized away.

People do what makes economic sense, don't expect an individual let alone a corporate body to act in any other way. Which means that this is going to require regulation.

1. The state charges a fee to emit greenhouse gases.

2. The proceeds of that fee are divided equally amongst all residents of the nation in the form of a monthly check.

3. The actual bill imposes the fee upstream where the fuel is produced rather than where it is burnt, and imposes border adjustments to prevent outsourcing of emissions to other nations, but I don't want to get into all of that in this post.

4. It's a reasonably short bill[2]. You could probably read and understand every word in an hour.

You can look at this as a two-sided incentive - if you emit less than average, your dividend will be bigger than the fee that you pay and so you get extra spending money. If you emit more than average, then your fee is higher and you come out in the red. Some economic modeling dudes predict this incentive will cause the USA to emit 40% less within 12 years after the policy is implemented, but I honestly have no idea how reliable that prediction is.

However, while that incentive is great and probably exactly what we need, this policy would be the right, just thing to do even if it were not going to move the needle on our emissions rates.

The reason is that, every time [insert your favorite celebrity or business tycoon here] crosses the country in a private jet, they do a little damage to my future and my daughter's. They should reimburse us, and reimburse everyone else they're harming. When I decide to keep my 3000-square-foot house at 70F all through the New England winter, I'm harming your future and those of everyone you love. I should reimburse you.

This policy doesn't place hard limits on any kind of activity or consumption. But any time you're externalizing the cost of your emissions onto society at large, you have to compensate society for the damage.

[1]https://energyinnovationact.org/how-it-works/

[2]https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/763/...

2. Enact an industry-wide boycott of unsustainable firms.

3. Enjoy the weather.

That being said yes we need to drastically reduce the population, but that really can't be done and will have to happen itself by appealing to the vanity and self-interest of people once they are integrated into the logic of the modern religion. Though as I said that still will not solve the problem. But hey at least there will be fewer people.

And if you think that this is not true, that development leads to declining population then why are all the rich countries still growing through immigration? Their local population has stopped reproducing due to logic of the markets and self-interest and narcissism sure but they continue to grow and if they stop growing everyone talks of it as if it's a horrible thing.

What a dangerous idea.

Besides, it's not the issue of absolute population: it's emissions per capita that we should care about.

We could be doing a lot better per capita in these dimensions: - plastics & packaging, - energy use, - military pollution, - advertising & marketing bullshit, - bullshit products manufacturing

There's a lot of inefficiency in current economy, which is supported by industrial consent manufacturing.

I don't think so. [1] Besides, we're still #14 in emissions per-capita. [2]

> developing countries with few if any regulations and little enforcement

Not sure where you're getting this idea.

> All we can do is plant trees.

On the contrary, we can do much more. The first step is to organize your workplace. The second step is an industry-wide commercial boycott of polluting firms. In solidarity with similar worker-led movements in the Global South, we can collectively bring the Climate Change Industry to its knees, allowing sustainable business to thrive.

1. https://i1.wp.com/fabiusmaximus.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhous...