Hacker News Reader

Comment by orf | Hacker News Reader

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal

And this is still a thing.

As much as this is (anti?) virtue-signaling, it's not really a contributor to global warming. Idling the engine for a minute or two probably causes more co2 emissions. The main concern is the particulate emissions.

It’s not the act itself, it’s the fact that there is a segment of the population that will spend thousands of dollars to modify their cars to pollute more, so that they can try and humiliate people driving hybrid and electric cars.

That’s a symptom of a much, much deeper problem.

"Okay apparently in Texas we have moved past climate denial within the oil and gas industry to outright CHEERING ON THE RCP 8.5 APOCALYPSE"

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein.

Unfortunately, this is nothing new.

> so that they can try and humiliate people driving hybrid and electric cars

I don't think that's really what they're trying to do. It looks more like garden variety virtue signaling. Just like flags in the back of the truck, etc. They're announcing membership in their tribe. I do wish they'd choose something that didn't pollute the air we all breathe.

Ok then, people spending thousands of dollars to make their cars less fuel efficient and pollute more.

It’s the same point. That doesn’t exist anywhere else in the world. It’s ridiculous. But the fact it exists in the country with the largest per-person capita of CO2 emissions points to a huge underlying social problem that is unlikely to be fixed in the near future.

>But the fact it exists in the country with the largest per-person capita of CO2 emissions

I have a feeling that you're not talking about all the people rolling coal in Palau. US isn't even in the top 10 when it comes to carbon emissions per capita. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

Or the Falkland Islands, population 3,000. They are the real problem!

The combined populations of the small states above you don’t even reach 1/3rd of the USA’s population.

I'm not saying it's not a problem, just that you have a factual error in your comment.

> US isn't even in the top 10 when it comes to carbon emissions per capita

I think you are correct when we use this very narrow measure. However, please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_th...

The US is (a) among largest polluters and (b) from that club it is up at or near the top of per-capita pollution. Quoting the article:

The United States produced 6.6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2019,[3] the second largest in the world after greenhouse gas emissions by China and among the countries with the highest greenhouse gas emissions per person. In 2019 China is estimated to have emitted 27% of world GhG, followed by the United States with 11%, then India with 6.6%.[4] In total the United States has emitted 400 billion metric tons, more than any other country.[5] This is over 15 tonnes per person and, amongst the top ten emitters, is the second highest country by greenhouse gas emissions per person after Canada.[6] Because coal-fired power stations are gradually shutting down, in the 2010s emissions from electricity generation fell to second place behind transportation which is now the largest single source.[7] In 2019, 29% of the GHG emissions of the United States were from transportation, 25% from electricity, 23% from industry, 13% from commercial and residential buildings and 10% from agriculture.[8]

Dunno, they sure are eager to roll coal when they pass cyclists (myself included). Really cool people.

I mean, sure, it's dumb, but choosing to take a weekend flight to Vail to hit the slopes emits more carbon than a year of rolling coal, and nobody is seriously trying to crack down on recreational travel.

I think the deeper problem is that even "concerned" people have emissions deeply baked into their lifestyles but don't realize it because they check all the right cosmetic boxes.

I think you missed GP's point. Rolling coal itself is not the problem, but it is indicative of a larger systemic and cultural problem. When people are willing to deliberately pollute their local environment to "stick it to the man" or whatever, then there are a lot of other policies and changes that they will never consider or support. And a lot of other, more impactful, actions that they are likely to participate in as well.

Even if we can get the average person to consider emission reducing behaviors and policies, the rolling coal people represent the visible segment of a larger group who would stand to oppose those.

Yes, and I'm not sure it's worse than the people who think they've already done enough (but in practice have comparable emissions to those who don't care).

Because those who erroneously believe they've done enough are more likely to change their behavior when confronted with new information.

Does it matter? Don't you have guns? Shoot them off the road, FFS!

It seems somewhat off-center to think that people who roll-coal are motivated by a desire to humiliate drivers of hyrid or electric cars.

Thanks, I see this occasionally in South Florida, but never knew there was a term for it. If it were me I'd have pulled over my bike for 10 minutes and waited for the air to clear. I'll never understand the motivations of some people...

Then again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solarpunk is thing.

Teslas and solar panels are cool now.

There is some hope.

I know someone who does this and also argues at the same time that diesel engines are better for the environment, I'm pretty sure based on the efficiency but ignoring the exhaust

That's true: diesel engines generally have higher mpg and lower CO2 emissions than gasoline. Problem is they emit higher levels of nitrogen oxide (ask Volkswagen) which beside being a greenhouse gas also poisons the environment. Presumably newer cars with Adblue systems which greatly reduce the amount of emitted NOX could be better for the environment than gasoline powered cars.

These people don't matter, a single day of traffic in LA does far more damage than they could ever do.

Their individual contributions don't matter, but they definitely matter. They represent a substantial portion of the population who simply do not care about the environment and believe in its active destruction in their own neighborhoods and cities. This is important to recognize.

They're the tip of the iceberg, as it were, the visible portion of a largely invisible but sizeable community who establish (through direct action, voting, and how they spend their money) a pattern of willful environmental destruction. And this is even without considering climate change. These are the people who think it's fine to toss garbage on the street, which has a much clearer and short-delay impact. If they don't care about that, good luck getting them to think on anything with long-delay impacts.

This always gets brought up and it's a distraction from the real coal power plants that contribute to double digit CO2 emissions.

Some guy blowing up smoke in the truck might make you raged but it's misplaced. Can we get raged at the coal powered power plants?

The problem is it is difficult to solve the issue with the coal powered plants when huge segments of the population are fine with "rolling coal" and think it's good to dump on EVs and green policy in general.

So the answer is to get raged at Rolling coal and that’ll change their minds?

I did not intend to suggest that. My point is that without changing folks opinions greater change is not possible - and a large number of people do not think climate change is something important to combat.

Getting mad at coal plants won't help either, it will just give that segment of the population something to rally behind (coal power).

https://www.ecori.org/climate-change/2019/10/4/global-warmin....

There are more than just power plants to worry about... Concrete is 8% of our CO^2 emissions, agriculture is 9%. There are these things that no one thinks about that need to be addressed as well that sneak under the radar. There are teams working on them that don't get the glitz and glamour (or funding) that will make an impact, if adopted.

EDIT:

I'm not downplaying transportation pollution... just a quick edit to make it clear.

I think awareness about the negative environmental effects of agriculture and specifically cattle and other animals used for meat is at least much more prevelant than it used to be.

The concrete thing probably still flies under the radar though.

Yeah, these assholes:

(Warning: these videos will make you very mad.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS5psOvHFIE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdDxjge5hmY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHmJSsRLgj4

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/j1yj0c/trum...

This should be some sort of crime.

edit: Sorry, I edited out my comment about this probably giving bikers cancer after I included more videos. This can't be healthy for the lungs.

edit 2: Downvoted to -3 for calling out this shitty behavior? y'all are insane.

“It probably gave the bicyclists cancer”

I said this to someone who showed me one of these videos once and they basically told me to wise up and stop being paranoid.

How about the whole world stops being a pack of idiots instead?

Oh, we'll stop alright. But not in the way that you probably intended. Earth is a pretty good self-correcting system that acts with total disregard for pesky little organisms that are along for the ride.

I'm not sure getting more views on videos posted by coal-rollers is a particularly effective way to discourage the behavior.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com