Discussion > Why don’t warmists put their CO2 where their mouth is?
Two main reasons I can think of
1 they like the lifestyle and standard of living that "evil Carbon" brings them.
2 they have to ensure that the world is saved before they can give up on 1, this is sometimes seen as double standards by others.
Sandys
Even a Greenmeanie that does the right thing is a wonder to behold. There was a TV prog on one I remember that followed one for a year, but a little delving showed he was just as reliant as us all on todays carbon economy.
1. He still collected his dole money.
2. He used castoff's from the local populace to build and fill his ethical hovel.
Now drop him off in the middle of nowhere with enough food and shelter for 12 months would be truly green. Don't think he would last the 12 months as demonstrated by Ch5's BC10000.
Breath of Fresh Air
There is no room for CO2 in their mouths, they are too busy troughing.
Dung
As an alternative question to this I was going to ask 'what do warmists think would be different if vocal sceptics didn't exist'. Things would be exactly the same but they'd be struggling to find someone else to blame. The moment governments were struggling for cash or they could see financial disaster looming they'd back down on any rash promises they'd made. Sure, a few more renewables would have been built but then we'd just be closer to the day they have to admit we can't run a country on windmills and green smugness.
It's a political tool to endlessly claim the other side is preventing you from doing something you wouldn't or couldn't do even if you had a free hand.
TinyCO2
TinyCO2
People like Extreme greens always need someone else to blame. There are several groups they can fall back on as scape goats even if everyone agreed that something had to be done about CO2 they'd be the last to give it up themselves.
My list of likely candidates would be bankers, fat cat industrialists and America (always good to blame America)
Sandys
Warmists like to concentrate on the percentage of the population who say they’re not concerned about climate change but they’re ignoring their fellow warmists. They also feel it’s the developed world’s responsibility to lead the way cutting CO2. So why don’t they reset their sights and get the 50% (or whatever this week’s figure is) who believe the consensus and get them to cut their CO2 twice as fast as they expect the rest of us to? I mean, it’s only money right? And the future of the planet and/or our grandkids is at stake. Not so much unilateral action but demilateral action. That way they can feel doubly virtuous and the effects would be the same as if we all believed it.
Is there anyone here who would mind if they did that?
We’ve had the same message from Dr Betts and several bloggers, to the effect of ‘can we now move on to what we do about AGW?’ and a regular gripe from warmists is ‘what’s the worst that could happen if we act on CO2 and it turns out it wasn’t necessary?’ Well yes, YOU can move on to acting on CO2 and if YOU are paying for it then we’re prepared to suffer the worst that could happen if it turns out the CO2 scare was overblown.
Have I discovered a solution that would suit both sides?
Of course some warmists might moan that they aren’t the real problem, it’s… somebody else. Somebody powerful. But they’re not a bunch of peasants. There are billionaires, captains of industry, big multinationals, politicians, royalty, movies stars, visual and print media leaders and millions and millions of consumers. Think what could be done if they all acted together. Think how they could ride the green revolution to the top.
We in turn could be generous. Like China we could agree to reduce the rate at which we increase our emission by an unspecified amount and timescale, to be internally reviewed and scrapped if it suits us.
Do we have a deal?