Quote:
|
You’re saying that people with more wealth and a better standard of living don’t emit more? Don’t travel more, don’t eat a more diverse diet, don't eat more meat, don’t buy more things, don’t vacation more, etc. Or just semantics in a theoretical “Well, gee maybe they don’t HAVE to emit more.”
|
No, that's not what I'm arguing at all. The article that you cited is correct: as well-meaning as the individual efforts we make are, they are largely immaterial to carbon output, and it's not going to be individual consumer choices that result in change. Anything meaningful needs to be done at the government/regulatory/industrial level. There is nothing I can do as an individual that will come close to my utility company switching the source of my own power from coal to NG to renewable, or increasing regulations on industrial polluters. Countries that are targeting net-neutral emissions status aren't counting primarily on individuals changing behaviors to do so, they're planning to do it through changes to their power generation and electrical grids, plus regulations primarily on industrial and commercial emitters. The question isn't whether it's possible for nations to achieve near net neutral carbon emissions while maintaining a modern quality of life. The only question is how long it takes and how expensive it is.