Existential Threat or Virtue Signaling?

[jwoodie]

What if the U.S. became completely carbon neutral and stopped emitting all environmental pollutants? Would you climate alarmists then be satisfied (and move on to your next existential threat)?

If yes, that means that you don't really care about global warming because other countries (e.g., BRICS) will just keep on producing the majority of global pollutants and nothing will have stopped this threat.

If no, what would you next? Declare war on these other countries? Unless you are arguing for a one-world government with dictatorial enforcement powers, you are doing little more than virtue signaling.

So which is it?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

This would have negligible effect on carbon emission since China is the chief culprit.

It would have an enormous effect in terms of our ability to compete, China being the chief beneficiary.

 

[luiza]

What if the U.S. became completely carbon neutral and stopped emitting all environmental pollutants? Would you climate alarmists then be satisfied (and move on to your next existential threat)?

If yes, that means that you don't really care about global warming because other countries (e.g., BRICS) will just keep on producing the majority of global pollutants and nothing will have stopped this threat.

If no, what would you next? Declare war on these other countries? Unless you are arguing for a one-world government with dictatorial enforcement powers, you are doing little more than virtue signaling.

So which is it?

Keep meaning to update you all on LENR . Hilarious . There will not be a single wind farm or array of solar panels anywhere and the subject of Climate Change will literally disappear because it becomes 100% irrelevant .If the people were educated , rose up in fury, we could all be off- grid and with near free energy within five years . Totally decentralised .

 

[petro]

Until those that call for carbon reduction actually reduce their own. They can pound sand.
My SUV driven all year is still less than the carbons they burn in a couple weeks living an opulent lifestyle the majority dreams of.

Screw them hypocrites.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Until those that call for carbon reduction actually reduce their own. They can pound sand.
My SUV driven all year is still less than the carbons they burn in a couple weeks living an opulent lifestyle the majority dreams of.

Screw them hypocrites.

Yep.

John Kerry has one of the biggest carbon footprints in the country.

 

[marvin martian]

What if the U.S. became completely carbon neutral and stopped emitting all environmental pollutants? Would you climate alarmists then be satisfied (and move on to your next existential threat)?

If yes, that means that you don't really care about global warming because other countries (e.g., BRICS) will just keep on producing the majority of global pollutants and nothing will have stopped this threat.

If no, what would you next? Declare war on these other countries? Unless you are arguing for a one-world government with dictatorial enforcement powers, you are doing little more than virtue signaling.

So which is it?

The fact that the people whining the hardest about "global warming" are still flying around on private jets gives you the answer to your question.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Until those that call for carbon reduction actually reduce their own. They can pound sand.
My SUV driven all year is still less than the carbons they burn in a couple weeks living an opulent lifestyle the majority dreams of.

Screw them hypocrites.

Socialite Socialists

 

[ding]

Virtue signaling. When it comes to carbon emissions the US is not the reason for the 1 billion tons per year per year increase in carbon emissions.

 

[otto105]

What if the U.S. became completely carbon neutral and stopped emitting all environmental pollutants? Would you climate alarmists then be satisfied (and move on to your next existential threat)?

If yes, that means that you don't really care about global warming because other countries (e.g., BRICS) will just keep on producing the majority of global pollutants and nothing will have stopped this threat.

If no, what would you next? Declare war on these other countries? Unless you are arguing for a one-world government with dictatorial enforcement powers, you are doing little more than virtue signaling.

So which is it?

We then should stop trading or impose tariffs on products produced with legacy pollution.