IFish Fishing Forum banner
521 - 540 of 576 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,265 Posts
I wonder how Taylor Swift will feel going down to 2 carbon tons per year...................
Taylor Swift received backlash for flying in her private jet 170 times, emitting 8,240 metric tons, over thousand times more than the average person.
Her team came to a defense and said “Taylor’s jet is loaned out to other people and that all the trips wasn’t hers”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JeffO

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
Technology has definitely come a long way. As fishermen, another thing to consider is how these electric vehicles will stand up to salty environments. We all know the effects on our boats, but I wonder how these electric vehicles will fair? Only time will tell I guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,369 Posts
I wonder how Taylor Swift will feel going down to 2 carbon tons per year...................
Taylor Swift received backlash for flying in her private jet 170 times, emitting 8,240 metric tons, over thousand times more than the average person.
Her team came to a defense and said “Taylor’s jet is loaned out to other people and that all the trips wasn’t hers”.
I try to use my jet only when I really need to. It’s why I rarely talk about it here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,369 Posts
Thinking about this issue the last couple days reinforced the general shape of it in my mind.

First- we talk a big game, but in reality, we humans, or at least we Americans, really DGAF about future folks. If debt/deficit didn’t prove this, then the resistance to doing anything consequential about human-caused warming does. We want it all, we want it now, and we don’t care if that degrades the prospects for future people. We just don’t.

Second, whatever the consequences of this will be, we will experience them, because even the things we propose doing to help- massive infrastructure overhauls, green energy installs, EV’s, and so on, have huge up-front carbon costs with what WE HOPE will be a payoff sometime down the road. When you factor in the time-lag between emissions and effects, even if we did ALL these things (we won’t) as quickly as possible (we won’t) and on a global level (ha!) the next couple decades will still have us emitting I’d guess as much, or even MORE, than we do now, just in order to do the very things we hope will mitigate this. Factor in the time lag, and we are looking at 30-40 years, minimum, of the consequences getting worse. By my lights that describes the absolute best-case scenario, which I fo not foresee happening.

Third, even with all that pessimism and doom and gloom conceded, on both moral and practical grounds, we must start ASAP. Moral, because folks, make no mistake, we did this. For the older amongst us, I’m sorry you have to go to your graves with that hanging over you, but it’s just reality. Your prosperity and relative ease of living came at a cost, and that cost now falls to others to bear, and we are not thrilled about that. For the next younger segment, like myself (mid-50’s) we don’t get to just keep on keepin’ on for a few more years pretending it’s all gonna be ok; we are in theory around for decades yet. WE NEED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. If not us, who? Yes, it’s going to suck. No, it’s not how any of us pictured the last third of our life playing out. Yet here we are. Do we rise to the occasion? If past performance is a predictor, I doubt it, but I hope we prove me wrong. As for the practical reason to start now, it’s because this works a bit like compounding interest; whatever action we can muster up now, will pay off in the distant future way out of proportion to the pain it causes us now. Even though many/most of us will be dead and gone before the worst of this hits, we owe the future an effort, at least.

It really boils down to what I keep saying. If not us, who? If not now, when?

Batten the hatches. It’s going to be a rough ride. First up? Fire. If you live in western Oregon and Washington, what’s been happening in California and southern Oregon will be moving north. With the fuel loads we have up here, as it gets warmer and drier, it’s gonna be a **** show. The Coast Range and west flank of the Cascades will be infernos. This’ll take a few decades to fully play out. Get ready.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rick S

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,761 Posts
I would say this group is pretty green...............https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/carbon-footprint-calculator/
Why would income level affect your carbon footprint by default?

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,369 Posts
Why would income level affect your carbon footprint by default?

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

I’m not sure what “by default” means, but in the big picture it is related to transportation, energy for homes, and consumption of manufactured goods.

Really poor people (think rural subsistence farmers in poor developing countries) may rarely use transportation ever, and may even lack electricity. Lots of people living under one roof, heated with wood, no A/C, might have a radio, and watch TV at a village gathering place

The poorest people in developed countries (think inner city USA) use public transportation, don’t fly, live in high density housing, and barely make enough money for food and rent, which limits luxury travel and consumption of manufactured goods to only the basics

Middle / working class people in developed countries drive gas guzzlers, maybe own or rent a stand-alone home for a nuclear family, maybe fly once in a while or drive to vacations, and buy lots of fishing / hunting and other manufactured goods

Rich people own gas guzzlers, big homes (maybe 2 of them) heated/cooled with fossil fuels, own boats, fly for fun and for work, etc etc.

Rich is relative, as are emissions per income. For example, per unit income, people in the US have a larger footprint than Europeans because of how our suburbs and rural areas are laid out, leading to lots of single driver trips in cars, so we can go to stores and spend money in support of our consumer-oriented culture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,265 Posts
Why would income level affect your carbon footprint by default?

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
Interesting, I looked right past that slider. In reality I imagine that people that make more money end up using more carbon, but that would not hold for everybody.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,761 Posts
Interesting, I looked right past that slider. In reality I imagine that people that make more money end up using more carbon, but that would not hold for everybody.
It also added public transportation by default. I have not ridden a bus or train in years, but the values could not be adjusted. I suspect there is more, but those were the most egregious I saw on my stroll through the survey. Stuff like that makes me doubt the validity of the exercise.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rank Amateur

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,761 Posts
I’m not sure what “by default” means, but in the big picture it is related to transportation, energy for homes, and consumption of manufactured goods.

Really poor people (think rural subsistence farmers in poor developing countries) may rarely use transportation ever, and may even lack electricity. Lots of people living under one roof, heated with wood, no A/C, might have a radio, and watch TV at a village gathering place

The poorest people in developed countries (think inner city USA) use public transportation, don’t fly, live in high density housing, and barely make enough money for food and rent, which limits luxury travel and consumption of manufactured goods to only the basics

Middle / working class people in developed countries drive gas guzzlers, maybe own or rent a stand-alone home for a nuclear family, maybe fly once in a while or drive to vacations, and buy lots of fishing / hunting and other manufactured goods

Rich people own gas guzzlers, big homes (maybe 2 of them) heated/cooled with fossil fuels, own boats, fly for fun and for work, etc etc.

Rich is relative, as are emissions per income. For example, per unit income, people in the US have a larger footprint than Europeans because of how our suburbs and rural areas are laid out, leading to lots of single driver trips in cars, so we can go to stores and spend money in support of our consumer-oriented culture.
From the survey Rank posted. It was not rich people. 120k+ was the household cutoff.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,129 Posts
Another downside to electric trucks. I saw a guy try to buy a cup of coffee in his new Rivian. 5 or 6 people came up to him to ask him about it. The guy looked at me and said it’s like that everywhere he goes.
Eyelash Jaw Organism Font Happy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,369 Posts
Saw a Rivian in the flesh in Newport the other day. The headlights are a bit odd but altogether, I thought it looked good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,761 Posts
The US is a rich country by global standards. An income of $122K is the average of the top 10% globally.
The point of my post was the survey assumes if you make more money you generate more carbon by default. Most other carbon producing factors are accounted for in the survey, house, car, travel, purchases, etc.

It also has a non adjustable level of public transportation that I don't use.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,369 Posts
The point of my post was the survey assumes if you make more money you generate more carbon by default. Most other carbon producing factors are accounted for in the survey, house, car, travel, purchases, etc.

It also has a non adjustable level of public transportation that I don't use.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

Any slider you don’t use, set to zero. Type a “0” zero in that spot. The faint number shown is the default per income level, unless you change it. This is how it produces a CO2 level just from income on the first page, using the average defaults.

The reason CO2 increases with income is because the slider defaults on subsequent pages, like home size, purchases etc, automatically adjust to the income level on page 1. You are free to enter any value you want and override the defaults
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,369 Posts
That 2018 poll was revealing. Here is a link to the full results:


It also found that people are more supportive of paying to fight climate change when they know where the money will go. They support paying when they know the money will protect/restore forests and wetlands, or support R&D or public transit. They are not supportive when spending is vague.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,761 Posts
Any slider you don’t use, set to zero. Type a “0” zero in that spot. The faint number shown is the default per income level, unless you change it. This is how it produces a CO2 level just from income on the first page, using the average defaults.

The reason CO2 increases with income is because the slider defaults on subsequent pages, like home size, purchases etc, automatically adjust to the income level on page 1. You are free to enter any value you want and override the defaults
On my phone the defaults I called out cannot be changed.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
 
521 - 540 of 576 Posts
Top