There's a difference between knowing we need to stop, and having an alternative. The way you paint it... people should have just woken up in the 70s and said, "Yup, guess it's time to let my kids starve... I can't be driving this car to work any more... it'll be better for the planet if we all just die off since we inconvenience people on the coats."
What's kind of funny... North Dakota has a LOT to gain from global warming. Look at their location. A flip to what you're saying is... "Hey, maybe all those people who live on the coasts should move someplace that could stand to have an extra 4-6 degrees added to the average annual temperature." I say that tongue in cheek, mostly to point out how silly it is to mandate change.
People have to decide for themselves, right? Freedom and all that. Telling one of the poorest states that they need to forgo economic improvement because people in coastal states say that global warming is bad... it's exactly like me saying you should move away from the coasts. You don't get to decide how others live any more than they get to decide how you live.
It gets old hearing, "oil is bad" -- we've certainly heard all the doom and gloom for a long time. People need viable alternatives. Just saying, "Yes, it sucks for the people of North Dakota that their lifestyles are unsustainable..." you aren't going to get anyone to side with you. Not your point, but you also realize that the power of government derives from the consent of the governed -- right?
I split my time growing up in Seattle and North Dakota... and I'm quite purple as a result. It's important to see the big picture. The reason Tesla is tying in self-driving cars to electric cars. They know that as soon as more people start driving electric cars... the price of oil is going to tank. Even with amazing strides towards solar, wind, hydro... because of those strides even... we're faced with 50+ more years of oil. As oil prices fall... it's just that much harder to buy an electric car. They need a hook... and self-driving is just that.
But it's not like we have to cut off all oil use tomorrow. Especially in more rural areas, places that can absorb the CO2, places like North Dakota... the places that have too many people, where nature can't possibly hope to keep up... those are the places that need to stop using oil. Right? So putting the burden on North Dakota... cities, people in cities should bear the lion share because they're the ones causing the most damage.
What's kind of funny... North Dakota has a LOT to gain from global warming. Look at their location. A flip to what you're saying is... "Hey, maybe all those people who live on the coasts should move someplace that could stand to have an extra 4-6 degrees added to the average annual temperature." I say that tongue in cheek, mostly to point out how silly it is to mandate change.
People have to decide for themselves, right? Freedom and all that. Telling one of the poorest states that they need to forgo economic improvement because people in coastal states say that global warming is bad... it's exactly like me saying you should move away from the coasts. You don't get to decide how others live any more than they get to decide how you live.
It gets old hearing, "oil is bad" -- we've certainly heard all the doom and gloom for a long time. People need viable alternatives. Just saying, "Yes, it sucks for the people of North Dakota that their lifestyles are unsustainable..." you aren't going to get anyone to side with you. Not your point, but you also realize that the power of government derives from the consent of the governed -- right?
I split my time growing up in Seattle and North Dakota... and I'm quite purple as a result. It's important to see the big picture. The reason Tesla is tying in self-driving cars to electric cars. They know that as soon as more people start driving electric cars... the price of oil is going to tank. Even with amazing strides towards solar, wind, hydro... because of those strides even... we're faced with 50+ more years of oil. As oil prices fall... it's just that much harder to buy an electric car. They need a hook... and self-driving is just that.
But it's not like we have to cut off all oil use tomorrow. Especially in more rural areas, places that can absorb the CO2, places like North Dakota... the places that have too many people, where nature can't possibly hope to keep up... those are the places that need to stop using oil. Right? So putting the burden on North Dakota... cities, people in cities should bear the lion share because they're the ones causing the most damage.