I’m shocked. I thought it was all about spreading awareness, telling other people how to live their lives, and taking unnecessary fossil fueled flights to exotic vacation spots for climate conferences
(Good Education) Cooler Smarter: Practical Steps for Low-Carbon Living came out this week. And true to its promise, it uses research to determine which green actions make the most difference. I’m disappointed in the answers they came up with, though—not because they’re wrong or overly complicated, but because they’re not.
After two years of research, UCS found that the most important strategies for reducing a person’s carbon footprint are to change “what and how you drive, the energy you use at home, and what you eat.â€
So, after all that time they came up with “practice what you preach”? The horror!
The author points out that this is basic knowledge, and, for AGW, everything else is secondary.
If we already know how to live without creating so much carbon, that raises a more disturbing question: Why aren’t we doing it? There is any number of excuses: Fixing buildings requires investing a chunk of cash up front, and deciding on the right retrofits is a complicated process. Meat is too good to give up. Clean energy is more expensive. If Congress had only passed cap-and-trade, we wouldn’t need to be making these choices, because more carbon-intensive products would cost more and fewer people would buy them.
Because it’s haaaaaawd, and others should be forced to Do Something by government decree.
Good money down a rotten hole. Research how to do nothing.
Much like the study on a research about studies. Thanks!!!
And the Socialists say we don’t spend enough money.
Of course, changing your life style takes self discipline and extra effort to break the habits of living. That would take character. The weak willed want somebody else to make and enforce the rules. Blick
The Warmists would be shocked if they ever realized that the laws and regulations would actually apply to themselves, much like has happened in Australia.