[Retric]

The middle class in America have a small impact on climate change just like they have a small impact on most things. If you want to understand what’s going on look into who was running disinformation campaigns and actively sabotaging efforts to add carbon taxes etc.

People love to blame SUV’s because they are in peoples faces, but replace every American SUV with an EV and the impact on the climate is negligible. Things would get just as bad a few weeks later, and that’s about it. People blame the rich and powerful because when you blame the people running things when things are fucked up.

Consider, the option for electrified roads instead of burning hydrocarbons existed 20 years ago. We could have reduced gasoline use by around 90% by now without any great breakthroughs but such choices aren’t up to individual consumers.

[rgmerk]

That’s just not true.

If you’re a middle-class American, you have a huge house by global standards, which you heat and cool more than just about anywhere else on Earth. Each family has two bigger than average cars which they drive more than most other countries. Middle class Americans also eat far more beef than most of the world.

It is true that middle class Americans fly less than the rich, let alone the super-rich in private jets.

Yes, the super-rich do pollute a great deal per capita. But the idea that American or indeed global emissions is in large part the result of private consumption of the super-rich is just wrong.

[Retric]

You completely missed my point, the problem isn’t that the rich and the super rich are flying private jets. The problem is they are actively controlling the narrative and obstructing progress.

Climate change is beyond individual choices. The infrastructure of suburban homes and roads doesn’t go away when someone moves into a city.

The actual solution is to discourage and then eliminate mining coal and other fossil fuels. Rather than simply rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.

[ericd]

In terms of carbon released to support a given middle class family, it's not a small impact, it's the equivalent of the consumption of many hectares of active-growth forest. But I'm somewhat sympathetic to the argument that people have been steered toward the suburban design plan because that's what's been made available by decisions made by people that weren't them; I've personally had a hard time finding great walkable areas to live that push cars to the periphery. Zoning is a large part of the problem, and largely out of normal people's control. Municode-derived zoning is a blight on our nation, in my opinion.

But then I see what happens at city council meetings and on local forums when people suggest loosening up on zoning rules to allow for denser development. It's mostly normal people that are pushing back on this stuff, and then blaming the "greedy developers" for trying to "ruin their neighborhood". That "traffic is bad enough" and that "our infrastructure can't handle it". We can't have separated bike lanes because "we don't have enough parking as it is", or "that road is already too full, we can't take away lanes". It's totally ingrained in our culture.

Who's been running the disinfo campaigns on carbon taxes?