[JumpinJack_Cash]

People have the right to know from where their quality of life comes from.

So if you think quality of life = cool ,

then it's true that fossil fuels = cool.

Don't let any private jet flying tech CEO or yacht enthusiast actor tell you otherwise. They want to brainwash you to have the exclusive on fossil fuels consumption much like they want to brainwash you to pay the maximum amount of taxes while they structure their affairs through trusts in Puerto Rico, Curacao or St. Kitts and Nevis.

Keep that foot on the pedal, they have much more to lose than we have, for once that's an advantage, if they are really so scared of climate change they'd move to Tibet or the Rockies.

[jabradoodle]

I'm not listening to them I'm listening to science, the discipline that has given us pretty much all our quality of life improvements.

It's suspicious how many in this thread are pointing out that fossil fuels are an essential component of society reaching the point it has. We know, that's not a revelation.

It is not the point.

[maccard]

> Don't let any private jet flying tech CEO or yacht enthusiast actor tell you otherwise. They want to brainwash you to have the exclusive on fossil fuels consumption much like they want to brainwash you to pay the maximum amount of taxes while they structure their affairs through trusts in Puerto Rico, Curacao or St. Kitts and Nevis.

I think you're spending a bit too much time in the conspiracy rabbit hole. Kim Kardashian's carbon footprint is about equivalent of 50 americans. She also has almost 350 million followers on Instagram. If she manages to get 1% of her following to reduce their footprint by 1% for a year, she undoes more than she emits in a year.

That doesn't mean they're not hypocrites, but have some context. What's actually needed is a change in consumption across the board, and a change in attitude towards impact. The only way that happens is through regulation and education.

[JumpinJack_Cash]

> > If she manages to get 1% of her following to reduce their footprint by 1% for a year, she undoes more than she emits in a year

It should be the person who has a footprint of 200x the avg. person to make cuts to their CO2 emissions because they are the low hanging fruit as far as quality of life is concerned, not the avg. person.

It's a fairly easy concept, like taxation, you take from those who have, not from those who don't have anything...oops my bad it's the country of the MAGA tax breaks and tax writeoffs on new and used private jets, while Flint doesn't have clean water since forever.