It's really pretty simple. We have made it socially acceptable to do nothing and awkward to talk about it. Deniers need to be given the same response as someone making a racist comment or joke: "Not cool! The effects IPCC predicted as worst case, years ago, is happening! This almost getting to the point of flat earth!"
I'm not chastising you, but curious. Why didn't you speak up?
This why strong safety nets, public health care, unions, and good wages for even entry level work are so important. I think a lot of people turn their heads out of a legitimate fear of making their kids homeless.
Climate issues intersect with pretty much every issue there is.
We, as in US residents, wouldn't be so worried about oil prices if we didn't have mandatory car ownership.
Real estate prices in places where you don't have to own a car are on the moon. It's almost like a lot of people really hate owning cars and everything that entails.
If this is true and it was done by employees acting on behalf of their employer, does this mean a corporation can be charged under the US Computer Fraud and Abuse Act? What would penalties look like? Any lawyers here that can answer this?
I think they are afraid. They are afraid to not drive their Canyoneros. They are afraid that North American post WW2 suburbia is one of the worst things humanity has done. They are afraid because they don't know any different. They are afraid of losing all the money they spent on their monster trucks and McMansions.
It isn't rational. Jean Luc Picard could show up on the starship Enterprise and tell them that car centric suburbs are the biggest culprits right now and they would refuse to listen. Because fear isn't rational.
We shouldn't hold them accountable for producing oil, we should throw the book at them for all the propaganda, lobbying, and other shenanigans. They knew burning fossil fuels would have a massive environmental impact. I say charge them with fraud in the same way Trump is facing. Yank their business licenses everywhere they are found guilty.
This is why per capita GDP as a measure for where wages should be is a bad measurement. You should always use per workforce GDP.
I doubt it is enough to offset the cost of purchase, fuel, insurance, maintenance, registration, and in many areas property taxes. Driving even a cheap used car is rather expensive.
Wouldn't it be more effective in terms of cost and GHG levels to replace coal plants with renewables?
They are desperate because there is no straightforward pivot for oil and gas. The most the ones that run has stations can do is transition their convenience stores into electric vehicle charging stations. The ones that just extract fossil fuels out of the ground don't even have that. Their assets are worthless.
End car dependency. Replace fossil fuel power plants as fast as possible. Build electric HSR and ban passenger flights under a certain distance. Tax beef. Stop growing corn in Iowa for ethanol and grow food instead. Tax companies that require workers that can WFH to come in to an office. Tax credits for replacing methane or propane appliances or HVAC with electric. That's just to start.