Should some of your freedom be restricted in order to preserve resources?

[Dan]

EDIT: Dan, as much as your argument makes sense on an individual scale, ie, not knowing really how much impact one's own actions will have, there does happen to be an entire area of research dedicated to assessing the impact of certain emissions on certain factors of the climate. Not sure I'm inclined to believe that none of them really have any idea what they're talking about.

I am doubtful about the ability to isolate the effect of a single value, of human industry (carbon emissions) on the global climate. We cannot perform controlled experiments on this scale, and we cannot build a comprehensive physical model. Furthermore, the effect of a single individuals actions on human carbon emissions is by no means certain either. Lastly, the other (non carbon emission related) effects of an individual action on the global climate are most certainly unknown, and likely of greater magnitude than the effect of individual action on carbon emission and the effect of that carbon emission on the climate.

 

[jverne]

No, my argument is not to try to control big things that are more complex than you can comprehend. Go ahead and buy newer green technology if you want, but don't kid yourself that you are helping the environment. You might be using less gas, and save some of the world's petroleum supply, or some of your money, but even that is dubious. You have no idea what the impact will be on the environment. (And furthermore you still refuse to define what helping the environment actually means, or why you should want to help the environment. I am starting to doubt that you even have a certain definition in mind.) You are not helping your local microclimate either. You are much better off worrying about the influences you can see, namely on yourself, or on the local economy, or things that are directly impacted, not 5th and 6th order effects that you have a bullshit feedback control or false modelling of influences on.

Oh Dan. So you're saying that if i went by bicycle to work i would cause the same or bigger impact on my local environment?
If you're gonna take stuff that is not active in the current environment and put them in you will cause changes, if you're not accustomed to them then it probably wont do good to your body.

Definition of environment...i'm talking about the area where i live and eventually the whole earth and the beings living on it. If i used the wrong word please correct me. I want first and foremost to save the ecosystem for myself and other humans, then animals...i don't really care for inanimate things.

 

[Wizard]

Oh Dan. So you're saying that if i went by bicycle to work i would cause the same or bigger impact on my local environment?
If you're gonna take stuff that is not active in the current environment and put them in you will cause changes, if you're not accustomed to them then it probably wont do good to your body.

What? Like, what? First you're talking about inactive things in the environment? Then you say it's not going to be good for your body? I am really, really lost.

Definition of environment...i'm talking about the area where i live and eventually the whole earth and the beings living on it. If i used the wrong word please correct me. I want first and foremost to save the ecosystem for myself and other humans, then animals...i don't really care for inanimate things.

I think it's pretty funny that your definition got even vaguer.

Vagyr?

Vagyr!!!

 

[jverne]

What? Like, what? First you're talking about inactive things in the environment? Then you say it's not going to be good for your body? I am really, really lost.

Yeah this post was somewhat confusing, i'm tired and my mind is not clear. Those two points should be separated, my bad.

I think it's pretty funny that your definition got even vaguer.

The local area, micro environment,...Why does it matter? I'm talking about making a smaller negative impact oh the area where you live which eventually affects also your health.

 

[Wizard]

I'm now entirely convinced that when you think of environmental problems and its consequences, you replay Ferngully in your head as you fly around with Batty fighting the evil oil consuming Hexxus.

 

[jverne]

I'm now entirely convinced that when you think of environmental problems and its consequences, you replay Ferngully in your head as you fly around with Batty fighting the evil oil consuming Hexxus.

GTFO troll

 

[Kinslayer]

This is a biased poll.

On one hand, "No" is the absolute; it's at the farthest point of the visualized line, and doesn't go anywhere beyond that.

"Yes", however, is everything except "No". It has a much larger area and doesn't necessarily contain any absolutes, making it the logical answer.

Should some of your freedoms be restricted? It's not "Yes, absolutely all of them" it's "Yes, some should", but the other option is the absolute "No, none of them".

Terrible poll.

 

[jverne]

This is a biased poll.

On one hand, "No" is the absolute; it's at the farthest point of the visualized line, and doesn't go anywhere beyond that.

"Yes", however, is everything except "No". It has a much larger area and doesn't necessarily contain any absolutes, making it the logical answer.

Should some of your freedoms be restricted? It's not "Yes, absolutely all of them" it's "Yes, some should", but it's also "No, none of them".

Terrible poll.

I didn't specify yes or no as absolute. Well technically if you are for some restrictions...you are for restrictions.

If i made a pol that would have answers like "Yes, somewhat; Yes, a bit more; Yes, largely; Yes absolutely" we could still argue what that means.
That's why i've stated to argument your answer.

 

[Dan]

The local area, micro environment,...Why does it matter? I'm talking about making a smaller negative impact oh the area where you live which eventually affects also your health.

Now you are getting even further removed from your actions now. You want to make make consumer choices to influence a select few factors like carbon emissions which then influence the environment which then influences your health. All of the mechanisms of influence are somewhat nebulous and not fully understood. They are also not comprehensive of the final impact. Why not just skip all the middle men and eat some oatmeal go for a run?

 

[Acepilotf14]

GTFO troll

De~ni~al~!

 

[jverne]

Now you are getting even further removed from your actions now. You want to make make consumer choices to influence a select few factors like carbon emissions which then influence the environment which then influences your health. All of the mechanisms of influence are somewhat nebulous and not fully understood. They are also not comprehensive of the final impact. Why not just skip all the middle men and eat some oatmeal go for a run?

Have you ever bicycled behind a diesel truck on a winter morning? You can barely breathe.
Have you ever swam in a polluted beach?

Nebulous eh? Seems no matter what we do, you think it would be worse.
You are completely disregarding common sense.
You know that water treatment facilities did make the water safer to drink.
Now if we'd use less water, less of it would be polluted and life would be more sustainable.
But obviously in your view if we don't use more water, baby jesus might cry.

I'm really starting to think the nebulosity is only in your head. Really, your argument is so lacking.

 

[Dan]

Have you ever bicycled behind a diesel truck on a winter morning? You can barely breathe.
Have you ever swam in a polluted beach?

Nebulous eh? Seems no matter what we do, you think it would be worse.
You are completely disregarding common sense.
You know that water treatment facilities did make the water safer to drink.
Now if we'd use less water, less of it would be polluted and life would be more sustainable.
But obviously in your view if we don't use more water, baby jesus might cry.

I'm really starting to think the nebulosity is only in your head. Really, your argument is so lacking.

Want to put up an argument or refute something I say instead of citing baby Jesus or questioning my common sense?

I have bicycled behind trucks. They are good for drafting. I don't swim in (should be at) polluted beaches. How does your choices about consumer goods affect the environment. How does the environment affect these things? If you want less trucks, then make your poll about whether we should be regulated to have fewer trucks, not to help the environment.

I never said that anything we do would be worse. I only said that your actions aren't justified by the goals that you claim to pursue (What those specific goals are is still unclear. Help the environment?).

I know that water treatment plants make water safer to drink. Do you know that I like turtles? Can I just ask if you know simple things and then call you stupid at the end? Is that how this works?

Using less water will not make it less polluted, dumping less pollution into water would make it less polluted. Where did I say, or make an argument that would imply that using more water makes Jesus cry? Seriously, your posts are getting harder and harder to decipher. Not only do I have to explain and repeat and simplify these concepts, I have to first decipher your posts, and try to pull out some coherent argument to disprove. It almost takes the fun out of it.

 

[jverne]

Want to put up an argument or refute something I say instead of citing baby Jesus or questioning my common sense?

I have bicycled behind trucks. They are good for drafting. I don't swim in (should be at) polluted beaches. How does your choices about consumer goods affect the environment. How does the environment affect these things? If you want less trucks, then make your poll about whether we should be regulated to have fewer trucks, not to help the environment.

So basically you're bitching the whole time because i didn't give a specific example? It was never my intention, i was hoping people would argument as they go.
Helping the environment...this thread brought up topics about sustainability, health and social mentality and you still can't understand what is this thread about or that things are connected? (well the last part is what's getting your panties in a twist, anyway)

I never said that anything we do would be worse. I only said that your actions aren't justified by the goals that you claim to pursue (What those specific goals are is still unclear. Help the environment?).

Oh i don't know....DECREASE PARTICLE POLLUTION OF LOCAL AREA, THUS DECREASING LUNG ILLNESS.
I don't know if you noticed but we are part of the environment! So by keeping it in shape will benefit us. Well...some of us.

I know that water treatment plants make water safer to drink. Do you know that I like turtles? Can I just ask if you know simple things and then call you stupid at the end? Is that how this works?

This part was just ****ing with you, because your argument is really laughable, practically speaking.

Using less water will not make it less polluted, dumping less pollution into water would make it less polluted. Where did I say, or make an argument that would imply that using more water makes Jesus cry? Seriously, your posts are getting harder and harder to decipher. Not only do I have to explain and repeat and simplify these concepts, I have to first decipher your posts, and try to pull out some coherent argument to disprove. It almost takes the fun out of it.

You did not, i was just ****ing with you again, because you can't seem to comprehend the concept of improvement.
And yes...using less water will also help in decreasing it's pollution level. If we presume the water is actually used for something and not just pumped from the ground and drained directly back in the river.
I wouldn't call the presumption, that water get's contaminated by human use, illogical. The correlation is overwhelming.

 

[Dan]

I am going to get general about your whole environmental, natural living, stance here Jverne. Your arguments are weak because they aren't really your arguments, and you don't really have a clear position. You just have a series of ideas that you have been given by other people, and mostly emotional feelings that go along with these ideas. You don't actually know what you mean when you say, we should live frugally to help the environment. You don't even have a clear idea of what the environment is, or why living frugally helps it, or why you should want to help it. You don't know what the end purpose is. You just know that it seems wholesome and good somewhere in your gut because someone somewhere managed to get that emotional message into your head. Maybe it was Avatar, maybe it wasn't.

So you make these threads trying to espouse this nature love to everyone else, but you don't really have any clear stance or argument or logic, and you trip over yourself every post. But that documentary you saw made it so clear that you were right, so you are certain that you are right, and you get angry that all these internet people can't recognize that you are right. And now that anger is directed at me, and I don't like it. So stop.

 

[Wizard]

Now jverne will say something about you ignoring the argument, and later tonight he will make another sensational thread. I'm pretty sure jverne is experiencing the Avatar depression effect.

 

[Eejit]

jverne's been doing this for a very long time, new guy.

 

[Dan]

Who's the new guy here?

 

[Acepilotf14]

jverne's been doing this for a very long time, new guy.

It feels like it's been a long time, but it really hasn't.
He's only been doing this for a few weeks now.
Like.. I think KA said, it all started with those drunk threads. I bet he had some kind of gay epiphany.

 

[Eejit]

Who's the new guy here?

The Jan 2010 Manhack, wizard.

It feels like it's been a long time, but it really hasn't.
He's only been doing this for a few weeks now.
Like.. I think KA said, it all started with those drunk threads. I bet he had some kind of gay epiphany.

Your memory is poor. He's gotten worse in recent months but he's always been an enviro-nut, swallowing whole green propaganda.

 

[jverne]

I am going to get general about your whole environmental, natural living, stance here Jverne. Your arguments are weak because they aren't really your arguments, and you don't really have a clear position. You just have a series of ideas that you have been given by other people, and mostly emotional feelings that go along with these ideas. You don't actually know what you mean when you say, we should live frugally to help the environment. You don't even have a clear idea of what the environment is, or why living frugally helps it, or why you should want to help it. You don't know what the end purpose is. You just know that it seems wholesome and good somewhere in your gut because someone somewhere managed to get that emotional message into your head. Maybe it was Avatar, maybe it wasn't.

So you make these threads trying to espouse this nature love to everyone else, but you don't really have any clear stance or argument or logic, and you trip over yourself every post. But that documentary you saw made it so clear that you were right, so you are certain that you are right, and you get angry that all these internet people can't recognize that you are right. And now that anger is directed at me, and I don't like it. So stop.

Oh wow. No you didn't.

You don't see a correlation between the environment and living beings in it, do you?
Natural living...you're starting to go vague on me again.

Not my arguments, what makes an argument yours? How do you know your argument is not just a culmination of different ideas. Really, what you're saying is completely irrelevant.

Even if they were entirely made by feelings (which aren't but even if) why would it make any difference?
Are you by any chance referring to the subject of selfishness and enjoyment?

I do have have a somewhat clear view of what i'd like, i don't however have a clear view of how it will actually turn out to be like. Hence this thread and the search for arguments.

Avatar??? Ok now you're just being stupid. Stop it.


I NEVER EVER SAID IN THIS THREAD OR ANY OTHER RECENT THREAD THAT MY VIEW ARE RIGHT or that i feel discontent for people not realizing it. This thread is a ****ing poll and a request for arguments of different sides. If you you wouldn't barge in with the preconceived notion that i'm somehow pushing my agenda the thread might have been much more coherent.

And even if i was (conditional sentence) being absolutely selfish in my views, why would you consider that wrong or right?

In summary your argument is like "Oh you don't understand everything, so better not think about it, dare i say touch". Well pal, look around we don't seem to be living in the stone age anymore, where the nature was the mysterious, untouchable force that ruled over us.

 

[Acepilotf14]

Your memory is poor. He's gotten worse in recent months but he's always been an enviro-nut, swallowing whole green propaganda.

Well, he didn't make threads before.

 

[Eejit]

...Yes he did. Remember the couple of threads he made about green food production documentaries? Like the one attacking Monsanto and GM technology?

 

[jverne]

The Jan 2010 Manhack, wizard.


Your memory is poor. He's gotten worse in recent months but he's always been an enviro-nut, swallowing whole green propaganda.

Na a, Eejit, you know the drill...start digging for proof. Or at least have the common courtesy to refer to a specific example.


Edit:

...Yes he did. Remember the couple of threads he made about green food production documentaries? Like the one attacking Monsanto and GM technology?

I believe that thread ended with "Greedy corporations are bad, GM food not necessarily so"


Oh and yes i did make quite alot of threads. Might be as early as 2005 or 06.

 

[Eejit]

Yes, it ended that way.

 

[Acepilotf14]

~Weird~
Maybe you just stopped for a while. No idea.

Or I'm just going crazy. Probably the latter.

 

[jverne]

Yes, it ended that way.

Paraphrasing, of course...but that is not the point of the italic font right?

 

[Maestro]

Jverne, I'm going to say this slowly:

Put
The
Shovel
Down

You're digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole with every post. You do realize you're the only one here not criticizing the idiocy you're spouting. Dan's right, it's increasingly more difficult to even extract a coherent argument to be opposed to. We're all left with this vague feeling of "jverne, sounds pissed, and it has something to do with the environment, but exactly what his logical(?) train is no one knows."

Seriously. Shut the hell up.

Now watch as jverne gets teary-eyed and rage-y at me for stating what everyone else already agrees to be the case.

 

[Dan]

Oh wow. No you didn't.

You don't see a correlation between the environment and living beings in it, do you?
Natural living...you're starting to go vague on me again.

I don't see a correlation between the environment and living beings, I recognize that they are related parts of a whole system.

I NEVER EVER SAID IN THIS THREAD OR ANY OTHER RECENT THREAD THAT MY VIEW ARE RIGHT or that i feel discontent for people not realizing it. This thread is a ****ing poll and a request for arguments of different sides. If you you wouldn't barge in with the preconceived notion that i'm somehow pushing my agenda the thread might have been much more coherent.

Anytime you say anything, it is with the implication that you think it is right. If you are saying things, and they are wrong, we are going to call you out on it. If you don't want people calling out problems with your views, then don't post them on the internet.

In summary your argument is like "Oh you don't understand everything, so better not think about it, dare i say touch". Well pal, look around we don't seem to be living in the stone age anymore, where the nature was the mysterious, untouchable force that ruled over us.

In summary, if you debate something, you are establishing a dialogue. And you develop your ideas, pushing forward those which withstand argument, and withdrawing those that are shown incorrect. Except if it is the internet, you just stick to the same argument the whole time, and when it is proven wrong, use the Chewbacca defence.

 

[jverne]

Jverne, I'm going to say this slowly:

Put
The
Shovel
Down

You're digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole with every post. You do realize you're the only one here not criticizing the idiocy you're spouting. Dan's right, it's increasingly more difficult to even extract a coherent argument to be opposed to. We're all left with this vague feeling of "jverne, sounds pissed, and it has something to do with the environment, but exactly what his logical(?) train is no one knows."

Seriously. Shut the hell up.

Now watch as jverne gets teary-eyed and rage-y at me for stating what everyone else already agrees to be the case.

You know...eight now i'm laughing because you're a textbook example of the bandwagon mentality of some members here.

I picture your involvement in this thread the following:

1. jverne makes thread asking whether you support restrictions or not
2. Krynn and Dan come in and start accusing me of pushing an environmentalist agenda
3. You come in barely care to read any of my posts
4. You see Dan yaping about something how i don't know what i'm talking
5. You just side with Dan because you can't be arsed to comprehend the basic intent of the debate.
6. Tell me to shut up because i'm supposedly digging myself in shit with each post, but failing to give any specific example or argument


Ok disregard this thread as part of the original topic. It's merely an depiction of your ignorance.

 

[jverne]

I don't see a correlation between the environment and living beings, I recognize that they are related parts of a whole system.


Anytime you say anything, it is with the implication that you think it is right. If you are saying things, and they are wrong, we are going to call you out on it. If you don't want people calling out problems with your views, then don't post them on the internet.


In summary, if you debate something, you are establishing a dialogue. And you develop your ideas, pushing forward those which withstand argument, and withdrawing those that are shown incorrect. Except if it is the internet, you just stick to the same argument the whole time, and when it is proven wrong, use the Chewbacca defence.

So if i ask about your opinion of a particular topic, where i haven't came to a consensus, i must have hidden intents/agendas? riiight!

Also...i'm not allowed to start debates where i don't necessarily agree with the main argument.
For instance..."Hitler was great...for people of Aryan descent", i don't agree with it, does that automatically nullify a potential debate?

 

[Vegeta897]

Jverne, you should know hl2.net better than that. You should know that when everyone is against you, you are definitely in trouble. People don't just jump on bandwagons here. I used to get shit from other people for pouncing on bluewolf in the early days, but people learned for themselves why I did it. We're not a bunch of idiots here, and the worst thing you can do in your position is to deny it.

 

[jverne]

Jverne, you should know hl2.net better than that. You should know that when everyone is against you, you are definitely in trouble. People don't just jump on bandwagons here. I used to get shit from other people for pouncing on bluewolf in the early days, but people learned for themselves why I did it. We're not a bunch of idiots here, and the worst thing you can do in your position is to deny it.

I understand if it were legitimate. But when you make in all sincerity an innocent thread which then transforms into a ****fest of me defending against allegations of somehow being righteous, totalitarian,... You loose perspective whether that one making the allegation is stupid or not.

But i must realize that, if someone is biased against you he's gonna throw shit at me no matter what i say. Even if it turns out he's actually for the same argument.

 

[Vegeta897]

Case in point, I really haven't been following what you've been doing lately too closely. Threads like these bore the shit out of me. So I'm not going to tell you you're wrong or a retard, but I am (and did) going to give you some advice given the situation that you're in. You're becoming very unpopular, that's a fact. It's not anyone's biased perception or bandwagon jumping. I don't know the specific reasons for it like I said, but I can tell you what you shouldn't do.

 

[Maestro]

I understand if it were legitimate. But when you make in all sincerity an innocent thread which then transforms into a ****fest of me defending against allegations of somehow being righteous, totalitarian,... You loose perspective whether that one making the allegation is stupid or not.

But i must realize that, if someone is biased against you he's gonna throw shit at me no matter what i say. Even if it turns out he's actually for the same argument.

It ain't bias if it's right.

In fact I have read your posts, and frankly I really can't discern anything that is specific. You just give vague generalizations and suggestions and rely on ad hominem to back up your arguments.

 

[dfc05]

I am doubtful about the ability to isolate the effect of a single value, of human industry (carbon emissions) on the global climate. We cannot perform controlled experiments on this scale, and we cannot build a comprehensive physical model. Furthermore, the effect of a single individuals actions on human carbon emissions is by no means certain either. Lastly, the other (non carbon emission related) effects of an individual action on the global climate are most certainly unknown, and likely of greater magnitude than the effect of individual action on carbon emission and the effect of that carbon emission on the climate.

Carbon dioxide has been known to absorb infrared radiation for a very long time. Infrared spectrometers are pretty common lab instruments. All C=O double bonds absorb strongly. The science of increased CO2 levels causing increased trapping of heat is pretty solid. One might debate whether things like cloud formation offset the increased heating (research published last year using climate models says no), but if there is CO2 in the atmosphere and infrared light passing through it, it IS undeniably absorbing and re-radiating the heat. While CO2 is present at small levels, the increase in CO2 over the past decade is significant enough that profs actually have to revise their homework problems every few years to update the CO2 concentration.

If you want an example of the effect of carbon dioxide on climate on a planet-wide scale, look at Venus. Extreme case, but carbon dioxide has clearly royally screwed up Venus. If you need an example closer to home, look into how Earth switched over from "Snowball Earth" to the Cambrian explosion. Granted, CO2 levels leading up to the Cambrian period were 350 times higher than they are today, but that was to warm from completely-frozen-over temperatures to massive-explosion-of-life temperatures. In our case, people are concerned about smaller 1 to 2 deg Celsius warmings and other climatic changes because crop growing periods, the water cycle - which has a significant effect on crop growing, and animal life cycles (although you don't really seem to care about those) can be sensitive to small climate disruptions. Insect populations are particularly sensitive to temperature in that larval hatching and insect lifespans are often controlled by temperature. Even if you don't care about insects themselves, you should consider insect-crop relations.

Also, while I agree that individual actions are miniscule on the scale of the carbon output of everyone in the world, we need to start somewhere. This is why overarching policies would have to be implemented to make significant change, which I think was the point of this thread in the first place.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the other (non carbon emission related) effects of an individual action on the global climate," so I can't respond to that.

 

[Suicide Machine]

The obvious ground principle is to restrict as much liberty as is necessary

NWO NWO rabble rabble

 

[Danimal]

I like how you say rabble rabble as though it doesn't exist.

 

[Suicide Machine]

I like how you say rabble rabble as though it doesn't exist.

:afro:

 

[Danimal]

 

[Dan]

Carbon dioxide has been known to absorb infrared radiation for a very long time. Infrared spectrometers are pretty common lab instruments. All C=O double bonds absorb strongly. The science of increased CO2 levels causing increased trapping of heat is pretty solid. One might debate whether things like cloud formation offset the increased heating (research published last year using climate models says no), but if there is CO2 in the atmosphere and infrared light passing through it, it IS undeniably absorbing and re-radiating the heat. While CO2 is present at small levels, the increase in CO2 over the past decade is significant enough that profs actually have to revise their homework problems every few years to update the CO2 concentration.

If you want an example of the effect of carbon dioxide on climate on a planet-wide scale, look at Venus. Extreme case, but carbon dioxide has clearly royally screwed up Venus. If you need an example closer to home, look into how Earth switched over from "Snowball Earth" to the Cambrian explosion. Granted, CO2 levels leading up to the Cambrian period were 350 times higher than they are today, but that was to warm from completely-frozen-over temperatures to massive-explosion-of-life temperatures. In our case, people are concerned about smaller 1 to 2 deg Celsius warmings and other climatic changes because crop growing periods, the water cycle - which has a significant effect on crop growing, and animal life cycles (although you don't really seem to care about those) can be sensitive to small climate disruptions. Insect populations are particularly sensitive to temperature in that larval hatching and insect lifespans are often controlled by temperature. Even if you don't care about insects themselves, you should consider insect-crop relations.

Also, while I agree that individual actions are miniscule on the scale of the carbon output of everyone in the world, we need to start somewhere. This is why overarching policies would have to be implemented to make significant change, which I think was the point of this thread in the first place.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the other (non carbon emission related) effects of an individual action on the global climate," so I can't respond to that.

If you read what I said, I never doubted that a mechanism for human industry affecting climate exists. What I said was that you cannot simply isolate the effect of carbon from a complex system and treat it as the whole story. Scientists have identified one pathway by which carbon dioxide can affect climate, but I doubt that it is the only one. Climate is linked to pretty much everything on the Earth.

My next point, is that the impact of an individual action on carbon production is also a complex system. How do you know what the magnitude of your affect will be for each choice? The idea that paper cups are more environmentally friendly than styrofoam is a popular example. LCA are never comprehensive, because you can only go down the chain so far. Once you get past carbon produced by effects 4 or 5 steps removed from your choice, you are dealing with thousands if not millions of little factors.

My last point about other effects of individual action is the infinite number of other ways in which your choice affects the climate other than via carbon dioxide production. Take for example, the creation of other greenhouse gases, the impact on ocean currents, the impact on humidity, the change in surface albedo (adding shiny roof to your house?) These are all just possible pathways off the top of my head. They are all small impact and hard to quantify, but so is carbon.

So we have people like Jverne, who want to maximize their personal health. They make the connection that changing climate will adversely affect their well being. This is another one of those big complex relations. But anyways, the goal of personal well being or well being of people in general becomes the goal of stable climate. Well lower carbon emissions will stabilize the climate right? So the goal of personal well being has been shuttled down to lowering carbon emissions. Now how can your product choices lower carbon emissions? Easy, pick the car with the best mpg right? right? So what is the final impact? How much does that car affect carbon dioxide affect the climate affect your personal well being? Is this really the most significant chain of causation affecting personal well being? Is it even valid? Did that car have other unexplored impacts on carbon production or on the climate? Maybe you didn't actually maximize the environment or your well being. Maybe there are other more direct ways to influence your well being than to go through the climate.