Once or twice.

Look, I don’t think we really disagree with each other. I think it would be great if we switched to sail-based shipping. But for that to be viable the masses would have to be OK with the results of that, as you laid out above.

I’m not hopeful that will happen, not until supply chains start breaking under the strain of climate change its consequences. By then, it may be too late to switch.

I suggest you get to work on implementing your solution, then. It’s very easy, after all. Let me know how it goes.

We could

Who’s “we”? You’re referring to some kind of collective humanity, but so such collective exists in the real world. There is no grand effort to work together to solve common problems.

You’re ignoring the fact that sailing ships cannot compete with fossil power. Any problem becomes easy if you’re willing to ignore reality.

We could easily

I think you and I have different definitions of that word.

drastic action is necessary which will result in large inconveniences and disruption for billions of people, but nobody wants that, and no politician will get elected selling that.

Correct.

Fair.

The point was not to imply that shipping is not a large source of CO2, but:

1. More than once, I have seen it stated that a small number of cargo ships dwarfs the world’s car fleet in terms of CO2 emission. This is wrong, and originates with abovementioned conflating of sulphur and carbon.
2. At 3.9% of all GHG emissions, it is hardly correct to refer to shipping as one of the “biggest CO2 polluters”.
3. It’s not low hanging fruit. Moving cargo by sea is really very efficient, and we’re not going to reduce that carbon source by switching to other means of transport. The only way to reduce it is to move less stuff.

I do believe you are grossly incorrect

What makes you think that? None of the sources you provide disagree with what I wrote.

The biggest CO2 polluters are […] cargo ships.

No, this is a misunderstanding. Cargo ships are a major source of sulphur pollution, not carbon. Cargo ships use the cheapest fuel they can. Cheap fuel is rich in sulphur. They can do this because there are no emission regulations on the open sea. A commonly cited figure is that a single cargo ship releases more sulphur than all the cars in North America.

This figure is then misinterpreted by people who failed basic chemistry to mean that cargo ships are a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. In reality, the opposite is true; cargo ships are one of the most efficient ways to move stuff over large distances. Only electric trains are better, and only if the source of the electricity is not fossil.

What you however skipped in your reply is the fact that the richest 8 people limiting their emissions has the same effect as the 792 people beneath that limiting their emissions.

I skipped it because I agree. There’s nothing to debate on that point.

However, the point of my first reply was to highlight that this perspective is often exaggerated to paint the global middle class (the top 10% richest people on the planet, i.e. most people in western Europe and the anglosphere) as innocent victims when in fact they are also to blame. This is what I replied to:

The narrative that the average joe is to blame for this shit is so infuriating to me.

This sentiment is oft-repeated on this kind of post, and the implication that “average joe” is not responsible is not only wrong, but actively harmful.

Also you’re last sentence is quite hostile, BP definitely came up with it to avoid their responsibility and pivot it to other people. The idea might not be ‘bad’ per se, but if you do it so to avoid your own responsibility, it is definitely bad practice (which, again, is why each of us should try to limit our carbon emissions)

Of course. By the same token, individuals trying to avoid their own responsibility by parroting “big oil invented the idea of a carbon footprint” is definitely bad practice.

Myself and 50,000 other people could start walking everywhere and it very likely wouldn’t come close to offsetting the emissions of Amazon’s fleet of trucks.

Not if you keep ordering shit from amazon it won’t. It will prevent 50,000 people’s worth of transportation emissions, though.

Don’t sell yourself short. You’re more responsible for the situation than you want to admit.

there’s a very small group of individuals called billionaires that contribute 1000x more than you or I ever could.

Wrong. The top 0.1% pollute 10x as much (per capita) as the top 10% (excluding the top 0.1%). Source

BP invented the idea of the individual carbon footprint.

If the strongest argument against an idea is “the wrong people came up with it”, the idea is probably pretty good.

Do you not understand what the word “restrict” means?

Absolutely. And that sucks. But I derive a certain catharsis from knowing that at least some of the people responsible will suffer along with them.

obviously 150,000,000 middle class people have more of an impact than 1,000,000 very wealthy people.

And that is a problem from a social perspective. But from a climate perspective, focusing on the wealthy is nothing more than an attempt to shift blame.

our society has been set up so it’s very difficult to live without a car and a ton of semi-disposable manufactured items.

Society has not been set up like that by accident. This, too, is the fault of the middle class, for being lazy fucks who would rather drive their car everywhere than look for alternative modes of transport; for eating meat two or even three meals a day, every day; for choosing to live in their mcmansions in car dependant suburban sprawls instead of denser housing; etc. etc.

People emerging from poverty in countries like India and China have shown plenty of enthusiasm to live in the same wasteful way as the middle class in the west

They are part of the problem, of course.

also not sure what your point is.

The point is that over the next several decades, a lot of people will get what they fucking deserve 👍

The issue is people who consume/pollute 10x as much as others per person.

Indeed, but 10x doesn’t cut it. The middle class pollutes about 100x more than the lower class per capita. But they’ll get what’s coming to them.

Billionaires ain’t no buddies of mine. They will be able to buy their way free of the worst of the climate disaster, and that sucks.

But the middle class, at least, will have to pay their dues. And that does not suck.

“Faster than expected.”

1. Visibility. Targeting widely broadcasted events increases exposure of the cause.
2. Disruption: Ever heard of bread and circuses? Disrupting the circus rouses the general public, and a roused public is preferable to complacent one even if they are roused against the protestors themselves.
3. Pressure: Eventually, 2. forces the ruling class to take action. Again, even if the action is to silence or persecute the protestors it still serves to highlight the issue.
4. Symbolism: Shit is not fine. Most people want to pretend it is, and this kind of event is part of the illusion. Pulling aside the curtain is the right thing to do.

Everyone knows protests are only effective if they don’t inconvenience anyone. Ideally, climate activism should be conducted from the inside of one’s closet. That’s how real change happens!

Here’s the thing though: The collective carbon footprint of the middle class absolutely dwarfs that of the private jet class.

The middle class is responsible, the middle class will pay, and honestly I’m here for it.