Someone else saved the world by driving a big SUV then pedaling the last half a mile 
it’s the thought that counts!
I’m not going to give Gates or anyone one else a pass for flying with private jets or other wasteful activities when they lecture us on our usage. We have representatives in congress flying on commercial jets back and forth to their districts. Certainly they aren’t immune to attacks by enemies or psycho stalkers and for that matter the general public isn’t immune either. There are many videos demonstrating this point. In the case of Gates “those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”.
1 Like
Plausus, I get that you dislike a hypocrite. I am with you there. I just don’t see how that addresses the need to reduce CO2 emissions.
If a hypocrite happens to expose the need to reduce CO2 emissions does that reduce the need to address the problem? Not addressing the problem when it is recognizable makes us all hypocrites by the actions we take. I really don’t see the rich wanting to give up their lifestyle nor the majority of the common working people doing so either. None of that has a bearing on what needs to be done other than putting up roadblocks to doing so.
I am certainly reluctant to give up driving altogether but am willing to make changes to doing so. We have a car culture in this country and any change to that is going the be resisted. Some solutions are EVs, better mass transit systems, and reducing speed limits back to 55mph.
Pikabike pointed out earlier on this thread that the easiest thing to do right now which would make a real noticeable reduction in transportation produced CO2 emissions would be to go back to 55mph maximum speed limits. It would reduce fuel consumption and the cost to each of us that drive regardless of the vehicle.
Would you be willing to drive at 55mph? I would. I do so now as most of my driving is local and rural. Speeding seems to be a popular pastime. Would you call those that do so hypocrites if they believe in enforcing the laws of the land? Does that negate the need for speed limits?
Some are listening and some just don’t want to hear it.
Not speaking for @plausus, but as we discussed earlier people need to be convinced that action needs to be taken, and that’s the problem with the rich hypocrites. They’re the visible advocates to “expose the need to reduce”, and because of their hypocrisy they aren’t credible and people don’t listen, aren’t convinced, thus do nothing. “If you can’t give up your private jet, then it must not be as bad as you say, and I’m not giving up my …”
A Hypocrite espouses certain beliefs but then behaves in a way contrary to those beliefs. That tells me they don’t truly believe what they are espousing or they consider it beneath them to contribute to those beliefs in a tangible way which in this case reduces their carbon emissions.
For those who don’t espouse these same beliefs there is no conflict and there is no hypocrisy and no urgency to be part of the solution. That’s not saying they don’t see value in saving gas because it costs money, or has some other tangible benefit to the individual.
I totally agree. As has been said “Image is more important than reality.” Most of us work off of the image.
That’s why most of what I have posted is the current science that is coming out. I have no idea how many take the time to watch or read through it. The reality is harder to grasp than the image, so image tends to prevail. It might just be my perception, but the actual science hasn’t seemed to generated as much verbiage.
Personally, I don’t care as much about the image as what to do to reduce CO2 pollution. I do know the image is import.
I wonder why there isn’t more discussion on solutions.
I suspect “I Can’t Drive 55” is why that idea is taboo! Doesn’t cost out of pocket and reduces emissions at the same time. No one needs to fly anywhere to get that done, and no new taxes except for the maximum speed limit sign replacement. That’s an easy lifestyle change.
You can see why in one of my first posts to this thread I said, “I am an optimist, but it is hard to be one these days.” I really don’t think the will is there no matter what the science tells us. Nor do I think we will do what is needed to prevent significant impacts to all life on this planet. That is why I been active on this thread. I would really be a hypocrite if I think this and didn’t try to change a few minds to help prevent it.
1 Like
Exactly my thoughts
climate change?
bigger worries are around! Below is only a tidbit. China will take Taiwan soon. Then look out 
China is preparing for war as we speak.
Not building silo’s for grain.
Tell someone who drives 100 miles a day to do 55. Try doing 55 on Long Island you’ll be run off the road, tailgated, cutoff, and prone to accidents.
If 55 is good how about 40, 30, 20?
How about 300 square feet of living space person?
Allow a person one vehicle every 20 years?
Ban all motorized racing?
In the stone age one guy threw a rock at another guy. The other guy got a bigger rock and threw it back. Nothing has changed since then. The destruction of WWII will look like a drive by shooting soon .
And on and on and on…
1 Like
Another angle on “Jet-Set” hypocrite Gates is that he wants to block the sun by spraying reflective chemicals into the atmosphere through geoengineering which we’re told doesn’t exist. Does anyone really think this would be a good thing? Perhaps massive amounts of forest fires would also block the sun. 
Fyi the Whitehouse and the EU back the Gates plan.
1 Like
no surprise 
nuclear winter will cure all.
1 Like
The most fuel efficient speed to drive would be the speed the road was designed for. If we have everyone doing different speeds it would and does create traffic jams, accidents, surging etc… all which waste fuel thus putting out more CO2 and getting no benefit back in return.
Just in case “Mutual Assured Destruction” continues to work. I’m just going to stick to the topic of addressing the reduction of CO2 and the science supporting the need.
I remember 55mph was picked back in the 1973 after the oil embargo because it was a good compromise between speed and fuel reduction. It lasted until 95 for 22 years. The world didn’t end while driving those speeds. You prove my point about resistance to lifestyle change.
3 Likes
MAD doesn’t work with mad men.
War may start and quickly escalate out of control. If you’re losing you dig deeper into you arsenal.
life is short people don’t want to spend it on the road doing 55. Law is 55 in most of NY I do 60-65 and pass about nobody every morning. Should cars all have just enough HP to go 55 and up a hill or be governed?
You had a feel good law of 55 but few ever did it.
Should we ban everything made in china here in the USA because of China’s dirty footprint?
1 Like
Neither am I giving him a free pass, just saying there can be factors that push someone into choosing a wasteful way.
I also don’t give YOU or me or any plebe a free pass to use one person’s indulgences as an excuse to do nothing yourself (the “he does it so why can’t I” child’s whine). That was the point behind my first two paragraphs.
1 Like
Can you share the source of that info?
Thanks.
Here you go.
2 Likes
Now I may have said this tongue and cheek but after several wildfire seasons choking cities across the continent is this already being used to block the sun to cool the planet? Is this Gates plan being put into action?
1 Like
Thanks for these. My first impression of the idea is to reject it, so I guess it’s something I need to learn more about.