3 ms·
But there's the rub... by and large, it's not in my personal interest to stop global warming. Short-run gains matter more to a lot of people AND many people who
by incongruity 11y ago
But there's the rub... by and large, it's not in my personal interest to stop global warming. Short-run gains matter more to a lot of people AND many people who could change won't see the return on their investment (or their bad behavior) in their lifetime.
(I should say, I'm not endorsing that thinking either... just noting that there's a challenge here, especially when one tries to frame climate change in terms of "self-interest")
- nitrogen 11y agoThis might be the one area where "think of the [grand]children" is a reasonable argument.
- incongruity 11y agoIt also would seem to be an argument for governmental intervention. Industry is unlikely to do it for the same reasons individuals are unlikely to consistently make good environmental choices... If ever there were a case, this may be it, assuming all of the predicted outcomes are actually going to come to pass, otherwise.
- 7952 11y agoThat is why I said "environmental literacy" rather than just climate change. Take fossil fuel as an example. Burning oil and coal creates emissions that are toxic or carcinogenic to humans. Thousands of people die every year or endure suffering as a result. As if that wasn't enough gas is quite expensive for many. We should all want clean cars and power stations because they could actually be better. But I agree that dry self interest is not enough, it needs to be backed up by some emotion. People need to feel ashamed of dirty technology and link it to the damage it causes. That is surely much easier when you focus on things less existential than climate change. Everyone knows someone who died of cancer, and fundraising for treatment is an ever present part of life. Completely destroying dirty fuel sources should just be an extension of that.