4 ms·

Yeah right, like a couple of private citizens not eating beef anymore is going to put a dent in climate change. We need governments to solve this, because they

Yeah right, like a couple of private citizens not eating beef anymore is going to put a dent in climate change. We need governments to solve this, because they are the only entities big enough to actually affect this sort of large scale problem.

wpietri 10y ago
It's not an either/or. Private citizens can also take action. And at least for me personally, relatively small personal actions (like flying less and switching to LED bulbs) make me more supportive of government action precisely because the things I can do directly turn out to be insufficient to the problem.
everfree 10y ago
If hypothetically half of the US stopped eating beef today, that would make a huge positive impact on the US climate footprint. It wouldn't matter if the change were instigated by the government or by the people.
- Luc 10y ago
  If my grandma had wheels... There's some small, temporary reductions in meat consumption in some countries, leveraging religious traditions, and appealing to health reasons. Maybe, possibly, over many generations, it could work to significantly reduce overall meat consumption. Maybe.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    Use CRISPR, devise a gene driver using a virus to sterilize cattle, distribute widely. No more cows. It violates no law. This is already in the field for mosquito control.
witty_username 10y ago
Of course, it's good to have governments do this, but either way private citizens will have to change their actions.
- sverige 10y ago
  Exactly. The whole point of many government actions is to induce millions of private citizens to change their behavior. Continuing to contribute to carbon emissions by flying commercial or building energy-sucking data centers while claiming that it's a pending disaster is hypocrisy.
dd36 10y ago
People don't want to have to think about it. If the solution is built into the system, it reduces cognitive load.
jostylr 10y ago
Government can solve this like it solved abortion rights, gay marriage, education, oppression of people by dictators, slavery, prohibition, illegal drugs, ... Violence, the tool that is the government, cannot change the minds of the people. And for environmental issues, it is very easy to undermine it if many are determined to do so. All of those government fueled solutions can sometimes make it better for people in the short-term, but they fail to convince in the long run. The South is still pissed off about the civil war 150 years later. If slavery had died off from persuasion instead of at the end of the gun, generations of blacks might have had a better time of it. Post-civil war could have also worked out if the government had not turned its back, but that is exactly the problem. Those who care generally get their way. That is why one has to convince people of the way and then government can clean up the rest. Convince 80% then government can handle the other 20%. What does not work is convincing 20% and pretending government can handle the other 80%. Government has a role, but it truly is the will of the people first. Do your part, spread the word, make it the norm, and then government can handle the outliers. With illegal drugs, many were against drugs back in the day, but the culture turned. The government reacted with its all-out war on drugs and yet it continues to fail while doing massive damage.

wpietri 10y ago

It's not an either/or. Private citizens can also take action. And at least for me personally, relatively small personal actions (like flying less and switching to LED bulbs) make me more supportive of government action precisely because the things I can do directly turn out to be insufficient to the problem.

everfree 10y ago

If hypothetically half of the US stopped eating beef today, that would make a huge positive impact on the US climate footprint. It wouldn't matter if the change were instigated by the government or by the people.

Luc 10y ago
If my grandma had wheels... There's some small, temporary reductions in meat consumption in some countries, leveraging religious traditions, and appealing to health reasons. Maybe, possibly, over many generations, it could work to significantly reduce overall meat consumption. Maybe.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  Use CRISPR, devise a gene driver using a virus to sterilize cattle, distribute widely. No more cows. It violates no law. This is already in the field for mosquito control.

witty_username 10y ago

Of course, it's good to have governments do this, but either way private citizens will have to change their actions.

sverige 10y ago
Exactly. The whole point of many government actions is to induce millions of private citizens to change their behavior. Continuing to contribute to carbon emissions by flying commercial or building energy-sucking data centers while claiming that it's a pending disaster is hypocrisy.

dd36 10y ago

People don't want to have to think about it. If the solution is built into the system, it reduces cognitive load.

jostylr 10y ago

Government can solve this like it solved abortion rights, gay marriage, education, oppression of people by dictators, slavery, prohibition, illegal drugs, ... Violence, the tool that is the government, cannot change the minds of the people. And for environmental issues, it is very easy to undermine it if many are determined to do so. All of those government fueled solutions can sometimes make it better for people in the short-term, but they fail to convince in the long run. The South is still pissed off about the civil war 150 years later. If slavery had died off from persuasion instead of at the end of the gun, generations of blacks might have had a better time of it. Post-civil war could have also worked out if the government had not turned its back, but that is exactly the problem. Those who care generally get their way. That is why one has to convince people of the way and then government can clean up the rest. Convince 80% then government can handle the other 20%. What does not work is convincing 20% and pretending government can handle the other 80%. Government has a role, but it truly is the will of the people first. Do your part, spread the word, make it the norm, and then government can handle the outliers. With illegal drugs, many were against drugs back in the day, but the culture turned. The government reacted with its all-out war on drugs and yet it continues to fail while doing massive damage.