5 ms·

Is there even a "war" against climate change? If there is, it's barely gotten started. For the most part, politicians are at best apathetic and at worst, activ

Is there even a "war" against climate change? If there is, it's barely gotten started. For the most part, politicians are at best apathetic and at worst, actively hostile to the idea of "fighting" such a war.

anoplus 8y ago
From the activism I follow in my country in last decade, I learned that politicians are apathetic, and a good activism is needed to make them move. That's how lazy governments work. So I think until we fix governments performance we need to engage in efficient activism. What is efficient activism? This question interests me.
- TOGoS 8y ago
  Workplace organizing. It's a lot easier to get people to fight for something when they know they'll benefit from it directly (via higher wages, better working conditions, etc). A unified working class is the most effective tool we have for fighting countering the power of bug business, who would rather let the world burn than stop building pipelines. Most people don't like what's happening to the world -- they just feel powerless to stop it. So let's change that.
  - a_tractor 8y ago
    We already have "the power." People just don't want to accept the responsibility of their own contribution to the demand of said pipelines. While big business doesn't want to stop building pipelines, nobody wants to stop buying whatever comes out of them, either. It would be fun to see you try to convince the "working class" of the developing world to stop what they are doing and cease their from-behind pursuit of material wealth. You could try to bribe them but I'm not sure if that is what I would call sustainable. With "workplace organizing" the benefits are immediate and obvious, and the eventual consequences, negative or otherwise, are not. Kind of thing where a wage increase is obvious, but the eventual outsourcing of your job for cheaper labor, or the eventual bankruptcy of the business when the pensions are due, is not. We face the opposite problem here, since the effort involved (lifestyle changes) and the negative effects (higher taxes) are immediately obvious, while the benefits are neither immediate nor obvious. Its more like you are trying to convince people to demand lower wages... The problem itself (specific to AGW) is not even immediately obvious, apparently you need PhDs from multiple disciplines to understand the problem or you are dismissed with the Courtier's reply, leaving you reliant on an Appeal to Authority. That isn't necessarily wrong, but that is what you are dealing with. Manifesting change then depends on establishing complete faith in that authority or consensus, and, in contrast to a pay raise, the only thing you can utilize as motivation for change is guilt and fear. Then you have to be ensure that bad actors won't try to manipulate that fear via groupthink for less noble purposes... We don't have a great track record for that. Anyway, I sort of think the seemingly fanatical calls for massive top-down solutions to this problem tends to do more to defeat or demoralize individual or bottom-up efforts, as you might promote, and seems designed to evoke increased permissiveness to those who seek mainly to centralize and expand corporate and government power.
chosenbreed 8y ago
The politicians largely reflect the people they govern. I don't think we can expect much better from them as compared to the general population...not to mention of course the vested interests and lobbying capability of corporations. And again corporations have shareholders, employees, etc...
- rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
  >The politicians largely reflect the people they govern. Yet, people expect the politicians not to simply reflect them. Who or what is at fault then?
  - chosenbreed 8y ago
    I think it is naive to expect someone to be better simply because they hold public office. Politicians are as fallible as anybody else...but I don't think that's a big problem in the long run. In the long run they will reflect the choices of large swathes of people. I think politics/policies are lagging indicators. For examples I give rulings on slavery, voting for women, voting for people of colour, legalisation of same-sex marriage, (bans on smoking in certain places), etc
- colordrops 8y ago
  > The politicians largely reflect the people they govern Is that really true though? The statement is so vague.
  - PeterisP 8y ago
    In this regard it's absolutely true - the vast majority of people clearly are not willing to undertake meaningful lifestyle sacrifices to fight against climate change.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- munificent 8y ago
  I think a more precise statement is that politicians reflect the people who got them in office. In theory that means the voters. In practice in the US, because election spending is so huge and effective, it means the wealthy.
Merad 8y ago
Not in the US. The majority of the country isn't to the point of believing that climate change poses a serious threat, and among non-Democrats attitudes towards climate change are actually regressing: https://news.gallup.com/poll/231530/global-warming-concern-steady-despite-partisan-shifts.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/231530/global-warming-concern-s...
- sparkling 8y ago
  Weather or not the majority believes in climate change is irrelevant. The simple fact is: while the US reduced its total carbon footprint by ~0,4% in 2017, it increased in the EU and China. No reason to point fingers at the US.
  - StavrosK 8y ago
    Are you suggesting the link is causal?
  - jmcgough 8y ago
    Classic tragedy of the commons. No one wants to do their part because others aren't trying hard enough to fix the problem.
  - mads_ravn 8y ago
    It is quite a lot easier to reduce when you are using > 2.5 times as much as the ones you are comparing to (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_...)
  - koube 8y ago
    The EU is reducing its carbon footprint if you zoom out from that one year[0]. China also has half of the carbon footprint per person[0]. The US appears the have the highest carbon footprint per capita of the major nations, beaten only by small countries[1]. [0]https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/01/climate/us-biggest-carbon-polluter-in-history-will-it-walk-away-from-the-paris-climate-deal.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/01/climate/us-bi... [1]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/carbon-emissions-per-person-capita https://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02...

anoplus 8y ago

From the activism I follow in my country in last decade, I learned that politicians are apathetic, and a good activism is needed to make them move. That's how lazy governments work. So I think until we fix governments performance we need to engage in efficient activism. What is efficient activism? This question interests me.

TOGoS 8y ago
Workplace organizing. It's a lot easier to get people to fight for something when they know they'll benefit from it directly (via higher wages, better working conditions, etc). A unified working class is the most effective tool we have for fighting countering the power of bug business, who would rather let the world burn than stop building pipelines. Most people don't like what's happening to the world -- they just feel powerless to stop it. So let's change that.
- a_tractor 8y ago
  We already have "the power." People just don't want to accept the responsibility of their own contribution to the demand of said pipelines. While big business doesn't want to stop building pipelines, nobody wants to stop buying whatever comes out of them, either. It would be fun to see you try to convince the "working class" of the developing world to stop what they are doing and cease their from-behind pursuit of material wealth. You could try to bribe them but I'm not sure if that is what I would call sustainable. With "workplace organizing" the benefits are immediate and obvious, and the eventual consequences, negative or otherwise, are not. Kind of thing where a wage increase is obvious, but the eventual outsourcing of your job for cheaper labor, or the eventual bankruptcy of the business when the pensions are due, is not. We face the opposite problem here, since the effort involved (lifestyle changes) and the negative effects (higher taxes) are immediately obvious, while the benefits are neither immediate nor obvious. Its more like you are trying to convince people to demand lower wages... The problem itself (specific to AGW) is not even immediately obvious, apparently you need PhDs from multiple disciplines to understand the problem or you are dismissed with the Courtier's reply, leaving you reliant on an Appeal to Authority. That isn't necessarily wrong, but that is what you are dealing with. Manifesting change then depends on establishing complete faith in that authority or consensus, and, in contrast to a pay raise, the only thing you can utilize as motivation for change is guilt and fear. Then you have to be ensure that bad actors won't try to manipulate that fear via groupthink for less noble purposes... We don't have a great track record for that. Anyway, I sort of think the seemingly fanatical calls for massive top-down solutions to this problem tends to do more to defeat or demoralize individual or bottom-up efforts, as you might promote, and seems designed to evoke increased permissiveness to those who seek mainly to centralize and expand corporate and government power.

chosenbreed 8y ago

The politicians largely reflect the people they govern. I don't think we can expect much better from them as compared to the general population...not to mention of course the vested interests and lobbying capability of corporations. And again corporations have shareholders, employees, etc...

rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
>The politicians largely reflect the people they govern. Yet, people expect the politicians not to simply reflect them. Who or what is at fault then?
- chosenbreed 8y ago
  I think it is naive to expect someone to be better simply because they hold public office. Politicians are as fallible as anybody else...but I don't think that's a big problem in the long run. In the long run they will reflect the choices of large swathes of people. I think politics/policies are lagging indicators. For examples I give rulings on slavery, voting for women, voting for people of colour, legalisation of same-sex marriage, (bans on smoking in certain places), etc
colordrops 8y ago
> The politicians largely reflect the people they govern Is that really true though? The statement is so vague.
- PeterisP 8y ago
  In this regard it's absolutely true - the vast majority of people clearly are not willing to undertake meaningful lifestyle sacrifices to fight against climate change.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
munificent 8y ago
I think a more precise statement is that politicians reflect the people who got them in office. In theory that means the voters. In practice in the US, because election spending is so huge and effective, it means the wealthy.

Merad 8y ago

Not in the US. The majority of the country isn't to the point of believing that climate change poses a serious threat, and among non-Democrats attitudes towards climate change are actually regressing: https://news.gallup.com/poll/231530/global-warming-concern-steady-despite-partisan-shifts.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/231530/global-warming-concern-s...

sparkling 8y ago
Weather or not the majority believes in climate change is irrelevant. The simple fact is: while the US reduced its total carbon footprint by ~0,4% in 2017, it increased in the EU and China. No reason to point fingers at the US.
- StavrosK 8y ago
  Are you suggesting the link is causal?
- jmcgough 8y ago
  Classic tragedy of the commons. No one wants to do their part because others aren't trying hard enough to fix the problem.
- mads_ravn 8y ago
  It is quite a lot easier to reduce when you are using > 2.5 times as much as the ones you are comparing to (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_...)
- koube 8y ago
  The EU is reducing its carbon footprint if you zoom out from that one year[0]. China also has half of the carbon footprint per person[0]. The US appears the have the highest carbon footprint per capita of the major nations, beaten only by small countries[1]. [0]https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/01/climate/us-biggest-carbon-polluter-in-history-will-it-walk-away-from-the-paris-climate-deal.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/01/climate/us-bi... [1]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/carbon-emissions-per-person-capita https://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02...