6 ms·

I'm absolutely certain with governments moving this slow right now, making small goals for 2050, getting courted by lobbies to not push through massive restrict

by akuji1993 8y ago

I'm absolutely certain with governments moving this slow right now, making small goals for 2050, getting courted by lobbies to not push through massive restrictions, probably most of these very dark predictions will come true. I, as a concerned citizen can do nothing against the corporations ruling our society, overruling politicians or outright controlling them directly. We are probably beyond any point of return. The people that yearn for the next payday will get their money and probably will be able to save themselves in an underground bunker or a suite in the mountains, while the rest of the poor and middle class burn in the ashes they leave behind.

Shoh3pif 8y ago
> I, as a concerned citizen can do nothing against the corporations ruling our society Defenestrations, torches and pitchforks have been traditional solutions to rulers not acting in the interest of the populace. Of course more peaceful means are preferable but the option needs to be kept on the table to remember why we have and want democratic solutions in the first place.
- _oeas 8y ago
  Current leading governments are too corrupt to be able to change anything by peaceful talks
  - Shoh3pif 8y ago
    Even the chinese government recognized that at least doing something about the coal smog is something in their own interest. My understanding is that the risk of civil unrest is what drives them.
    - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
      The driver seems to be the economic incentive of becoming the world leader in renewables by getting a head start while the rest of the world drags its feet. Say what you will about authoritarian governments but they can certainly get shit done.
- sk5t 8y ago
  It seems unlikely that the proletariat will overthrow the government because that government has not curtailed their own ability to buy plastic goods, drive a car, or set the air conditioning at 65F.
- akuji1993 8y ago
  At least for my country, you can scream as loud as you want, people just complain about you being louder than the Television. Nothing will happen, because governments have kept the majority of the people at a low enough education that they either don't understand or don't care about these things at all. I can always see people zoning out when I talk to them about this topic. Nobody cares, because they know they won't make a difference if they do anyway.
- Buldak 8y ago
  >Defenestrations, torches and pitchforks have been traditional solutions to rulers not acting in the interest of the populace. I'd guess the people involved in those rebellions felt the effects of bad governance much more acutely and directly than people do (currently ...) vis-à-vis climate change.
- mywittyname 8y ago
  This will happen. It's actually already happening in developing countries. The disruption of food supplies has been causing annual riots all over the world. The US has remained insulated from these effects by virtue of being relatively rich and relying on over-priced, highly processed foods that have enough margin to buffer against price shocks. But this is clearly an untenable situation. Shit goes south really fast when people can't afford to eat. And the difference between Mexican or Middle Eastern food riots and American ones is that Americans will come with lots of guns.
  - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
    Trouble is the government will make sure that the police and military remain well fed, and they have even bigger guns.
  - ripsawridge 8y ago
    I actually think this huge block of gun owners in America share a particular mindset with each other that means they'll become the local arm of the government in the hinterland. Just as you always see affinity between police forces and right-wing activists, you'll see the government put on a face friendly to rural gun culture, and that group will be installed as enforcers. So I don't buy this argument that the wide availability of guns in America in any way ensures a "Freedman's Paradise." It ensures more oppression, as the (expensive) arm of Federal power recedes.
    - mywittyname 8y ago
      I'm hardly an advocate of the typical right-wing position that guns keep the government in check. But I do foresee a situation where there's a clash between the well-fed police (who want to keep it that way) and the starving poor in the US. The inner city riots will not be an issue, most metro PDs have experienced and well equipped riot control departments. It's the armed, rural uprisings that pose a threat. Think Cliven Bundy-types leading a group of protestors in sieges of government or office buildings.
avar 8y ago
You as a concerned citizen can do plenty on your own. Most people could cut down their emissions and other environmental impacts by 50% easily if they really cared. The problem is that most people don't really care that much when push comes to shove, and in aggregate this is the reason for why we're moving so slowly on climate change.
- ajmurmann 8y ago
  It's the tragedy of the commons though. If I stop driving my car and go vegan, we won't see any measurable difference in climate change. The only measurable thing that happens is my quality of life going down. If enough people do it and we actually get a benefit I could even see Republicans arguing for more deregulation and balancing out all the sacrifice we made. The only practical solution is collective action. In fact I'd argue that non action of countries should be the number one reason for sanctions and if necessary military force. Our entire future is at risk here.
- skywhopper 8y ago
  There are limits to what individuals can do. Take automobile fuel efficiency. Cars these days are way more efficient and cleaner than they were fifty years ago, and they perform far better. Consumer choice would never have made this happen in response to market forces. You couldn't buy an efficient, high-performance car in the late 60s even if you wanted to. Companies needed an incentive to invest for the long-long term in technologies to improve the efficiency of their products. Short term price shocks weren't going to make that happen. Only multi-decade, ratcheting fuel-efficiency regulations that applied across the board and eliminated the risk to automakers for pursuing efficiency achieved our current state where we even _have_ the choice of buying cars that can achieve 50mpg or more with adequate performance.
  - rabidrat 8y ago
    And then there is Jevons' Paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
  - avar 8y ago
martythemaniak 8y ago
People blaming governments and corporations are merely using faceless scapegoats because the truth is too terrible to behold. Normal every day people don't really believe in climate change, don't really want to do anything and in fact don't have the dimmest clue as to what needs to be done, nor how to do that. I think dealing with the above fact is too much for people, so instead we simplify using familiar models and tropes.
- _juu5 8y ago
  Education would be a good start. Guess who can decide about what we are taught? Governments.
  - _Codemonkeyism 8y ago
    People know their personal largest impact is cars and meat. But personal convenience has always beaten doing the right thing.
    - glhaynes 8y ago
      The vast majority of people I know (Texas) couldn't live a productive life without a car. Some people certainly could but not most. Meat, though, they could definitely do without—and for most of them it'd be healthier.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
        Strange, I'd heard it was refined carbs and sugar giving America diabetes and heart disease. Are you saying it's meat now?
        ajmurmann 8y ago
        Red meat is known to increase risk of heart diseases.
rwallace 8y ago
It's about economics. Climate change keeps being presented as something we need to make huge sacrifices to do something about, and this does not work. The unwillingness to make such sacrifices, we may find reprehensible when it comes from the rich who could easily afford it, and more sympathetic when it comes from people who are barely keeping their heads above water as it stands, and reasonably suspect they would end up in a pauper's grave and never see the future they were supposed to be defending, but whether we agree with it or not, that is people's revealed preference. So the narrative needs to stop being about sacrifice, and start being about jobs. The immense task of converting the world to renewable energy, has the potential to create millions upon millions of badly-needed jobs. It needs to start being sold that way.

Shoh3pif 8y ago

> I, as a concerned citizen can do nothing against the corporations ruling our society Defenestrations, torches and pitchforks have been traditional solutions to rulers not acting in the interest of the populace. Of course more peaceful means are preferable but the option needs to be kept on the table to remember why we have and want democratic solutions in the first place.

_oeas 8y ago
Current leading governments are too corrupt to be able to change anything by peaceful talks
- Shoh3pif 8y ago
  Even the chinese government recognized that at least doing something about the coal smog is something in their own interest. My understanding is that the risk of civil unrest is what drives them.
  - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
    The driver seems to be the economic incentive of becoming the world leader in renewables by getting a head start while the rest of the world drags its feet. Say what you will about authoritarian governments but they can certainly get shit done.
sk5t 8y ago
It seems unlikely that the proletariat will overthrow the government because that government has not curtailed their own ability to buy plastic goods, drive a car, or set the air conditioning at 65F.
akuji1993 8y ago
At least for my country, you can scream as loud as you want, people just complain about you being louder than the Television. Nothing will happen, because governments have kept the majority of the people at a low enough education that they either don't understand or don't care about these things at all. I can always see people zoning out when I talk to them about this topic. Nobody cares, because they know they won't make a difference if they do anyway.
Buldak 8y ago
>Defenestrations, torches and pitchforks have been traditional solutions to rulers not acting in the interest of the populace. I'd guess the people involved in those rebellions felt the effects of bad governance much more acutely and directly than people do (currently ...) vis-à-vis climate change.
mywittyname 8y ago
This will happen. It's actually already happening in developing countries. The disruption of food supplies has been causing annual riots all over the world. The US has remained insulated from these effects by virtue of being relatively rich and relying on over-priced, highly processed foods that have enough margin to buffer against price shocks. But this is clearly an untenable situation. Shit goes south really fast when people can't afford to eat. And the difference between Mexican or Middle Eastern food riots and American ones is that Americans will come with lots of guns.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  Trouble is the government will make sure that the police and military remain well fed, and they have even bigger guns.
- ripsawridge 8y ago
  I actually think this huge block of gun owners in America share a particular mindset with each other that means they'll become the local arm of the government in the hinterland. Just as you always see affinity between police forces and right-wing activists, you'll see the government put on a face friendly to rural gun culture, and that group will be installed as enforcers. So I don't buy this argument that the wide availability of guns in America in any way ensures a "Freedman's Paradise." It ensures more oppression, as the (expensive) arm of Federal power recedes.
  - mywittyname 8y ago
    I'm hardly an advocate of the typical right-wing position that guns keep the government in check. But I do foresee a situation where there's a clash between the well-fed police (who want to keep it that way) and the starving poor in the US. The inner city riots will not be an issue, most metro PDs have experienced and well equipped riot control departments. It's the armed, rural uprisings that pose a threat. Think Cliven Bundy-types leading a group of protestors in sieges of government or office buildings.

avar 8y ago

You as a concerned citizen can do plenty on your own. Most people could cut down their emissions and other environmental impacts by 50% easily if they really cared. The problem is that most people don't really care that much when push comes to shove, and in aggregate this is the reason for why we're moving so slowly on climate change.

ajmurmann 8y ago
It's the tragedy of the commons though. If I stop driving my car and go vegan, we won't see any measurable difference in climate change. The only measurable thing that happens is my quality of life going down. If enough people do it and we actually get a benefit I could even see Republicans arguing for more deregulation and balancing out all the sacrifice we made. The only practical solution is collective action. In fact I'd argue that non action of countries should be the number one reason for sanctions and if necessary military force. Our entire future is at risk here.
skywhopper 8y ago
There are limits to what individuals can do. Take automobile fuel efficiency. Cars these days are way more efficient and cleaner than they were fifty years ago, and they perform far better. Consumer choice would never have made this happen in response to market forces. You couldn't buy an efficient, high-performance car in the late 60s even if you wanted to. Companies needed an incentive to invest for the long-long term in technologies to improve the efficiency of their products. Short term price shocks weren't going to make that happen. Only multi-decade, ratcheting fuel-efficiency regulations that applied across the board and eliminated the risk to automakers for pursuing efficiency achieved our current state where we even _have_ the choice of buying cars that can achieve 50mpg or more with adequate performance.
- rabidrat 8y ago
  And then there is Jevons' Paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
- avar 8y ago

martythemaniak 8y ago

People blaming governments and corporations are merely using faceless scapegoats because the truth is too terrible to behold. Normal every day people don't really believe in climate change, don't really want to do anything and in fact don't have the dimmest clue as to what needs to be done, nor how to do that. I think dealing with the above fact is too much for people, so instead we simplify using familiar models and tropes.

_juu5 8y ago
Education would be a good start. Guess who can decide about what we are taught? Governments.
- _Codemonkeyism 8y ago
  People know their personal largest impact is cars and meat. But personal convenience has always beaten doing the right thing.
  - glhaynes 8y ago
    The vast majority of people I know (Texas) couldn't live a productive life without a car. Some people certainly could but not most. Meat, though, they could definitely do without—and for most of them it'd be healthier.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
      Strange, I'd heard it was refined carbs and sugar giving America diabetes and heart disease. Are you saying it's meat now?
      - ajmurmann 8y ago
        Red meat is known to increase risk of heart diseases.

rwallace 8y ago

It's about economics. Climate change keeps being presented as something we need to make huge sacrifices to do something about, and this does not work. The unwillingness to make such sacrifices, we may find reprehensible when it comes from the rich who could easily afford it, and more sympathetic when it comes from people who are barely keeping their heads above water as it stands, and reasonably suspect they would end up in a pauper's grave and never see the future they were supposed to be defending, but whether we agree with it or not, that is people's revealed preference. So the narrative needs to stop being about sacrifice, and start being about jobs. The immense task of converting the world to renewable energy, has the potential to create millions upon millions of badly-needed jobs. It needs to start being sold that way.