3 ms·

This sort of thinking is the exact problem. It works from the point of "what should we do if we think environmental concerns are the biggest priority". IMo the

This sort of thinking is the exact problem. It works from the point of "what should we do if we think environmental concerns are the biggest priority". IMo the correct lense should be "what is the minimal amount of change/political capital we need to achieve our objectives for the environment", for different targets.

PeterisP 8y ago
I agree that "what is the minimal amount of change/political capital we need to achieve our objectives for the environment" is a very good perspective to apply. However, from that perspective is obvious that "littering, disposable bags" isn't even in the same ballpark. IMHO it would be counterproductive to motivate people with such goals, since if the end result is that they stop littering, switch to reusable bags and think "yeah, now I've done my part"... it's wrong, they're still contributing about 99% of the damage that they used to do, it's nowhere close to sufficient. Right now (unlike, say, the 1980s) the minimal amount of change is very, very large - currently, achieving our objectives for the environment requires changes that would be considered radical by pretty much everyone, and political capital that no current leader has. Raise the gas price by a few percent, and you get rioting in the streets. Would anyone have enough political capital to double the gas price, so that people actually burn significantly less oil? And would the transport reduction achieved by merely doubling the gas price be sufficient to reduce the emissions? IMHO the answer to both these answers is a clear NO, the minimal amount of change needed is larger than the maximal amount of change for which we have political capital.
- Eridrus 8y ago
  But all of the things you advocate for in your previous post are things that could be achieved with less pain. Even the fuel tax, while the goal is to drive change, you can drive change by rewarding the desired behaviour (e.g. a revenue-neutral gas/carbon tax that paid back to low income folks), rather than punishing people. Maybe not as drastic a change since you don't get people not driving because they can't afford it, but it would incentivize doing something else to the same extent. Or we could be much more aggressive about moving people to electric cars. Or we could simply invest more money/energy into making public transport better. We could say try and convince people to fly less, or we could legislate carbon offsets for air travel. So while, yes, serious change is needed, I think we really need to think about this from a political angle, rather than a moralising angle. I would avoid even touching the diet angle if you want people to listen to you and not write you off. Meat does contribute noticeably to global warming, but food is culture, it is the hardest change to achieve, so we should really leave it to last, politically. It would be far better to deal with meat in an overall carbon tax solution, rather than singling it out as a thing people have to change.

PeterisP 8y ago

I agree that "what is the minimal amount of change/political capital we need to achieve our objectives for the environment" is a very good perspective to apply. However, from that perspective is obvious that "littering, disposable bags" isn't even in the same ballpark. IMHO it would be counterproductive to motivate people with such goals, since if the end result is that they stop littering, switch to reusable bags and think "yeah, now I've done my part"... it's wrong, they're still contributing about 99% of the damage that they used to do, it's nowhere close to sufficient. Right now (unlike, say, the 1980s) the minimal amount of change is very, very large - currently, achieving our objectives for the environment requires changes that would be considered radical by pretty much everyone, and political capital that no current leader has. Raise the gas price by a few percent, and you get rioting in the streets. Would anyone have enough political capital to double the gas price, so that people actually burn significantly less oil? And would the transport reduction achieved by merely doubling the gas price be sufficient to reduce the emissions? IMHO the answer to both these answers is a clear NO, the minimal amount of change needed is larger than the maximal amount of change for which we have political capital.

Eridrus 8y ago
But all of the things you advocate for in your previous post are things that could be achieved with less pain. Even the fuel tax, while the goal is to drive change, you can drive change by rewarding the desired behaviour (e.g. a revenue-neutral gas/carbon tax that paid back to low income folks), rather than punishing people. Maybe not as drastic a change since you don't get people not driving because they can't afford it, but it would incentivize doing something else to the same extent. Or we could be much more aggressive about moving people to electric cars. Or we could simply invest more money/energy into making public transport better. We could say try and convince people to fly less, or we could legislate carbon offsets for air travel. So while, yes, serious change is needed, I think we really need to think about this from a political angle, rather than a moralising angle. I would avoid even touching the diet angle if you want people to listen to you and not write you off. Meat does contribute noticeably to global warming, but food is culture, it is the hardest change to achieve, so we should really leave it to last, politically. It would be far better to deal with meat in an overall carbon tax solution, rather than singling it out as a thing people have to change.