11 ms·

>this seems like one of the least worrisome -- we even know how to fix it already! The biggest struggle with climate change (in the US at least) is trying to c

>this seems like one of the least worrisome -- we even know how to fix it already! The biggest struggle with climate change (in the US at least) is trying to convince businesses that they're going to be impacted financially. If anything we need more industry-specific reporting to try to show companies how ignoring climate change will impact their bottom line.

mortivore 8y ago
I don't think it matters if you show businesses that climate will impact them financially. The people running the show may not be running it when the financial burden actually comes around. If there is no impact or very little for the person/people currently running the business, then there is no reason to make a move to prevent/mitigate the problem.
- Joeri 8y ago
  Not only that but I’m pretty sure that when the climate change bill comes due businesses will demand government help pay it, with the argument that the whole thing is the government’s fault anyway. And they’ll get what they want, because they always do.
  - 8ytecoder 8y ago
    When there's water under the bridge, it would literally be a decision between putting the past behind and fixing the issue vs trying to point fingers and pin the blame on who was wrong. We'll bite the bullet and pay for all the necessary upgrades necessary. Businesses know it. Govt knows it. People will forget and move on as well. Human memory is short.
  - Udik 8y ago
    > when the climate change bill comes due businesses will demand government help pay it What is the difference between having the government- the totality of citizens- pay for climate change mitigation; and adopting extremely expensive global measures that will make everyone poorer for a number of decades? I'm asking seriously. It seems very similar to me: in both cases the whole collectivity will pay (which is fair, since it's the whole collectivity that is enjoying the benefits of freely polluting the environment now).
    - hexane360 8y ago
      One takes disproportionately from those hurting the environment, providing incentives to cease and desist destructive behavior, while the other assumes that everyone and everything hurts the climate equally.
munk-a 8y ago
Amtrak is weirdly a company that will suffer from climate change and could actually start addressing it (they end up shipping the vast majority of coal and could at least tax the movement of that good to recoup this expense) but most companies that will be hit by the effects of climate change won't be significantly contributing to it. Industries that see ever more profit in fields with high externalities won't have direct a motivation to address those externalities even if they're aware of them - assuming they're unaware in any way. (aside, coal isn't actually that terrible in terms of contribution to climate change, but reliance on it is definitely contributing, there may be bigger fish but this one has a good bit of meat on it)
- howard941 8y ago
  > they end up shipping the vast majority of coal You may be thinking of the entity that used to be known as Conrail. Amtrak is passenger only.
  - azeotropic 8y ago
    >could at least tax GP may also be thinking of the U.S. House of Representatives. Amtrak has no power to levy taxes.
    - munk-a 8y ago
      Amtrak (or carriers, in this case I believe Conrail may be what I meant) can charge money for their services. When I mentioned taxing the goods I didn't mean sending in the IRS and instead I was referring to levying an additional fee for the costs induced by the usage of their service. The word tax has multiple meanings, and my usage above was indeed correctly utilizing one of those meanings.
      - Aloha 8y ago
        Conrail doesn't really exist anymore as a Class 1 carrier.
      - zaroth 8y ago
chiefalchemist 8y ago
> "convince businesses that they're going to be impacted financially" Yes and no. My take is this: there's too much time and energy being put into why and who does or doesn't believe (it's human-made), and not enough focus is on "solutions" (to the higher waters). Often this distraction seems to be generated by politicians. I wish I had $10 for every time I've seen an article misuse the phrase "climate-change deniers" My sense those people are very few. That is, flat out deniers are few. Most everyone else sees it coming. The debate is why it's happening (human vs natural). Even if we settle on why (which we won't), it seems to me Amtrak, etc. are still going to be impacted. At some point we need to focus on the ends, and let the means go. Note: I realize that __if__ we settle on human-made there is, at least in theory, opportunity to slow the change. I understand that. My faith breaks down on ever being able to agree on why. It's as if the building is on fire and we're so busy debating why the fire started that we've forgotten we still need to do something about the fire.
- recusancy 8y ago
  > "The debate is why it's happening (human vs natural)." There is no debate. When people say "climate-change deniers" they mean "rapid anthropogenic caused climate-change deniers"
  - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
    There are still people who insist that the whole thing is made up. See "40 years ago they predicted global cooling!", "It was below freezing last night, so much for global warming!", etc., etc. They're getting rarer, though. As the evidence piles up, more and more of them are switching to "global warming is real but it's nobody's fault and there's definitely nothing we can or should do about it."
    - hexane360 8y ago
      The thing is, it's not a debate against people who are well informed and honestly think the above (or outright denial). It's against lobbyists who will say anything to prevent regulation, and the uninformed who repeat whatever they heard last from those lobbyists (or some false middle ground between science and lobbyists). Whatever actual argument is stated (geologic, sun cycles, not happening, no big deal), the end objective is the same: we shouldn't do anything about it.
Udik 8y ago
> The biggest struggle with climate change (in the US at least) is trying to convince businesses that they're going to be impacted financially. You also need to convince them that any local mitigation action (maintenance, waters management, etc.) will impact them financially more than a global concerted effort to stop co2 emissions. Which seems a very difficult argument to make.
reddog 8y ago
>If anything we need more industry-specific reporting to try to show companies how ignoring climate change will impact their bottom line. The life span of the average business is about 10 years. The median employment tenure (years that wage and salary workers had been with their current employer) in 4.2 years. It's awefully tough to get anyone today to care about the bottom line in Q3 2068.
arduanika 8y ago
It must be nice to have a mental model where "businesses" is this big fuzzy blob containing all the fat cats at either the giving or receiving end of an externality. Show the moneypants how much it will hurt him! Then the other moneypants will stop ignoring things!
matt_j 8y ago
A lot of business will make a lot of money before climate change affects them, and after, when they pivot to take advantage of a population that all of a sudden needs X (sandbags? boats? water purification?). Change needs to happen at the government level and be imposed on businesses in spite of what they think. It needs to happen at the alliance level (UN) because governments don't want to act against their economic interests unless they have to, even if their economic foresight is short (a presidential term, maximum). That they (people with short term economic advantage) have succeeded in making climate change an optional belief is the biggest worry of all. Now we have sheeple (half the general population) blindly running to the precipice while loudly proclaiming anyone that can see it coming as stupid/liar/hands in ears/la la la.
lostlogin 8y ago
> If anything we need more industry-specific reporting to try to show companies how ignoring climate change will impact their bottom line. It’s going to be a positive thing for many companies. Defences need to be engineered, built and maintained. It isnt bad for everyone.

mortivore 8y ago

I don't think it matters if you show businesses that climate will impact them financially. The people running the show may not be running it when the financial burden actually comes around. If there is no impact or very little for the person/people currently running the business, then there is no reason to make a move to prevent/mitigate the problem.

Joeri 8y ago
Not only that but I’m pretty sure that when the climate change bill comes due businesses will demand government help pay it, with the argument that the whole thing is the government’s fault anyway. And they’ll get what they want, because they always do.
- 8ytecoder 8y ago
  When there's water under the bridge, it would literally be a decision between putting the past behind and fixing the issue vs trying to point fingers and pin the blame on who was wrong. We'll bite the bullet and pay for all the necessary upgrades necessary. Businesses know it. Govt knows it. People will forget and move on as well. Human memory is short.
- Udik 8y ago
  > when the climate change bill comes due businesses will demand government help pay it What is the difference between having the government- the totality of citizens- pay for climate change mitigation; and adopting extremely expensive global measures that will make everyone poorer for a number of decades? I'm asking seriously. It seems very similar to me: in both cases the whole collectivity will pay (which is fair, since it's the whole collectivity that is enjoying the benefits of freely polluting the environment now).
  - hexane360 8y ago
    One takes disproportionately from those hurting the environment, providing incentives to cease and desist destructive behavior, while the other assumes that everyone and everything hurts the climate equally.

munk-a 8y ago

Amtrak is weirdly a company that will suffer from climate change and could actually start addressing it (they end up shipping the vast majority of coal and could at least tax the movement of that good to recoup this expense) but most companies that will be hit by the effects of climate change won't be significantly contributing to it. Industries that see ever more profit in fields with high externalities won't have direct a motivation to address those externalities even if they're aware of them - assuming they're unaware in any way. (aside, coal isn't actually that terrible in terms of contribution to climate change, but reliance on it is definitely contributing, there may be bigger fish but this one has a good bit of meat on it)

howard941 8y ago
> they end up shipping the vast majority of coal You may be thinking of the entity that used to be known as Conrail. Amtrak is passenger only.
- azeotropic 8y ago
  >could at least tax GP may also be thinking of the U.S. House of Representatives. Amtrak has no power to levy taxes.
  - munk-a 8y ago
    Amtrak (or carriers, in this case I believe Conrail may be what I meant) can charge money for their services. When I mentioned taxing the goods I didn't mean sending in the IRS and instead I was referring to levying an additional fee for the costs induced by the usage of their service. The word tax has multiple meanings, and my usage above was indeed correctly utilizing one of those meanings.
    - Aloha 8y ago
      Conrail doesn't really exist anymore as a Class 1 carrier.
    - zaroth 8y ago

chiefalchemist 8y ago

> "convince businesses that they're going to be impacted financially" Yes and no. My take is this: there's too much time and energy being put into why and who does or doesn't believe (it's human-made), and not enough focus is on "solutions" (to the higher waters). Often this distraction seems to be generated by politicians. I wish I had $10 for every time I've seen an article misuse the phrase "climate-change deniers" My sense those people are very few. That is, flat out deniers are few. Most everyone else sees it coming. The debate is why it's happening (human vs natural). Even if we settle on why (which we won't), it seems to me Amtrak, etc. are still going to be impacted. At some point we need to focus on the ends, and let the means go. Note: I realize that __if__ we settle on human-made there is, at least in theory, opportunity to slow the change. I understand that. My faith breaks down on ever being able to agree on why. It's as if the building is on fire and we're so busy debating why the fire started that we've forgotten we still need to do something about the fire.

recusancy 8y ago
> "The debate is why it's happening (human vs natural)." There is no debate. When people say "climate-change deniers" they mean "rapid anthropogenic caused climate-change deniers"
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  There are still people who insist that the whole thing is made up. See "40 years ago they predicted global cooling!", "It was below freezing last night, so much for global warming!", etc., etc. They're getting rarer, though. As the evidence piles up, more and more of them are switching to "global warming is real but it's nobody's fault and there's definitely nothing we can or should do about it."
  - hexane360 8y ago
    The thing is, it's not a debate against people who are well informed and honestly think the above (or outright denial). It's against lobbyists who will say anything to prevent regulation, and the uninformed who repeat whatever they heard last from those lobbyists (or some false middle ground between science and lobbyists). Whatever actual argument is stated (geologic, sun cycles, not happening, no big deal), the end objective is the same: we shouldn't do anything about it.

Udik 8y ago

> The biggest struggle with climate change (in the US at least) is trying to convince businesses that they're going to be impacted financially. You also need to convince them that any local mitigation action (maintenance, waters management, etc.) will impact them financially more than a global concerted effort to stop co2 emissions. Which seems a very difficult argument to make.

reddog 8y ago

>If anything we need more industry-specific reporting to try to show companies how ignoring climate change will impact their bottom line. The life span of the average business is about 10 years. The median employment tenure (years that wage and salary workers had been with their current employer) in 4.2 years. It's awefully tough to get anyone today to care about the bottom line in Q3 2068.

arduanika 8y ago

It must be nice to have a mental model where "businesses" is this big fuzzy blob containing all the fat cats at either the giving or receiving end of an externality. Show the moneypants how much it will hurt him! Then the other moneypants will stop ignoring things!

matt_j 8y ago

A lot of business will make a lot of money before climate change affects them, and after, when they pivot to take advantage of a population that all of a sudden needs X (sandbags? boats? water purification?). Change needs to happen at the government level and be imposed on businesses in spite of what they think. It needs to happen at the alliance level (UN) because governments don't want to act against their economic interests unless they have to, even if their economic foresight is short (a presidential term, maximum). That they (people with short term economic advantage) have succeeded in making climate change an optional belief is the biggest worry of all. Now we have sheeple (half the general population) blindly running to the precipice while loudly proclaiming anyone that can see it coming as stupid/liar/hands in ears/la la la.

lostlogin 8y ago

> If anything we need more industry-specific reporting to try to show companies how ignoring climate change will impact their bottom line. It’s going to be a positive thing for many companies. Defences need to be engineered, built and maintained. It isnt bad for everyone.