4 ms·

> But I think the problem is that people care about today a lot more then they care about tomorrow Absolutely, and to change that, you need to ask why this is

> But I think the problem is that people care about today a lot more then they care about tomorrow Absolutely, and to change that, you need to ask why this is the case. There are many reasons for that. Some people are selfish, some are merely short-sighted. This needs to be fixed by changing the mindset. But to me the (by far) biggest problem is that too many people simply cannot afford to think otherwise. Climate change in X years means nothing to someone living in, or close to poverty today. "Green" means nothing to someone hungry today, and it would be absurd and apathetic to expect otherwise. And a very large share of the global population today are poor.

Dumblydorr 7y ago
This is true, a great deal of good can be accomplished supplying electricity and light and clean water to those who don't have access now. However, the carbon footprint of poor individuals is vastly less per capita than of rich individuals. Every rich person, and you are most likely rich in a global sense, must realize their luck and their lifetime carbon footprint and do their part for decarbonizing, given we are those who emit the most.
myself248 7y ago
This is called "eating your seed corn". Do you go somewhat hungry during winter, and possibly starve now? Or do you eat your seed corn now, and have nothing to harvest later, and certainly starve later? Our ancestors figured this out. Some of them did starve during winter. But we're the descendants of the lucky and prepared. Why should the future be any different?
- germinalphrase 7y ago
  Because the time scale of our situation is different. Those threatened by starvation in winter aren’t the same people who will need the seed corn in spring. That disconnect creates an immediate, imposed suffering on some for the future, anticipated benefit of others.
- ckastner 7y ago
  This is not "eating your seed corn", as that story is about a single resource, and the short-term planning of when to consume it.
- pif 7y ago
  > But we're the descendants of the lucky and prepared. Some of us may be the descendants of those who enjoyed their seed corn during the winter and later reaped the cobs planted by their neighbours.
sago 7y ago
Given that the poorest are not disproportionately consuming the least-clean energy, I think the poverty issue is minimal. My parents smoked heavily. Even after the causal connection with lung cancer was well-established. Even though both of them lost their father to lung cancer. Even though their child (me) suffered from asthma, to the extent of being hospitalised. I know addiction is a thing. But there was no sense that those choices were made because of the physical compulsion. There were no attempts to quit. The biggest addiction was mental: a lack of any interest in trying. I don't think it is helpful to claim we are 'addicted' to high-carbon energy. But whatever the label, there is mind-boggling inertia in the human soul.
- ckastner 7y ago
  Nobody drives a shitty, old, inefficient, dirty gas guzzler because they are addicted to them. They drive them because they can't afford something better. A solar panel is probably an unaffordable object for at least a quarter of the world's population.
  - sago 7y ago
    No, but plenty of people drive brand-new, expensive, inefficient gas guzzlers. Poor folks are much more likely to buy a cheap small engine Honda than a 200 cu.in. un-aerodynamic brick. Guzzling gas is expensive. And the poorest ¼ of the world contribute way way way less than ¼ of our CO₂ emissions.
    - jabl 7y ago
      I guess culture just has to change, so that a gaz guzzler isn't a status symbol. Say, a sailing yacht? Or a telescope in your front yard (for watching the stars, of course, not spying on the neighbors getting it on). Or bling-bling to hang around your neck? I mean, plenty of ways to show your wealth without it having to be a big FU to the planet.

Dumblydorr 7y ago

This is true, a great deal of good can be accomplished supplying electricity and light and clean water to those who don't have access now. However, the carbon footprint of poor individuals is vastly less per capita than of rich individuals. Every rich person, and you are most likely rich in a global sense, must realize their luck and their lifetime carbon footprint and do their part for decarbonizing, given we are those who emit the most.

myself248 7y ago

This is called "eating your seed corn". Do you go somewhat hungry during winter, and possibly starve now? Or do you eat your seed corn now, and have nothing to harvest later, and certainly starve later? Our ancestors figured this out. Some of them did starve during winter. But we're the descendants of the lucky and prepared. Why should the future be any different?

germinalphrase 7y ago
Because the time scale of our situation is different. Those threatened by starvation in winter aren’t the same people who will need the seed corn in spring. That disconnect creates an immediate, imposed suffering on some for the future, anticipated benefit of others.
ckastner 7y ago
This is not "eating your seed corn", as that story is about a single resource, and the short-term planning of when to consume it.
pif 7y ago
> But we're the descendants of the lucky and prepared. Some of us may be the descendants of those who enjoyed their seed corn during the winter and later reaped the cobs planted by their neighbours.

sago 7y ago

Given that the poorest are not disproportionately consuming the least-clean energy, I think the poverty issue is minimal. My parents smoked heavily. Even after the causal connection with lung cancer was well-established. Even though both of them lost their father to lung cancer. Even though their child (me) suffered from asthma, to the extent of being hospitalised. I know addiction is a thing. But there was no sense that those choices were made because of the physical compulsion. There were no attempts to quit. The biggest addiction was mental: a lack of any interest in trying. I don't think it is helpful to claim we are 'addicted' to high-carbon energy. But whatever the label, there is mind-boggling inertia in the human soul.

ckastner 7y ago
Nobody drives a shitty, old, inefficient, dirty gas guzzler because they are addicted to them. They drive them because they can't afford something better. A solar panel is probably an unaffordable object for at least a quarter of the world's population.
- sago 7y ago
  No, but plenty of people drive brand-new, expensive, inefficient gas guzzlers. Poor folks are much more likely to buy a cheap small engine Honda than a 200 cu.in. un-aerodynamic brick. Guzzling gas is expensive. And the poorest ¼ of the world contribute way way way less than ¼ of our CO₂ emissions.
  - jabl 7y ago
    I guess culture just has to change, so that a gaz guzzler isn't a status symbol. Say, a sailing yacht? Or a telescope in your front yard (for watching the stars, of course, not spying on the neighbors getting it on). Or bling-bling to hang around your neck? I mean, plenty of ways to show your wealth without it having to be a big FU to the planet.