7 ms·
This is one way to look at it. My view is that climate change is a world problem. Governments will not oblige their citizens to make steps on their consumption
by jokoon 7y ago
This is one way to look at it.
My view is that climate change is a world problem. Governments will not oblige their citizens to make steps on their consumption if it means reducing their comfort and their economic power.
Steps should be taken in advance so that once green deals are put in place, countries can implement those effortlessly.
We often hear that some countries don't make enough efforts, but
1. Other countries import carbon emitting products
2. The developed countries of today have emmited greenhouse gases for decades, which allowed them to become developed countries.
The geopolitics of climate change are extremely difficult. I don't think the UN is up for it.
Although a better scenario would be to enact tight regulations on a country basis, but it's a political minefield. Imagine riots because people want to keep using their cars and trade goods that have become illegal, or vendettas against people who emit co2.
- Mirioron 7y agoI find it difficult to imagine how solutions to climate change, that don't rely on improvement in technology, won't result in authoritarianism. I don't think that all the world governments will accept limitations on their people freely.
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoThe clean air acts, the banning of freon and other CFCs, and other public health measures like treated water and ending leaded fuel required regulation not authoritarianism. All placed limitations on their people. Why would this be any different? We don't need to replace political choice, or freedoms with repression to bring in carbon taxes and start banning plastic, coal or gas.
- Mirioron 7y agoBecause those limitations are minor compared to "eat less meat", "don't drive a car" and "food will be more expensive in general". These are going to be very tough sells among populations that are not rich. Look at the Yellow Vests in France.
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoGoods were more expensive in general when a sales tax or VAT was brought in. Without riots or oppressive regime. If taxes and regulation penalise meat, people will buy less meat - just as taxes and regulation have changed the town landscape from cigarette butts everywhere, to remarkably infrequent. When I was at school pretty much everyone smoked. Now it's really uncommon to see a smoker. Again, there were no riots or oppression. Considering the clear majority on both sides of the political map in Europe are convinced by AGW, rich and poor alike, I don't think it as tough a sell as you make out. Inequitable solutions will, rightfully, be a tough sell among populations.
- Mirioron 7y agoNone of those things are even remotely comparable to eating meat. Meat is the easiest way to have a balanced diet in terms of nutrition. When you increase the price then people will simply pay more. Besides, VAT and other such taxes are only around 20%. You need far more than that. Look at the Yellow Vests if you want to see what happens when prices go too high. We even have instances of political parties being voted out because they increased alcohol taxes too much. What do you think would happen with meat?
- Frondo 7y agoMeat is easiest because it's sold everywhere. Where I live, someone makes a variety of vegan convenience food that they've managed to get stocked in 7-11s all over the place. The food is all comparably priced to meat-based equivalents (this is stuff like "vegan bbq pulled meat hand-pie") but completely plant-based. If you ate one of those, you'd find it as filling, tasty, and satisfying as something meat-based. In fact, eating those (just out of curiosity) was the thing that even opened me up to a meat-free diet, because before that, I'd had friends serve me tempe, tofu, etc., and man that stuff is a bad introduction to a plant-based diet. If you added a tax on meat to where the tasty, high-quality plant-based thing being sold at the 7-11s was now 20% cheaper, people would switch and not even think twice about it. The problem is that, up to now, people package plant-based food as part of a lifestyle, and not just something tasty to stand alone on its own. Hopefully the impossible burger and beyond meat close that gap, too. You shouldn't need to be a straight-edge hardcore vegan to eat only plants 6 out of 7 days of the week.
- coldtea 7y ago>Why would this be any different? Because nobody cares about "freon banning" with plenty of alternatives, or treated water, and leaded fuel had a long runway letting people the time to replace cars etc. It's the actual "hard" bans and lifestyle change requiring laws that people would complain about. And doubly so corporations and private interests making money off of them.
- coldtea 7y agoOr, inversely, that those seeking to expand their powers and enforce authoritarianism wont hijack the "climate change" as their excuse...
- crispinb 7y agoI don't know about the solutions - my view is that the die is cast. > My view is that climate change is a world problem That's undoubtedly true, and the fossil fuel companies clearly acknowledge this - their 30 year anti-science propaganda campaigns have been waged across the world.
- crottypeter 7y ago>30 year 40 year
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago> better scenario would be to enact tight regulations on a country Here, I am less convinced. Globalisation came about in good part to move from the places with tighter regulation - on pollution, on employment, on finance - to those without. It is the same way that offshore finance came about by trading each regulation against each other. The net result is there are fewer controls everywhere, despite a few headline money laundering regs. The history of this is fascinating.
- js8 7y ago> Governments will not oblige their citizens to make steps on their consumption if it means reducing their comfort It's interesting though that they will oblige them to wars. This is generally not a true statement. Government is not entirely segregated from the citizenry. It is, in some form, representation of society (even in a dictatorship).
- Gravityloss 7y agoIf half of the media tells it's a hoax, why would the population want to endure inconvenience for it. Denialism has a real effect.
- sundvor 7y agoIt got the anti-environment pro-coal Liberals reelected in Australia last weekend, for sure. That, and fear of taxes for the stupidly rich.
- crispinb 7y agoAnd now Labor is careening in the same pro-coal direction. Sad!
- ThomPete 7y agoHalf of the media don't. Most of the media live from the climate catastrophe rhetoric
- mythrwy 7y agoWas this a hoax? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm It isn't necessarily denialism nor shilling to question the validity of predictions. It's a good thing. Unfortunately the whole topic has become breathless "99% of scientists!" and tied in with social economic programs to the point I'm not convinced any more. To say nothing of failed predictions. Ya, I believe C02 _should_ warm the earth based on the science. But this whole world is ending thing I'm waiting to actually see something. For the record, I've been hearing this for over 30 years as an adult and so far not much. Perhaps one day it will all catch up, but I'm skeptical at this point.
- chewz 7y ago> Governments will not oblige their citizens to make steps on their consumption if it means reducing their comfort and their economic power. Here is the catch - efforts to reduce overconsumption mean slowing economy and lower tax base. No goverment can afford that. > Imagine riots because people want to keep using their cars and trade goods that have become illegal, or vendettas against people who emit co2. I believe we are on a verge of Millenial movement of some sort that will make a matter of enviroment a quasi religion of sorts. That would change the attitudes.
- solarkraft 7y ago> I believe we are on a verge of Millenial movement of some sort that will make a matter of enviroment a quasi religion of sorts. That would change the attitudes. It's happening. And I'm really happy about it.
- Super_Jambo 7y agoJust so long as they don't bio-char the boomer unbelievers. (Burning of course having too high a carbon footprint).
- solarkraft 7y agoI'd like to add, in case you don't know what I'm refering to: There is a large movement widely called "Fridays for Future" going on lots of european cities (large and small) in which students will go on a school strike to demonstrate for sensible climate policy.
- crispinb 7y agoSure, and there's the Extinction Rebellion stuff in the UK. Here in Australia we're kind of complacent/lazy, not often giving a stuff about anything except sports, celebrities, and limitless acquisition of consumer crap. But there is a bit of the school strike stuff happening. It's all a bit marginal though, isn't it? People might object to the 'quasi religious' aspect of what you're talking about. I'd make the point though that any culture which acknowledges even minimally the true nature of the living planet that is our home would appear mystical or religious to the deathly bloodless denatured worldview that so ruthlessly holds power now. The latter is either going to give way to something that is a better fit for physical reality, or it will destroy itself by soiling its own nest, largely in hapless ignorance regarding what's at stake.
- consp 7y ago> Governments will not oblige their citizens to make steps on their consumption if it means reducing their comfort and their economic power. The effects climate change has and will have are doing that for them.
- maxxxxx 7y ago" if it means reducing their comfort and their economic power." This is not really clear. You could argue that using more solar and electric vehicles will increase comfort due to cleaner air.
- inflatableDodo 7y ago>Governments will not oblige their citizens to make steps on their consumption if it means reducing their comfort and their economic power. The UK government is currently delivering on all three, though I suspect not for any ecological reasons.