4 ms·

I 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 th

I 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 ago
The 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 ago
  Because 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 ago
    Goods 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 ago
      None 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 ago
        Meat 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.
      - adrianN 7y ago
        You don't have to stop eating meat completely. It just becomes more expensive.
        coldtea 7y ago
        So that the masses can't have it, but anybody making over say $100K year (or $1M year) it's a non issue ("yeah, burger went from $5 to $20, still hardly a dent to my finances").
  - specialist 7y ago
    Versus the "eat more meat", "drink more milk", "ingest more HFCS", "build more sprawl" campaigns? Freedom Markets™ proponents always obsesses over taxes and ignore the incentives. Consumption will follow the subsidies.
- 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 ago
Or, inversely, that those seeking to expand their powers and enforce authoritarianism wont hijack the "climate change" as their excuse...

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

The 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 ago
Because 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 ago
  Goods 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 ago
    None 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 ago
      Meat 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.
    - adrianN 7y ago
      You don't have to stop eating meat completely. It just becomes more expensive.
      - coldtea 7y ago
        So that the masses can't have it, but anybody making over say $100K year (or $1M year) it's a non issue ("yeah, burger went from $5 to $20, still hardly a dent to my finances").
- specialist 7y ago
  Versus the "eat more meat", "drink more milk", "ingest more HFCS", "build more sprawl" campaigns? Freedom Markets™ proponents always obsesses over taxes and ignore the incentives. Consumption will follow the subsidies.
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 ago

Or, inversely, that those seeking to expand their powers and enforce authoritarianism wont hijack the "climate change" as their excuse...