4 ms·

One thing I don't understand is why political leaders aren't all over this? Think about a nation going full green and the effect it could have on neighbouring c

One thing I don't understand is why political leaders aren't all over this? Think about a nation going full green and the effect it could have on neighbouring countries? Or a president understanding, that this problem was of highest importance could be a leader of a global change! Think about the fame! But what do we have instead? Ignorance, unwillingness, a dangerous continuation of the status quo on the state level andin the general polulation. Think about exxon who knew this was a problem since the '70 and there's no change in sight. A dark (or should I say hot?) future awaits us.

crispinb 7y ago
> One thing I don't understand is why political leaders aren't all over this 1. Political leaders in many countries (eg. Australia) have been deeply corrupted by the fossil fuel industry. And they're mostly legally immune because they essentially allow that industry to write the laws (including those permitting them to take up fossil fuel company sinecures when they quit politics). 2. Even when you have less-corruptible or more courageous political leaders, they have to try to convince populations which have been subject to relentless corporate propaganda (eg. from Exxon-funded sources as you suggest) for 4 decades. Propaganda has its limits, but it does work.
- bamboozled 7y ago
  At some point it might even need to become a national security / defence force issue. I mean, what was the point of all the wars, death and destruction if the military just allow themselves to suffocate? That would seem like a strange end.
  - crispinb 7y ago
    Well this is an astonishingly clear example of corruption of our political system by the fossil fuel industry. Even in nations where militaries pretty much get what they ask for, almost regardless of budget (eg. the US & Australia), they are waved off by governments when they put climate collapse forward as a major security issue (which they often do).
bni 7y ago
Doing something, I mean really doing something, requires changing our culture. Future generations, if there are ones, will look back at this time and see that we have an oil burning culture. Everything we eat, where we live, fossil fuels have been used to produce and maintain it. If it only was cars that was the problem we would easily solve it. To make a real change a Total War economy would have to be implemented, with the sole function of combating climate change. No-one wants to even start suggesting that because there would be so much inconvenience and angry people. Since the effects are only a minor inconvenience yet, for people in the developed world, its much easier to do nothing. Some deny there is a problem, others acknowledge it, but put it on the back of their minds mostly (I'm in this category). The effect is the same. Politicians follow the path of least resistance, that is how they are elected.
- goodcanadian 7y ago
  Doing something, I mean really doing something, requires changing our culture. I'm not sure it's so dire as that. Taking the US as an example (numbers from https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...), the largest source of greenhouse gases is transportation at 29%. A real push to switch to electric cars could have a significant impact without significantly changing the way people live their lives. If presented correctly, people could see it as a net benefit: no longer going out of your way to find a gas/petrol station, you just plug in at home and have a full "tank" every morning. The next largest source is electricity production (27%). Again, a major push towards green energy would benefit from strong leadership, but it wouldn't impact our culture very much. It makes little difference whether the electricity comes from a coal power station or solar power combined with grid storage as long as my TV turns on. The next chunk is industry (22%). Most of this is actually for power generation again, so see electricity generation above. Only now do we get to residential and commercial uses at 12% (mostly heating). Only here are we starting to impact the little people in a big way, and I would argue that even then, changing out my furnace for a heat pump is not going to have a big impact on how I live my life.
  - konspence 7y ago
lordnacho 7y ago
> One thing I don't understand is why political leaders aren't all over this? The incentives are just not there within the current system. When was the environment a major topic in an election anywhere? It's always pitted against "the economy" despite being part of the economy. Add to that there's no immediate visible benefits. A political term is a few years. If the climate stays liveable for a few years, nobody is going to notice. Plus most countries are small. It doesn't matter if France or the UK go totally green. What's needed is international influence so that everyone goes green. Who is going to run on a platform of "We'll go green, and I'll convince the rest of the world as well"? It is much easier to frame climate change as a made up political issue than to actually try to do anything about it. It boggles the mind that our one hope is an authoritarian state run by engineers.
avip 7y ago
I think the actual power of political leaders is overstated. In many countries, the political system seems de-facto paralyzed, ineffective, and incapable of pushing the drastic changes required.
askvictor 7y ago
More specifically, the article states that 40-50% of methane emissions could be cut essentially _for free_. Why is industry not doing this?
zaroth 7y ago
Think about the fame? The short term effect of these policies is to cause a significant amount of economic pain and discomfort on the people you enact them against.
PeterisP 7y ago
Any reasonable effective top-down action on climate change would require significant short-term restrictions on how common people live their lives - either as direct prohibitions or through taxation e.g. pricing in environmental externalities. A political leader who'd force their nation "go full green" would be ousted at the next election, if not quicker - immediate riots on the streets would be likely. One of the triggers for gilets jaunes in France was a comparably tiny fuel eco-tax - can you imagine the effect of a taxation that's intented to meaningfully decrease consumption; an eco-tax so large not that people pay more and whine at increased prices but that many of them would actually be forced to stop eating beef and driving cars because they can't afford it? Most of the population currently doesn't want such restrictions and the political leaders won't force them to.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
TeMPOraL 7y ago
> Think about a nation going full green and the effect it could have on neighbouring countries? Besides the domestic unrest others mention, yeah, they do think about the effect it could have on neighbouring countries. The immediate effect would be tanking one's own economy and significantly reducing the country's position as compared to the neighbours who didn't implement such change. Countries compete with each other too, just like companies do, and they are hesitant to change much for the same reasons companies are.

crispinb 7y ago

> One thing I don't understand is why political leaders aren't all over this 1. Political leaders in many countries (eg. Australia) have been deeply corrupted by the fossil fuel industry. And they're mostly legally immune because they essentially allow that industry to write the laws (including those permitting them to take up fossil fuel company sinecures when they quit politics). 2. Even when you have less-corruptible or more courageous political leaders, they have to try to convince populations which have been subject to relentless corporate propaganda (eg. from Exxon-funded sources as you suggest) for 4 decades. Propaganda has its limits, but it does work.

bamboozled 7y ago
At some point it might even need to become a national security / defence force issue. I mean, what was the point of all the wars, death and destruction if the military just allow themselves to suffocate? That would seem like a strange end.
- crispinb 7y ago
  Well this is an astonishingly clear example of corruption of our political system by the fossil fuel industry. Even in nations where militaries pretty much get what they ask for, almost regardless of budget (eg. the US & Australia), they are waved off by governments when they put climate collapse forward as a major security issue (which they often do).

bni 7y ago

Doing something, I mean really doing something, requires changing our culture. Future generations, if there are ones, will look back at this time and see that we have an oil burning culture. Everything we eat, where we live, fossil fuels have been used to produce and maintain it. If it only was cars that was the problem we would easily solve it. To make a real change a Total War economy would have to be implemented, with the sole function of combating climate change. No-one wants to even start suggesting that because there would be so much inconvenience and angry people. Since the effects are only a minor inconvenience yet, for people in the developed world, its much easier to do nothing. Some deny there is a problem, others acknowledge it, but put it on the back of their minds mostly (I'm in this category). The effect is the same. Politicians follow the path of least resistance, that is how they are elected.

goodcanadian 7y ago
Doing something, I mean really doing something, requires changing our culture. I'm not sure it's so dire as that. Taking the US as an example (numbers from https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...), the largest source of greenhouse gases is transportation at 29%. A real push to switch to electric cars could have a significant impact without significantly changing the way people live their lives. If presented correctly, people could see it as a net benefit: no longer going out of your way to find a gas/petrol station, you just plug in at home and have a full "tank" every morning. The next largest source is electricity production (27%). Again, a major push towards green energy would benefit from strong leadership, but it wouldn't impact our culture very much. It makes little difference whether the electricity comes from a coal power station or solar power combined with grid storage as long as my TV turns on. The next chunk is industry (22%). Most of this is actually for power generation again, so see electricity generation above. Only now do we get to residential and commercial uses at 12% (mostly heating). Only here are we starting to impact the little people in a big way, and I would argue that even then, changing out my furnace for a heat pump is not going to have a big impact on how I live my life.
- konspence 7y ago

lordnacho 7y ago

> One thing I don't understand is why political leaders aren't all over this? The incentives are just not there within the current system. When was the environment a major topic in an election anywhere? It's always pitted against "the economy" despite being part of the economy. Add to that there's no immediate visible benefits. A political term is a few years. If the climate stays liveable for a few years, nobody is going to notice. Plus most countries are small. It doesn't matter if France or the UK go totally green. What's needed is international influence so that everyone goes green. Who is going to run on a platform of "We'll go green, and I'll convince the rest of the world as well"? It is much easier to frame climate change as a made up political issue than to actually try to do anything about it. It boggles the mind that our one hope is an authoritarian state run by engineers.

avip 7y ago

I think the actual power of political leaders is overstated. In many countries, the political system seems de-facto paralyzed, ineffective, and incapable of pushing the drastic changes required.

askvictor 7y ago

More specifically, the article states that 40-50% of methane emissions could be cut essentially _for free_. Why is industry not doing this?

zaroth 7y ago

Think about the fame? The short term effect of these policies is to cause a significant amount of economic pain and discomfort on the people you enact them against.

PeterisP 7y ago

Any reasonable effective top-down action on climate change would require significant short-term restrictions on how common people live their lives - either as direct prohibitions or through taxation e.g. pricing in environmental externalities. A political leader who'd force their nation "go full green" would be ousted at the next election, if not quicker - immediate riots on the streets would be likely. One of the triggers for gilets jaunes in France was a comparably tiny fuel eco-tax - can you imagine the effect of a taxation that's intented to meaningfully decrease consumption; an eco-tax so large not that people pay more and whine at increased prices but that many of them would actually be forced to stop eating beef and driving cars because they can't afford it? Most of the population currently doesn't want such restrictions and the political leaders won't force them to.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

TeMPOraL 7y ago

> Think about a nation going full green and the effect it could have on neighbouring countries? Besides the domestic unrest others mention, yeah, they do think about the effect it could have on neighbouring countries. The immediate effect would be tanking one's own economy and significantly reducing the country's position as compared to the neighbours who didn't implement such change. Countries compete with each other too, just like companies do, and they are hesitant to change much for the same reasons companies are.