3 ms·

I would really wish that this received the same kind of attention from people in power, as it does from the younger generations.

partiallypro 7y ago
It gets plenty of attention from the top, the problem is that most measures to curtail emissions have negative economic impacts. You don't want to be the Senator/Congressman that made foreclosures rise because factories went belly up. Also, at least in the West, the general consensus is that even if the US were to cut emissions drastically it would hardly make a dent due to China and India. So you'd cripple the US economy, but China and India would continue at pace and become even more cost competitive. The only real solution is a global binding resolution with audits, similar to nuclear treaties...not a Paris Accord which was not binding and largely just fodder. It's not an easy problem, it's certainly not as easy as the younger generation seems to think when it comes to fixing. Not only is the environment at stake, but so are people's paychecks and livelihoods. The Green New Deal did the movement no favors by being completely outlandish and unrealistic in a global economy.
- imafish 7y ago
  In my opinion, this is the same as saying that we should keep using slaves for manual labor, because it would hurt the economy if we set them free. It should not be allowed to ruin the world for other people as a living. If China and India keep doing that, we stop buying their stuff. However, if we keep ruining the world for a living ourselves, it is very hard to point fingers at others. Also, there are still lots of money to be made in renewable energy and emissionless energy consumption. Tax what you want less of, give financial support to what you want more of.
  - partiallypro 7y ago
    You lost me at comparing an externality to literal slavery. I'm sure if you lost your job and were without a job for a year or 3, you'd not sing the same tune. "If China and India keep doing that, we stop buying their stuff." This would cripple the global economy and throw millions into poverty.
umadon 7y ago
People in power don't give a fuck. They assume that their wealth will insulate them from the worst of it (are they wrong?). The rest of us are just interchangeable rabble to them.
- vixen99 7y ago
  And then there's the 50,000 delegates from 192 countries who attended the Paris Climate Conference, evidently quite unconcerned by their carbon footprint (video conferencing - oh no!). Ordinary Joe & Jane Doe trying to meet their massively increased energy bill might be forgiven for wondering if those delegates really believed what they so passionately proclaimed.
rayiner 7y ago
Are younger generations doing anything substantive different, besides giving this more attention? The studies show that in order to limit temperature increases to 1.5C, the west has to go carbon negative immediately. (China by itself can use up the world’s remaining carbon budget within a couple of decades). So what are “young people” doing about the problem? They don’t seem to be rejecting the material lifestyle that causes CO2 footprints in the west to be 10x higher than say Bangladesh. In big cities like DC, transit ridership is decreasing as young people choose Uber instead. They’re not flocking to STEM majors, which frankly are the only thing that has any hope of addressing climate change. At most, they seem to realize they are going to be the generation that loses the game of musical chairs, and they’re angry about it but not willing to change their lifestyles over it.
- imafish 7y ago
  In the west, changes are more likely to occur when problems get attention. This is the beauty of democracy: Attention can be powerful, because it can change how people votes. And when it comes to people making personal changes, the free will is strong, but with the big life style changes we need, I do not believe we can rely on free will only. The changes have to be incentivized somehow from government side. The west is RICH. We can afford to invest in saving ourselves from a global catastrophe. How? You punish bad behavior through taxes and fines, and reward good behavior through tax breaks and financial support. Will it hurt the economy? Quite possibly. Can we afford it? I think we cannot afford the opposite.

partiallypro 7y ago

It gets plenty of attention from the top, the problem is that most measures to curtail emissions have negative economic impacts. You don't want to be the Senator/Congressman that made foreclosures rise because factories went belly up. Also, at least in the West, the general consensus is that even if the US were to cut emissions drastically it would hardly make a dent due to China and India. So you'd cripple the US economy, but China and India would continue at pace and become even more cost competitive. The only real solution is a global binding resolution with audits, similar to nuclear treaties...not a Paris Accord which was not binding and largely just fodder. It's not an easy problem, it's certainly not as easy as the younger generation seems to think when it comes to fixing. Not only is the environment at stake, but so are people's paychecks and livelihoods. The Green New Deal did the movement no favors by being completely outlandish and unrealistic in a global economy.

imafish 7y ago
In my opinion, this is the same as saying that we should keep using slaves for manual labor, because it would hurt the economy if we set them free. It should not be allowed to ruin the world for other people as a living. If China and India keep doing that, we stop buying their stuff. However, if we keep ruining the world for a living ourselves, it is very hard to point fingers at others. Also, there are still lots of money to be made in renewable energy and emissionless energy consumption. Tax what you want less of, give financial support to what you want more of.
- partiallypro 7y ago
  You lost me at comparing an externality to literal slavery. I'm sure if you lost your job and were without a job for a year or 3, you'd not sing the same tune. "If China and India keep doing that, we stop buying their stuff." This would cripple the global economy and throw millions into poverty.

umadon 7y ago

People in power don't give a fuck. They assume that their wealth will insulate them from the worst of it (are they wrong?). The rest of us are just interchangeable rabble to them.

vixen99 7y ago
And then there's the 50,000 delegates from 192 countries who attended the Paris Climate Conference, evidently quite unconcerned by their carbon footprint (video conferencing - oh no!). Ordinary Joe & Jane Doe trying to meet their massively increased energy bill might be forgiven for wondering if those delegates really believed what they so passionately proclaimed.

rayiner 7y ago

Are younger generations doing anything substantive different, besides giving this more attention? The studies show that in order to limit temperature increases to 1.5C, the west has to go carbon negative immediately. (China by itself can use up the world’s remaining carbon budget within a couple of decades). So what are “young people” doing about the problem? They don’t seem to be rejecting the material lifestyle that causes CO2 footprints in the west to be 10x higher than say Bangladesh. In big cities like DC, transit ridership is decreasing as young people choose Uber instead. They’re not flocking to STEM majors, which frankly are the only thing that has any hope of addressing climate change. At most, they seem to realize they are going to be the generation that loses the game of musical chairs, and they’re angry about it but not willing to change their lifestyles over it.

imafish 7y ago
In the west, changes are more likely to occur when problems get attention. This is the beauty of democracy: Attention can be powerful, because it can change how people votes. And when it comes to people making personal changes, the free will is strong, but with the big life style changes we need, I do not believe we can rely on free will only. The changes have to be incentivized somehow from government side. The west is RICH. We can afford to invest in saving ourselves from a global catastrophe. How? You punish bad behavior through taxes and fines, and reward good behavior through tax breaks and financial support. Will it hurt the economy? Quite possibly. Can we afford it? I think we cannot afford the opposite.