6 ms·

As someone who agrees with your suggestion as to how serious climate change is, I've come to think asking individuals to change their behavior to fix the proble

by anm89 7y ago

As someone who agrees with your suggestion as to how serious climate change is, I've come to think asking individuals to change their behavior to fix the problem is actually counter productive. People generally want to do the right thing and they want to matter whereas in my experience the average person is not a great systems thinker. So people are very receptive to calls to "be better" because it let's them fight for what they believe set in a framework where their actions matter at least to some degree. The problem is, these are problems of scale and systems, and once people think they are fulfilling some responsibility they aren't going to pursue other solutions, at least as aggressively. If we straight up told people: you are going to experience extreme pain within your life time due to climate change, and the only single thing you can do that matters is to put pressure on your government to attack these problems systematically, I think we'd get much better results.

graeme 7y ago
I tend to agree. We've had 30+ years of exhortations for individual action against climate change. Yet global emissions are the highest they've ever been. Meanwhile, we haven't really tried an effective government policy. One that would replace other forms of taxation with a carbon tax. We've only tried individual solutions, dabbling around the edges, carbon offsets, cap and trade. Manifestly they haven't reduced emissions. People may indeed view individual action as a substitute for collective action. But we wouldn't ask people to increase government revenue by making donations.
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  Not even the tax can do it, because polluters will migrate. You would have to combine the tax with more serious measures like duties based on either estimated or actual emissions level. Or outright bans. Additionally mandating certain important practices like garbage disposal, reduction and methane capture.
  - flukus 7y ago
    > Not even the tax can do it, because polluters will migrate. High tariffs on countries not following suit will take care of that. Try the carrot first but if they don't want to contribute then use the stick.
greglindahl 7y ago
> I've come to think asking individuals to change their behavior to fix the problem is actually counter productive. Don't worry, there are people saying this all over every climate discussion on HN. And then a huge distracting discussion about whether that's a good idea or not.
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  I do wonder if these are the same people who were outright denying climate change a decade ago. Whether it's a deliberate intention to muddy the conversation. Or perhaps it's a way to assuage their guilt about their own consumption patterns. I might be being disingenuous but I see it so often it makes me curious. I don't know.
cmurf 7y ago
My earliest recollection of climate change/global warming was about 30 years ago, and it was understood this was a society and political issue then, and the need for a systematic approach by corporations and government was needed. Conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, called the most docile claims about global warming/climate change as radical, lies, socialism, communism, anti-business, pro-big government, and so on. The more aggressive claims were impugned as forms of eco-terrorism. It's the same today. The climate change deniers go so far as to insist that all of this is just delusional panic over nothing. Michael Crichton, science fiction author, was a notable climate change denier who pushed exactly that: this climate change business is nonsense and people who claim otherwise are crazy. He wrote a book on the subject "State of Fear" about how global warming was a fraud, perpetrated by a few to exploit others. A still sitting U.S. senator, James Inhofe from Oklahoma, says global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. And he cited "Dr. Crichton" and his book as the kind of real facts we need to pay attention to, and invited him to testify before Congress as a climate expert and scientist. It's like humans are designed to make everything a dispute.
- growlist 7y ago
  > It's like humans are designed to make everything a dispute If we're aiming for more reasoned debate I'm not sure the throwing around of the 'denier' label really gets us much further forward.
pier25 7y ago
There isn't much the individual can do to fix climate change. Even if you went completely off the grid to live in the woods outside of the industrial civilization eating plants etc this wouldn't fix anything. Yes, you would certainly reduce your emissions but this is not nearly enough. Even if a miracle happened and we reached global zero emissions today there are already 415ppm in the atmosphere which will remain there for thousands of years. Because of climate lag we are now only seeing the effects from the emissions from the 70s and early 80s. Even in 30-40 years when we can see the effects from our current emissions it will not stop there. There are many self sustaining climatic systems that will have been triggered and will continue to change the climate. Humanity needs to invest all possible resources into clean energy and carbon sequestration. If we don't go all in during the next decade we are done.
- loons2 7y ago
  > Even if a miracle happened and we reached global zero emissions today there are already 415ppm in the atmosphere which will remain there for thousands of years. Cite please?
  - pier25 7y ago
    https://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-atmospheric-co2-just-exceeded-415-ppm-for-first-time-in-human-history https://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-atmospheric-co2-j... > The lifetime in the air of CO2, the most significant man-made greenhouse gas, is probably the most difficult to determine, because there are several processes that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Between 65% and 80% of CO2 released into the air dissolves into the ocean over a period of 20–200 years. The rest is removed by slower processes that take up to several hundreds of thousands of years, including chemical weathering and rock formation. This means that once in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide can continue to affect climate for thousands of years. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhouse-gases-remain-air https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhou...
    - loons2 7y ago
      Thanks. A staff writer for the Guardian. Think I'll look a bit further for a more authoritative (read logical) number.
fooblitzky 7y ago
Enough individual action can create a political climate that enables an appropriate governmental response. For example, when every home has roof-top solar, everyone is riding bikes or scooters, growing food locally, not flying, etc. It's harder for politicians to create new subsidies for coal mining, or tax concessions for airlines. Instead they will be more likely to pass carbon fee and dividend schemes or similar. On the other hand, while everyone continues to drive around in SUVs, buy cheap goods from China, long haul flights all the time, and food from the other side of the world, it's easy for politicians to maintain the status quo. Individual action can't solve climate change by itself. But it is still meaningful and necessary. Our actions influence the actions of others around us, and we can redefine "normal" for our society. Studies have shown that somewhere between 10 and 20% of a population acting in a new way are enough to shift the opinions of the remaining majority.
avip 7y ago
As expressed more harshly in prev. thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18519916 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18519916

by anm89 7y ago

graeme 7y ago

I tend to agree. We've had 30+ years of exhortations for individual action against climate change. Yet global emissions are the highest they've ever been. Meanwhile, we haven't really tried an effective government policy. One that would replace other forms of taxation with a carbon tax. We've only tried individual solutions, dabbling around the edges, carbon offsets, cap and trade. Manifestly they haven't reduced emissions. People may indeed view individual action as a substitute for collective action. But we wouldn't ask people to increase government revenue by making donations.

AstralStorm 7y ago
Not even the tax can do it, because polluters will migrate. You would have to combine the tax with more serious measures like duties based on either estimated or actual emissions level. Or outright bans. Additionally mandating certain important practices like garbage disposal, reduction and methane capture.
- flukus 7y ago
  > Not even the tax can do it, because polluters will migrate. High tariffs on countries not following suit will take care of that. Try the carrot first but if they don't want to contribute then use the stick.

greglindahl 7y ago

> I've come to think asking individuals to change their behavior to fix the problem is actually counter productive. Don't worry, there are people saying this all over every climate discussion on HN. And then a huge distracting discussion about whether that's a good idea or not.

tonyedgecombe 7y ago
I do wonder if these are the same people who were outright denying climate change a decade ago. Whether it's a deliberate intention to muddy the conversation. Or perhaps it's a way to assuage their guilt about their own consumption patterns. I might be being disingenuous but I see it so often it makes me curious. I don't know.

cmurf 7y ago

My earliest recollection of climate change/global warming was about 30 years ago, and it was understood this was a society and political issue then, and the need for a systematic approach by corporations and government was needed. Conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, called the most docile claims about global warming/climate change as radical, lies, socialism, communism, anti-business, pro-big government, and so on. The more aggressive claims were impugned as forms of eco-terrorism. It's the same today. The climate change deniers go so far as to insist that all of this is just delusional panic over nothing. Michael Crichton, science fiction author, was a notable climate change denier who pushed exactly that: this climate change business is nonsense and people who claim otherwise are crazy. He wrote a book on the subject "State of Fear" about how global warming was a fraud, perpetrated by a few to exploit others. A still sitting U.S. senator, James Inhofe from Oklahoma, says global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. And he cited "Dr. Crichton" and his book as the kind of real facts we need to pay attention to, and invited him to testify before Congress as a climate expert and scientist. It's like humans are designed to make everything a dispute.

growlist 7y ago
> It's like humans are designed to make everything a dispute If we're aiming for more reasoned debate I'm not sure the throwing around of the 'denier' label really gets us much further forward.

pier25 7y ago

There isn't much the individual can do to fix climate change. Even if you went completely off the grid to live in the woods outside of the industrial civilization eating plants etc this wouldn't fix anything. Yes, you would certainly reduce your emissions but this is not nearly enough. Even if a miracle happened and we reached global zero emissions today there are already 415ppm in the atmosphere which will remain there for thousands of years. Because of climate lag we are now only seeing the effects from the emissions from the 70s and early 80s. Even in 30-40 years when we can see the effects from our current emissions it will not stop there. There are many self sustaining climatic systems that will have been triggered and will continue to change the climate. Humanity needs to invest all possible resources into clean energy and carbon sequestration. If we don't go all in during the next decade we are done.

loons2 7y ago
> Even if a miracle happened and we reached global zero emissions today there are already 415ppm in the atmosphere which will remain there for thousands of years. Cite please?
- pier25 7y ago
  https://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-atmospheric-co2-just-exceeded-415-ppm-for-first-time-in-human-history https://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-atmospheric-co2-j... > The lifetime in the air of CO2, the most significant man-made greenhouse gas, is probably the most difficult to determine, because there are several processes that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Between 65% and 80% of CO2 released into the air dissolves into the ocean over a period of 20–200 years. The rest is removed by slower processes that take up to several hundreds of thousands of years, including chemical weathering and rock formation. This means that once in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide can continue to affect climate for thousands of years. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhouse-gases-remain-air https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhou...
  - loons2 7y ago
    Thanks. A staff writer for the Guardian. Think I'll look a bit further for a more authoritative (read logical) number.

fooblitzky 7y ago

Enough individual action can create a political climate that enables an appropriate governmental response. For example, when every home has roof-top solar, everyone is riding bikes or scooters, growing food locally, not flying, etc. It's harder for politicians to create new subsidies for coal mining, or tax concessions for airlines. Instead they will be more likely to pass carbon fee and dividend schemes or similar. On the other hand, while everyone continues to drive around in SUVs, buy cheap goods from China, long haul flights all the time, and food from the other side of the world, it's easy for politicians to maintain the status quo. Individual action can't solve climate change by itself. But it is still meaningful and necessary. Our actions influence the actions of others around us, and we can redefine "normal" for our society. Studies have shown that somewhere between 10 and 20% of a population acting in a new way are enough to shift the opinions of the remaining majority.

avip 7y ago

As expressed more harshly in prev. thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18519916 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18519916