4 ms·

> Suggest to an American to fly less and over 99% will say, "But my job. . ." as humans fly more than ever. I see it as the reason why individual solutions wil

> Suggest to an American to fly less and over 99% will say, "But my job. . ." as humans fly more than ever. I see it as the reason why individual solutions will never work and why you need the government to step in to make sure those negatives externalities (aka killing the planet for our children) are properly priced in so that we subset those practices.

braythwayt 7y ago
Something, something, game theory, and especially the subset of games that have a cooperate/defect dynamic. Left to themselves, individuals want to defect and get a free ride on the backs of those who cooperate. But if a critical mass of individuals cooperate—by choice, force, or persuasion—everyone wins. — It’s intellectually fine to be a libertarian and say, “even if the overall good is served by cooperation, there is a higher value in having the freedom to defect.” But you are correct that on the balance, it takes a society working together to achieve certain large-scale good outcomes that demand widespread cooperation. Whether those large-scale good outcomes are worthy of having less liberty is what certain debates are really about, even if people try to frame them otherwise, e.g. “Individual good, government bad.”
CM30 7y ago
The problem with having the government step in is that well, the vast majority of the population would disagree with any attempts to limit consumerism/things that may damage the environment, and any politician who tried them would be a political pariah. I mean, imagine a government actually trying to limit how often people/companies could fly/run planes, how much meat they're allowed to have, what kinds of cars were allowed, etc. The immediate reaction would basically be: A: Most of the population flat out ignoring them and their attempted guidelines, leading to bad press if they tried to enforce them. B: The opposition having a golden opportunity to win over the current ruling party's supporters with claims they'll revert said changes after the next election. C: Said main party's polling support crashing straight through the floor as most of their supporters abandon them. D: Tons of bad press in general, especially if certain people/companies seem to be 'getting away with' behaviour they don't allow the rest of the population to indulge in. You can already see this (for good reason) with complaints about stuff like Davos and how all these politicians and actors/celebrities are taking private planes everywhere. E: Their own party members jumping ship, especially if it's a larger/established party which went all eco intense. F: If things got bad enough, outright civil war/revolution/military coup/riots/etc. And given the percentage of people who'd back such restrictions/law changes is so tiny, it probably wouldn't end in their favour. The government stepping in would (if done as strictly as some articles/guidelines suggest), lead to a lot of civil instability and any political party implementing it basically collapsing. So the options are basically either 'hope everyone becomes more environmentally conscious (unlikely)', 'get the government to step in' (unlikely, may lead to wars and revolutions, would sink their reputation), 'hope some sort of invention makes carbon capture much easier/resource efficient or makes clean energy super cheap'.
- opportune 7y ago
  The physics of air travel make clean energy not super useful. At best, we could try to figure out a carbon-neutral way to create combustible fuel, like biofuels. You're right that in general people don't like government policies that potentially lower people's standards of living. Gas taxes are usually very unpopular. But I think "hope everyone becomes more environmentally conscious" is more possible than you think. This is very much a generational issue and I think as the negative effects of climate change become more apparent, the public will begin to see the light. In the US, it would not take a huge change in public opinion to make truly effective environmental policy more tenable. With the current trend, it may only take another decade for over 60% of Americans to believe that climate change should be a top priority: 44% already claim to prioritize it, up from 26% in 2010. Of course, some of these people may not actually like how environment-focused policies affect their lifestyles, but that may change as well.

braythwayt 7y ago

Something, something, game theory, and especially the subset of games that have a cooperate/defect dynamic. Left to themselves, individuals want to defect and get a free ride on the backs of those who cooperate. But if a critical mass of individuals cooperate—by choice, force, or persuasion—everyone wins. — It’s intellectually fine to be a libertarian and say, “even if the overall good is served by cooperation, there is a higher value in having the freedom to defect.” But you are correct that on the balance, it takes a society working together to achieve certain large-scale good outcomes that demand widespread cooperation. Whether those large-scale good outcomes are worthy of having less liberty is what certain debates are really about, even if people try to frame them otherwise, e.g. “Individual good, government bad.”

CM30 7y ago

The problem with having the government step in is that well, the vast majority of the population would disagree with any attempts to limit consumerism/things that may damage the environment, and any politician who tried them would be a political pariah. I mean, imagine a government actually trying to limit how often people/companies could fly/run planes, how much meat they're allowed to have, what kinds of cars were allowed, etc. The immediate reaction would basically be: A: Most of the population flat out ignoring them and their attempted guidelines, leading to bad press if they tried to enforce them. B: The opposition having a golden opportunity to win over the current ruling party's supporters with claims they'll revert said changes after the next election. C: Said main party's polling support crashing straight through the floor as most of their supporters abandon them. D: Tons of bad press in general, especially if certain people/companies seem to be 'getting away with' behaviour they don't allow the rest of the population to indulge in. You can already see this (for good reason) with complaints about stuff like Davos and how all these politicians and actors/celebrities are taking private planes everywhere. E: Their own party members jumping ship, especially if it's a larger/established party which went all eco intense. F: If things got bad enough, outright civil war/revolution/military coup/riots/etc. And given the percentage of people who'd back such restrictions/law changes is so tiny, it probably wouldn't end in their favour. The government stepping in would (if done as strictly as some articles/guidelines suggest), lead to a lot of civil instability and any political party implementing it basically collapsing. So the options are basically either 'hope everyone becomes more environmentally conscious (unlikely)', 'get the government to step in' (unlikely, may lead to wars and revolutions, would sink their reputation), 'hope some sort of invention makes carbon capture much easier/resource efficient or makes clean energy super cheap'.

opportune 7y ago
The physics of air travel make clean energy not super useful. At best, we could try to figure out a carbon-neutral way to create combustible fuel, like biofuels. You're right that in general people don't like government policies that potentially lower people's standards of living. Gas taxes are usually very unpopular. But I think "hope everyone becomes more environmentally conscious" is more possible than you think. This is very much a generational issue and I think as the negative effects of climate change become more apparent, the public will begin to see the light. In the US, it would not take a huge change in public opinion to make truly effective environmental policy more tenable. With the current trend, it may only take another decade for over 60% of Americans to believe that climate change should be a top priority: 44% already claim to prioritize it, up from 26% in 2010. Of course, some of these people may not actually like how environment-focused policies affect their lifestyles, but that may change as well.