5 ms·

What if we _can't_ make the alternatives more appealing? What if, for example, infinite disposable plastic bottles are actually the easiest solution, and the s

What if we _can't_ make the alternatives more appealing? What if, for example, infinite disposable plastic bottles are actually the easiest solution, and the sustainable solutions are actually a bit more work (e.g. water fountains and bottles you carry around). Yes, sure, perhaps we can fix landfill. Devil's advocate though - it is definitely not the case that every aspect of our current ecological nightmare has a win-win solution. We _need_ to start pricing in externalities, whether people moan about it or not. Seriously - this is putting the seat belt on in a car level stuff. Deal with it. Is the morning after a night out a regression? Not the hangover; the every-day life. No - it's absurd to paint it that way - the high life was the abnormality.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
wastedhours 7y ago
> What if we _can't_ make the alternatives more appealing? > We _need_ to start pricing in externalities I might've been arguing the OP at crossed purposes, as my point seems compatible with yours, just framed differently at the point of delivery. We can't rely on the population to just decide "I'm going to do the right thing today". We make it a non-choice as you say. That can either be "it's cheaper/easier/better" or "you'll be locked up if not". It's quite a compelling narrative either way. Just expecting large swathes of quite evidently moronic people (without delving too far into politics, if you agree the current political climate is as the result of ignorance, that's a sh*t-tonne of ignorant people out there - on the order of billions of people worldwide) to decide to look out for the interests of us as a collective is frankly wrong. I agree with you - but I think we need to move past the "do it for the planet/species" argument as there's a lot of people who don't care and will be ridiculous in their stubbornness. The scale of it just doesn't work when trying to convince people. But show them how their heating bills will be cheaper and that they'll get a 6-month suspended if they throw a bottle in the sea, and things might change sooner.
- esotericn 7y ago
  Sure. I mean, it's not "them". It's us. Everyone. I do bad things all the time because I have little agency. I'm planning to make some major changes to move towards that, but still, if every store around me uses plastic in food etc I can't skip it. We need to price in externalities. It's that simple. We need to cut this bullshit about the 'short-term economy' or phasing things out over 40 years or whatever; this isn't an emotional argument. If we don't account for the cost of pollution we are going to kill ourselves.
snikeris 7y ago
> We _need_ to start pricing in externalities, whether people moan about it or not. Seriously - this is putting the seat belt on in a car level stuff. Deal with it. Hmm, no it's not on the same level. Perhaps you can deal with it because you can afford to spend more on goods, but people in poverty will rightly moan.
- esotericn 7y ago
  Do you not understand the meaning of "need"? Moaning does not change the outcome. Again, we either reduce consumption, stop emitting (and likely have to capture) CO2, etc, or we kill ourselves. It does not matter how much the child wails, if it is time to leave the arcade, one must go. > can afford to spend more on goods We must all use less. This is not a matter of bits of coloured paper; externalities must be priced in to force the market in the correct direction. To take an example: if plastic bottles were banned worldwide tomorrow, or suddenly cost 10 USD per, this would have approximately zero effect on those in poverty other than shuffling some jobs around a bit.
  - snikeris 7y ago
    I'm with you on pricing in externalities. However that's a tricky business and is not anywhere on the level of mandating that people wear seatbelts. > If plastic bottles were banned worldwide tomorrow What happened to pricing in externalities?
    - esotericn 7y ago
      You made a silly ad hominem about me potentially being able to afford to ignore increased prices. So let's go ahead and assume the externalities are priced so high that it's an effective ban for all but 0.1% or whatever. It doesn't make a difference. We are not playing some identity politics game about who gets more or less. I'm tired, sorry. But really. Just do it. They will be poorer if you don't.
      - snikeris 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

wastedhours 7y ago

> What if we _can't_ make the alternatives more appealing? > We _need_ to start pricing in externalities I might've been arguing the OP at crossed purposes, as my point seems compatible with yours, just framed differently at the point of delivery. We can't rely on the population to just decide "I'm going to do the right thing today". We make it a non-choice as you say. That can either be "it's cheaper/easier/better" or "you'll be locked up if not". It's quite a compelling narrative either way. Just expecting large swathes of quite evidently moronic people (without delving too far into politics, if you agree the current political climate is as the result of ignorance, that's a sh*t-tonne of ignorant people out there - on the order of billions of people worldwide) to decide to look out for the interests of us as a collective is frankly wrong. I agree with you - but I think we need to move past the "do it for the planet/species" argument as there's a lot of people who don't care and will be ridiculous in their stubbornness. The scale of it just doesn't work when trying to convince people. But show them how their heating bills will be cheaper and that they'll get a 6-month suspended if they throw a bottle in the sea, and things might change sooner.

esotericn 7y ago
Sure. I mean, it's not "them". It's us. Everyone. I do bad things all the time because I have little agency. I'm planning to make some major changes to move towards that, but still, if every store around me uses plastic in food etc I can't skip it. We need to price in externalities. It's that simple. We need to cut this bullshit about the 'short-term economy' or phasing things out over 40 years or whatever; this isn't an emotional argument. If we don't account for the cost of pollution we are going to kill ourselves.

snikeris 7y ago

> We _need_ to start pricing in externalities, whether people moan about it or not. Seriously - this is putting the seat belt on in a car level stuff. Deal with it. Hmm, no it's not on the same level. Perhaps you can deal with it because you can afford to spend more on goods, but people in poverty will rightly moan.

esotericn 7y ago
Do you not understand the meaning of "need"? Moaning does not change the outcome. Again, we either reduce consumption, stop emitting (and likely have to capture) CO2, etc, or we kill ourselves. It does not matter how much the child wails, if it is time to leave the arcade, one must go. > can afford to spend more on goods We must all use less. This is not a matter of bits of coloured paper; externalities must be priced in to force the market in the correct direction. To take an example: if plastic bottles were banned worldwide tomorrow, or suddenly cost 10 USD per, this would have approximately zero effect on those in poverty other than shuffling some jobs around a bit.
- snikeris 7y ago
  I'm with you on pricing in externalities. However that's a tricky business and is not anywhere on the level of mandating that people wear seatbelts. > If plastic bottles were banned worldwide tomorrow What happened to pricing in externalities?
  - esotericn 7y ago
    You made a silly ad hominem about me potentially being able to afford to ignore increased prices. So let's go ahead and assume the externalities are priced so high that it's an effective ban for all but 0.1% or whatever. It doesn't make a difference. We are not playing some identity politics game about who gets more or less. I'm tired, sorry. But really. Just do it. They will be poorer if you don't.
    - snikeris 7y ago