7 ms·
While I agree with you overall I've been sliding more and more into fear and despondency. We need to put our countries on a 'war footing'. We have so many peop
by UglyToad 7y ago
While I agree with you overall I've been sliding more and more into fear and despondency.
We need to put our countries on a 'war footing'. We have so many people who could be working to fix these problems stuck in offices doing stuff that there isn't really a need for (i.e. most all software development) because that's what the 'market' rewards. We need to completely overhaul what we think of as value and how we reward it. I don't see how that's possible under the current capitalist system and I don't see the majority of people supporting alternative systems.
Imagine if we deployed the people power and innovation that currently gets wasted in competition between rival social media applications and redirected it to doing something about climate change. It's not possible for individuals to make that change however because at the end of the day they need to pay their landlord (who I regard as largely parasitic leeches on productivity) and buy food at the shops; and the roles that would allow them to contribute to this don't exist in the number, or at the wages, required.
The cost of moving to zero emissions here in the UK was estimated as being £1 trillion so it was kind of kicked down the road to maybe slightly after 2050. Which is just mad. Sure China and India might be bigger emitters but someone has to make the first move. The innovations can then be shared for free with those countries, we can spend money to help them transition. This is our long term survival, we need to be less squeamish about taking what we need from "private property" (read tax havens, the stock market, etc). But clearly these changes aren't achievable at the speed and scale needed solely through voting. Democracies tend to limit themselves to a small range of acceptable views around a midpoint and take a long time to change even if there is a moral imperative, like the previous changes you mention; so I don't see how they can react at the speed necessary to fix this.
In addition addressing climate change without addressing social justice won't work. As the article mentions the people most affected by this are going to overwhelmingly be poor and in less-developed countries. They're going to need to come somewhere when their regions become uninhabitable and while it's possible our response is to erect barriers (see Europe, US, etc) or build prison camps from a moral standpoint it can't be.
- perfunctory 7y ago> While I agree with you overall I've been sliding more and more into fear and despondency. I've gone through that stage too. Then I came out and decided I'm gonna do what I can, however little the impact might be. I am not hopeful or optimistic. I don't expect to succeed or fail. I am just gonna work on it.
- esotericn 7y ago> The cost of moving to zero emissions here in the UK was estimated as being £1 trillion so it was kind of kicked down the road to maybe slightly after 2050. Got a source? My share of that is 16 grand (1T/63M). Let's just bloody do it. My god. That's a biscuit, it really is.
- bryanlarsen 7y agoYour net share is a lot less than 16 grand. That 1T is money that would be collected and spent in country, creating tens of thousands of jobs with its accompanying spinoffs. And since the economy is a giant circle, much of that 16 grand would indirectly come back to you.
- esotericn 7y agoWell, my "net share" in that sense is zero. 'Cos if we don't do it we're dead. Infinite opportunity cost. I've posted about this before, but thinking in terms of pictures of the queen's face here is really rather daft.
- growlist 7y agoBroken window fallacy - whatever is spent on this won't be spent on something else.
- UglyToad 7y agoHmm, looks like I misunderstood the figure - https://agileenergy.net/uk-net-zero-transition-to-cost-1-trillion-chancellor-claims/ https://agileenergy.net/uk-net-zero-transition-to-cost-1-tri... So > £1 trillion by 2050, not sure if that includes assumptions about cost reductions in renewables by then though so I'd assume compressing the timescale increases the estimate. Either way it needs doing and it would seem that 2050 is going to be too late.
- chimprich 7y agoCirca £1k per person per year for 15 years. For that you take a global lead in mitigating climate change, you gain energy independence from Russia and the Middle East, a huge reduction in air and other pollution, and potentially become a world leader in renewable energy technology. Seems like an absolute bargain. Please tax me now.
- davidivadavid 7y agoI agree with a lot of what you're saying but, to an extent, I find it even more mind boggling, because not only is the human capital misallocated to at best, local optimization of superficial products, but the market most likely would reward people if they focused on other problems. It just feels like people are suffering from a massive streetlight syndrome where they feel like the only valuable thing they can contribute with their skills (which includes the ability to control unprecedented computing power) is more inconsequential mobile apps. It reaches an even more ridiculous point when you consider that Silicon Valley is considered "hubristic" by a lot of pundits. What?! No! Silicon Valley's ambitions are underwhelming at best. We should expect a lot more from it.
- linuxftw 7y ago> While I agree with you overall I've been sliding more and more into fear and despondency. That's because the carbon-taxers are manipulative and playing on your emotions. You need to feel that it's an absolute dire situation that needs rectifying immediately. They believe the only way they'll get their way is shouting above everyone else. Truth is, some of us are starting to feel 'I'll lite the world on fire myself before I capitulate to your infantile tactics.' You need to adjust your strategy to offer incentives to actual people that have actual problems, not blame and shout.
- growlist 7y agoAnd of course it's pure coincidence that draconian measures of control over the populace are being justified by the spectre of climate change, brought to you courtesy of our child-messiah Greta.