4 ms·

> The only way to "solve climate change" is to simply not travel as much, no more romantic weekends in Rome or 4 days trips to mallorca, &c ... That's exactly

> The only way to "solve climate change" is to simply not travel as much, no more romantic weekends in Rome or 4 days trips to mallorca, &c ... That's exactly what I talked about in other comments. To you, these 4 day trips are the most wasteful usage of resources. To others, it may be the over-consumption of fashion. To a single person, a weekend in Paris could mean the world, maybe because it saved their relationship and prevented a burn-out or.... If you extrapolate that argument (and if you don't, you'd need to explain where to stop why), you would end up in a carbon-free pre-industrial world and yet would still have a huge environmental debt of the co2 we've already blown out. Not to mention 8 billion human beings which produce co2 and methane per their bare existence. Humans, in general, react to immediate rewards (which is why addictions are a thing at all). So it would be nearly impossible to build climate policy upon abdications without risking revolts. All human (civilizing) action is aimed at enlarging the space of possibilities. The solution to car accidents was not less traffic, but better cars. The solution to food shortage was not caloric restrictions but better agricultural tech (also worldwide, humans are suffering less and less from hunger), the solution to IPv4 shortage was not restriction, but a better protocol. The solution to handicaps in humans was not euthanasia, but development of medical devices. All that aimed at enlarging the space of possibilities. Why should it be different for emissions?

antocv 7y ago
I agree with you. We cant ask to return to middle ages. Emissions from transportation is different, since the true costs of air and fossil-burning-car travel compared to train travel is not reflected on the price.
- milsebg 7y ago
  > I agree with you. We cant ask to return to middle ages. True. So, maybe high-speed trains are not the solution, yet. It might be that they're missing a technological pinch, yet. In the same way battery technology was a pinch to electrical cars (which are around at least as long as fossil burning cars, just not usable, because... battery...). As long as a solution is dependent on politics or taxation, it is a sign that there is still some pinch to tweak, some idea to discover or some detail to improve. > fossil-burning-car travel compared to train travel is not reflected on the price. Partly agreed. It's difficult to find a price. What does the emission of one metric ton of CO2 cost? The sum of the actuarial costs of damages to property attributed to climate change divided by the total number of tonnes produced? Is it the sum of the costs of the effort to save such tonne? Then, is a tonne a tonne? What if you emit CO2 to produce a material which reduces the damages to houses from thunderstorms? Will you get credited the part which led to lower costs of damages? And even, if you found the right price. Who is the beneficiary whom this price is paid to? Is it the people? So, what if democracy decides to use (a chunk of?) these taxes to rise pensions? Or to support young families? Or to rescue people from drowning in the Mediterranean on their escape from violations of their human rights? Or to improve the healthcare system? There is no such thing as earmarked taxes.
  - antocv 7y ago
    > Who is the beneficiary whom this price is paid to? Is it the people? So, what if democracy decides to use (a chunk of?) these taxes to rise pensions? Or to support young families? Or to rescue people from drowning in the Mediterranean on their escape from violations of their human rights? Or to improve the healthcare system? Yes to all of those. If you said "to pay Microsoft licenses" I qould squirm and say yes. Taxation, then democratically elected representatives get to decide what to spend the money on, even if I personally dont agree.
    - milsebg 7y ago
      > Yes to all of those. If you said "to pay Microsoft licenses" I qould squirm and say yes. Then the carbon tax is -- as I said -- just a tax like every other tax: Putting someone's money in someone else's pocket. How would that help the climate then?
lm28469 7y ago
> Why should it be different for emissions? Because we clearly don't know how to do it properly. And individual wishes are not important when we talk about the future of mankind. It's all fun and games when we talk about one dude, multiply that by 8b and you're doomed, there is just no way to make it work. > you would end up in a carbon-free pre-industrial world Cut off the worst causes of pollution, what's hard to understand ? We don't have to go back to a pre industrial world, we simply need to adjust the balance, we're clearly fucking it up right now. Just don't spend 4 weekends a year 1000km away from your home, stop shipping fruits from the other side of the world, don't drive a V8 when you can drive a small 3 cyl car, don't eat meat at every meal / every day, don't buy the next iGadget as soon as it's released. Are any of these going to seriously impact your well being ? nope. It's not like getting shitfaced on a beach in Ibiza or taking pictures of the Eiffel tower is going to deeply change your life (because let's be honest 5 min, the majority of travel is for leisure). If you put personal needs above everything else we're toast, 8b people living like the average American would destroy the world in a few years. Travel is a luxury, not a right, people need to understand that, it might be cheap money wise but you're selling away the future of mankind. > All human (civilizing) action is aimed at enlarging the space of possibilities. Remember all the ancient civilisations that expanded too quickly or were not able to sustain their lifestyles ? I'm sure they were thinking just like that.
- sebst 7y ago
  > Remember all the ancient civilisations that expanded too quickly or were not able to sustain their lifestyles ? I'm sure they were thinking just like that. What makes you think, this civilisation is collectively going to behave more sensible? We (broadly) accept the idea of evolution in biology. I'm pretty sure this works well on sociology, too. Or, put differently: We _will_ fuck it up. If it's not the climate crisis, it will be something else. Or: In a world where one nation alone has enough weapons to literally nuke the whole world, it is a strong bet to say that we'll be doomed on pollution. > multiply that by 8b and you're doomed, there is just no way to make it work. I believe the the 8bn are a problem on its own.
  - lm28469 7y ago

antocv 7y ago

I agree with you. We cant ask to return to middle ages. Emissions from transportation is different, since the true costs of air and fossil-burning-car travel compared to train travel is not reflected on the price.

milsebg 7y ago
> I agree with you. We cant ask to return to middle ages. True. So, maybe high-speed trains are not the solution, yet. It might be that they're missing a technological pinch, yet. In the same way battery technology was a pinch to electrical cars (which are around at least as long as fossil burning cars, just not usable, because... battery...). As long as a solution is dependent on politics or taxation, it is a sign that there is still some pinch to tweak, some idea to discover or some detail to improve. > fossil-burning-car travel compared to train travel is not reflected on the price. Partly agreed. It's difficult to find a price. What does the emission of one metric ton of CO2 cost? The sum of the actuarial costs of damages to property attributed to climate change divided by the total number of tonnes produced? Is it the sum of the costs of the effort to save such tonne? Then, is a tonne a tonne? What if you emit CO2 to produce a material which reduces the damages to houses from thunderstorms? Will you get credited the part which led to lower costs of damages? And even, if you found the right price. Who is the beneficiary whom this price is paid to? Is it the people? So, what if democracy decides to use (a chunk of?) these taxes to rise pensions? Or to support young families? Or to rescue people from drowning in the Mediterranean on their escape from violations of their human rights? Or to improve the healthcare system? There is no such thing as earmarked taxes.
- antocv 7y ago
  > Who is the beneficiary whom this price is paid to? Is it the people? So, what if democracy decides to use (a chunk of?) these taxes to rise pensions? Or to support young families? Or to rescue people from drowning in the Mediterranean on their escape from violations of their human rights? Or to improve the healthcare system? Yes to all of those. If you said "to pay Microsoft licenses" I qould squirm and say yes. Taxation, then democratically elected representatives get to decide what to spend the money on, even if I personally dont agree.
  - milsebg 7y ago
    > Yes to all of those. If you said "to pay Microsoft licenses" I qould squirm and say yes. Then the carbon tax is -- as I said -- just a tax like every other tax: Putting someone's money in someone else's pocket. How would that help the climate then?

lm28469 7y ago

> Why should it be different for emissions? Because we clearly don't know how to do it properly. And individual wishes are not important when we talk about the future of mankind. It's all fun and games when we talk about one dude, multiply that by 8b and you're doomed, there is just no way to make it work. > you would end up in a carbon-free pre-industrial world Cut off the worst causes of pollution, what's hard to understand ? We don't have to go back to a pre industrial world, we simply need to adjust the balance, we're clearly fucking it up right now. Just don't spend 4 weekends a year 1000km away from your home, stop shipping fruits from the other side of the world, don't drive a V8 when you can drive a small 3 cyl car, don't eat meat at every meal / every day, don't buy the next iGadget as soon as it's released. Are any of these going to seriously impact your well being ? nope. It's not like getting shitfaced on a beach in Ibiza or taking pictures of the Eiffel tower is going to deeply change your life (because let's be honest 5 min, the majority of travel is for leisure). If you put personal needs above everything else we're toast, 8b people living like the average American would destroy the world in a few years. Travel is a luxury, not a right, people need to understand that, it might be cheap money wise but you're selling away the future of mankind. > All human (civilizing) action is aimed at enlarging the space of possibilities. Remember all the ancient civilisations that expanded too quickly or were not able to sustain their lifestyles ? I'm sure they were thinking just like that.

sebst 7y ago
> Remember all the ancient civilisations that expanded too quickly or were not able to sustain their lifestyles ? I'm sure they were thinking just like that. What makes you think, this civilisation is collectively going to behave more sensible? We (broadly) accept the idea of evolution in biology. I'm pretty sure this works well on sociology, too. Or, put differently: We _will_ fuck it up. If it's not the climate crisis, it will be something else. Or: In a world where one nation alone has enough weapons to literally nuke the whole world, it is a strong bet to say that we'll be doomed on pollution. > multiply that by 8b and you're doomed, there is just no way to make it work. I believe the the 8bn are a problem on its own.
- lm28469 7y ago