4 ms·
That's an intersting hypothesis, but that's all it is. Is there actually science about whether the effect of increased consciousness is cancelled out by corresp
by gbrown 7y ago
That's an intersting hypothesis, but that's all it is. Is there actually science about whether the effect of increased consciousness is cancelled out by corresponding complacency?
Let me offer an alternative, also unsubstantiated hypothesis: it's tempting to use cynicism to reject small actions, and letting the perfect be the enemy of the good ends up harming efforts to make big change.
Also, it seems crazy to me to compare straw choice to institutional disinvestment. The former is a rounding error, while the latter is macroeconomic in scope. I fail to see why it's a bad idea to try and stigmatize carbon capital.
- jpttsn 7y agoI’m not aware of any “science” on this, it’s gut level for me. Was TFA unconvincing? If you usually need hard numbers to disprove the effectiveness of treatment, be sure to stay away from homeopaths.
- gbrown 7y agoThere's no scientifically justified causal basis for homeopathy, and well powered trials investigating it have repeatedly returned null results - that's pretty conclusive evidence against it in my book. In contrast, we have examples of consumer movements which led to regulatory or policy change, with or without the use of social stigma. I didn't find the article convincing, because I don't think Gates is looking at the right metrics. I agree with him that I don't expect to see carbon impacts to divestment right now, even a little bit. What I expect is that divestment (especially by institutional investors) will lower the barriers to heavy handed regulation in the future, and is a useful additional dimension to get people engaged in the climate fight now. Simply accepting "we all should just give up and not worry that we're invested in fossil fuels via our retirement accounts" is counter-intuitive to me.