3 ms·

Good, this means we have now identified the real problem that we need to solve. In any case, if we really believed that we could succeed in just limiting our em

Good, this means we have now identified the real problem that we need to solve. In any case, if we really believed that we could succeed in just limiting our emissions without enforcing a scarcity of fossil fuels, that would lead to a drastic reduction in demand anyway, which would have the same economic impact on said poor and underdeveloped regions. These regions are also going to be the ones most affected by climate change, so they will lose big time either way. I am not saying that this is fair, but no approach is really going to be fair to everyone. At least by ripping the band-aid off, we will (1) make actual, concrete progress, and (2) make it explicit who is going to suffer (the poor and underdeveloped regions that depend on fossil fuel production) and that we as a world are responsible for ensuring the affected people a livelihood. Humans are much better at dealing with problems related to scarcity, as this causes us to really think about how to make things more efficient. If good advice about how to reduce your personal consumption for your own good really worked, then we would have a western world populated by fit and healthy Greek gods, but we don't: we have an obesity epidemic because it is not in the human nature to limit your consumption even if you have all the information about how to do it available to you. Now, the real big problem is how to enforce this yearly reduction in fossil fuel production. I don't know, but I can think of one way involving the immediate threat of instant sunshine followed by nuclear winter. At least this is a kind of threat that humans can better relate to.

perfunctory 7y ago
> I don't know, but I can think of one way involving the immediate threat of instant sunshine followed by nuclear winter. At least this is a kind of threat that humans can better relate to. Would you clarify who should threaten who in your scenario? Just FYI, US is now the biggest oil producer in the world.
- ulrikrasmussen 7y ago
  I am aware that this is not a realistic course of action. The problem is that scaling down fossil fuel production is going to be a very bad economic decision for any country in the short term, and it seems to be difficult, politically, to take that local economic hit for the long term interests of humanity at a global scale. At least the immediate threat of nuclear repercussions would convert the alternative into a short term local risk, which is politically more palatable. Of course, any nuclear nation threatening other nations like that would become a pariah, so it isn't likely to happen. Also because, as you say, it is against their own short-term economic interests. Edit: It would be pretty ironic if North Korea, which is already a pariah, turned out to save the planet by taking on that role.
taurath 7y ago
I think if we had some sort of catalyst to enable more economic opportunities for both rural and fossil fuel oriented areas, then we could easily nudge things in the right direction. IMO - a remote work revolution would work for that. Basic income as well.
- ulrikrasmussen 7y ago
  A remote work revolution would happen as a necessity in a world where fossil fuel availability would suddenly and drastically get reduced. I think that transformation would be relatively uncontroversial, and would probably lead to an increase in production because people wouldn't be forced to sit in open office spaces anymore. However, we have to realize that this is only viable for the relatively small subset of us who work in offices.

perfunctory 7y ago

> I don't know, but I can think of one way involving the immediate threat of instant sunshine followed by nuclear winter. At least this is a kind of threat that humans can better relate to. Would you clarify who should threaten who in your scenario? Just FYI, US is now the biggest oil producer in the world.

ulrikrasmussen 7y ago
I am aware that this is not a realistic course of action. The problem is that scaling down fossil fuel production is going to be a very bad economic decision for any country in the short term, and it seems to be difficult, politically, to take that local economic hit for the long term interests of humanity at a global scale. At least the immediate threat of nuclear repercussions would convert the alternative into a short term local risk, which is politically more palatable. Of course, any nuclear nation threatening other nations like that would become a pariah, so it isn't likely to happen. Also because, as you say, it is against their own short-term economic interests. Edit: It would be pretty ironic if North Korea, which is already a pariah, turned out to save the planet by taking on that role.

taurath 7y ago

I think if we had some sort of catalyst to enable more economic opportunities for both rural and fossil fuel oriented areas, then we could easily nudge things in the right direction. IMO - a remote work revolution would work for that. Basic income as well.

ulrikrasmussen 7y ago
A remote work revolution would happen as a necessity in a world where fossil fuel availability would suddenly and drastically get reduced. I think that transformation would be relatively uncontroversial, and would probably lead to an increase in production because people wouldn't be forced to sit in open office spaces anymore. However, we have to realize that this is only viable for the relatively small subset of us who work in offices.