3 ms·

It's demonstrating naivety to think that inaction on climate change is driven by not "listening to the science". Reactionary politicians are well aware of what

It's demonstrating naivety to think that inaction on climate change is driven by not "listening to the science". Reactionary politicians are well aware of what the science thinks - they're just prioritizing their class interests. The economic transformation necessary to properly fight climate is a threat to their status quo power, and so they resist it. "The science" is very much beside the point here.

sfifs 7y ago
I don't know why you're getting down-voted. This is basically the answer. In general, politicians tend to be very smart people - you have to be smart to convince people to vote for you (or even in dictatorships be your enforcers). However, the economic incentives are by and large not aligned and therefore decisions poor in the long term get taken.
- djrobstep 7y ago
  The downvotes are for the same reason - critique of capitalism upsets people with ideological affiliation to it. You see it all the time on this forum. You can make narrow economic critique but broad, generalised critique of capitalism is off-limits.
- flukus 7y ago
  > I don't know why you're getting down-voted. It seems HN has stopped the usual astro-turfing these posts attract and it's been replaced by down votes and flagging. Normally a comment or two is enough to kill the thread.
bedobi 7y ago
> they're just prioritizing their class interests How? > transformation necessary to properly fight climate is a threat to their status quo power Is it? How would a carbon tax/cap and trade threat their "status quo power"?
- djrobstep 7y ago
  You're seriously asking how pollution is profitable, and if transformation is a threat to the status quo?
  - bedobi 7y ago
    Just questioning the overly simplistic world view. A carbon tax/cap and trade is in everyone's interest. The "cost" would be passed on to consumers, just like if the price of oil went up, or any other cost really. As such, they're actually regressive policies as seen purely from an income perspective (people with money can better afford the increase in price). Neither policy would be a "threat" to "status quo power".
    - djrobstep 7y ago
      Spending five minutes familiarising yourself with the politics of such schemes in Australia would cure you of your own simplistic thinking on this topic.
- eeh 7y ago
  The countries with high per-capita emissions (AU/NZ/US/CA) have built cities and societies on cars, meat, flying, and polluting sources of electricity. Reducing those to sustainable levels is not popular: it will cost jobs, industries, tax, quality of life. The rich countries pollute to their advantage, and will try to preserve this.

sfifs 7y ago

I don't know why you're getting down-voted. This is basically the answer. In general, politicians tend to be very smart people - you have to be smart to convince people to vote for you (or even in dictatorships be your enforcers). However, the economic incentives are by and large not aligned and therefore decisions poor in the long term get taken.

djrobstep 7y ago
The downvotes are for the same reason - critique of capitalism upsets people with ideological affiliation to it. You see it all the time on this forum. You can make narrow economic critique but broad, generalised critique of capitalism is off-limits.
flukus 7y ago
> I don't know why you're getting down-voted. It seems HN has stopped the usual astro-turfing these posts attract and it's been replaced by down votes and flagging. Normally a comment or two is enough to kill the thread.

bedobi 7y ago

> they're just prioritizing their class interests How? > transformation necessary to properly fight climate is a threat to their status quo power Is it? How would a carbon tax/cap and trade threat their "status quo power"?

djrobstep 7y ago
You're seriously asking how pollution is profitable, and if transformation is a threat to the status quo?
- bedobi 7y ago
  Just questioning the overly simplistic world view. A carbon tax/cap and trade is in everyone's interest. The "cost" would be passed on to consumers, just like if the price of oil went up, or any other cost really. As such, they're actually regressive policies as seen purely from an income perspective (people with money can better afford the increase in price). Neither policy would be a "threat" to "status quo power".
  - djrobstep 7y ago
    Spending five minutes familiarising yourself with the politics of such schemes in Australia would cure you of your own simplistic thinking on this topic.
eeh 7y ago
The countries with high per-capita emissions (AU/NZ/US/CA) have built cities and societies on cars, meat, flying, and polluting sources of electricity. Reducing those to sustainable levels is not popular: it will cost jobs, industries, tax, quality of life. The rich countries pollute to their advantage, and will try to preserve this.