5 ms·

I think civil unrest, like what happened when the French government raised fuel taxes, is the most likely outcome of a low carbon world. People are willing to

I think civil unrest, like what happened when the French government raised fuel taxes, is the most likely outcome of a low carbon world. People are willing to suffer short-term privations, especially when they are afraid of getting the coronavirus. People are not willing to suffer for years to reduce their carbon footprints. It's also notable that the burdens of reducing carbon emissions fall disproportionately on the poor. The fuel taxes in France are a perfect example.

shadowgovt 7y ago
I hate to be the bearer of bad hot takes, but the burdens falling disproportionately on the poor is not a reason to avoid catastrophic global collapse. Even though it's unfair, if the choice is "the burdens fall on the poor" and "the burdens fall on everyone (including the poor, who will be hit harder because they have fewer resources in reserve to survive unplanned catastrophe)", the first option is better. (... it's also a false forced choice; there are other options. But the question of poverty runs somewhat separate to the question of saving humanity from climate change).
- twblalock 7y ago
  > I hate to be the bearer of bad hot takes, but the burdens falling disproportionately on the poor is not a reason to avoid catastrophic global collapse. It is if there will be civil unrest, leading to the election of reactionary populist governments which roll back emission cuts. Approaches to the problem that enrage a large portion of the citizenry are counterproductive. They won't work in a democracy, and most of the large polluters are democracies. The French people are generally considered to be pretty left-wing (at least by outsiders) but they took to the streets as soon as the government raised fuel prices. Imagine how well that kind of policy would go down in Texas. Poverty is therefore directly related to the question of solving climate change.
  - mntmoss 7y ago
    Marketing will solve this aspect of the challenge. Poverty is a relative state, not an absolute one: We want more because our betters have more. The negative associated personal outcomes of poverty are not a corrollary of insufficient carbon emission. Therefore, market to the people climate-friendly lifestyles. Show celebrities doing their part. Make it easy to pick the right option by default with purchases. Encourage more local events and travel. It has been demonstrated that people respond to good storytelling and I don't think that is going to change.
fathead_glacier 7y ago
One of my lecturers once gave an anecdotal reductio ad absurdum argument of why it is difficult to reduce our carbon footprint: people are not willing to walk from the UK to France for a piece of cheese when they can just drive a few minutes to the store. It is a difficult problem to solve for a reason.
- _Microft 7y ago
  Transportation makes up 10% of the carbon impact of food at most if I remember correctly. The choice of what one eats is a lot more important. Here are articles you might be interested in? https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat
manfredo 7y ago
> People are willing to suffer short-term privations, especially when they are afraid of getting the coronavirus. People are not willing to suffer for years to reduce their carbon footprints. The French suffered higher overhead energy costs to make their electricity production >70% nuclear. The difference is that this long term suffering is much less severe than short-term suffering.

shadowgovt 7y ago

I hate to be the bearer of bad hot takes, but the burdens falling disproportionately on the poor is not a reason to avoid catastrophic global collapse. Even though it's unfair, if the choice is "the burdens fall on the poor" and "the burdens fall on everyone (including the poor, who will be hit harder because they have fewer resources in reserve to survive unplanned catastrophe)", the first option is better. (... it's also a false forced choice; there are other options. But the question of poverty runs somewhat separate to the question of saving humanity from climate change).

twblalock 7y ago
> I hate to be the bearer of bad hot takes, but the burdens falling disproportionately on the poor is not a reason to avoid catastrophic global collapse. It is if there will be civil unrest, leading to the election of reactionary populist governments which roll back emission cuts. Approaches to the problem that enrage a large portion of the citizenry are counterproductive. They won't work in a democracy, and most of the large polluters are democracies. The French people are generally considered to be pretty left-wing (at least by outsiders) but they took to the streets as soon as the government raised fuel prices. Imagine how well that kind of policy would go down in Texas. Poverty is therefore directly related to the question of solving climate change.
- mntmoss 7y ago
  Marketing will solve this aspect of the challenge. Poverty is a relative state, not an absolute one: We want more because our betters have more. The negative associated personal outcomes of poverty are not a corrollary of insufficient carbon emission. Therefore, market to the people climate-friendly lifestyles. Show celebrities doing their part. Make it easy to pick the right option by default with purchases. Encourage more local events and travel. It has been demonstrated that people respond to good storytelling and I don't think that is going to change.

fathead_glacier 7y ago

One of my lecturers once gave an anecdotal reductio ad absurdum argument of why it is difficult to reduce our carbon footprint: people are not willing to walk from the UK to France for a piece of cheese when they can just drive a few minutes to the store. It is a difficult problem to solve for a reason.

_Microft 7y ago
Transportation makes up 10% of the carbon impact of food at most if I remember correctly. The choice of what one eats is a lot more important. Here are articles you might be interested in? https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat

manfredo 7y ago

> People are willing to suffer short-term privations, especially when they are afraid of getting the coronavirus. People are not willing to suffer for years to reduce their carbon footprints. The French suffered higher overhead energy costs to make their electricity production >70% nuclear. The difference is that this long term suffering is much less severe than short-term suffering.