5 ms·

It's probably a fatalist way of looking at things but if the lockdown, with it's massive changes to our normal lifestyles, isn't doing enough then is it even re

It's probably a fatalist way of looking at things but if the lockdown, with it's massive changes to our normal lifestyles, isn't doing enough then is it even realistically possible for us to change?

choeger 6y ago
No. Because just scrapping the economy won't do. I know there are many people out there that firmly believe that "less is more" and "growth must be stopped". But these people do almost definitely do not live in countries where children die because of poverty. Our economics might be perverse in some regards, but they are the most efficient way to generate material wealth that we know of. And we need material wealth. As an example, just think of what is necessary to mass-produce a hypothetical Corona vaccine. So what can we do? Swing away from CO2-emitting energy generation as quickly as possible, plant forests, prepare for inevitable climate changes (drought, storm, ocean rising), and plant even more forests.
- CuriousSkeptic 6y ago
  I think we now of better ways in theory. It’s a political issue not a lack of knowledge. A dividend from a global carbon tax could put a bit of money in the hands of those who live in poverty. And giving poor people money has been proven to be an efficient approach to increase wealth.
  - choeger 6y ago
    Of course you can redistribute wealth in many meaningful ways. (just think of mandatory social insurance or minimum wages.) The problem is how to produce the wealth you want to distribute in the first place. There has been no system that comes even close in regards to innovation and efficiency when it comes to production.
    - CuriousSkeptic 6y ago
      My point was that the suggestion actually have been proven to “produce wealth” efficiently. And I’m pretty sure there at a lot of such knowledge in out there. So it’s not really a problem of finding ways to produce wealth. It’s a problem of how to inform policy based on existing knowledge.
adrianN 6y ago
The lockdown is not an appropriate means of stopping climate change. People still need to eat and to heat their homes. We need to switch to sustainable means of providing for these (and other) necessities. We don't need to stop our economy to stop producing CO2. We need to stop burning fossil fuels.
- VBprogrammer 6y ago
  Sure, the intention of the lock down is not to prevent climate change. However, the knock on effects are clearly beneficial; a complete halting of nonessential travel, anyone who can work from home working from home, a lot of business and industry shut down. In effect it is at or beyond the upper bound on what personal choice could achieve. All of that and it basically sets the rate of increase back a decade or so. To stop burning fossil fuels requires huge advances in energy storage (grid scale batteries, hydrogen / ammonia, thermal storage), energy production (breakthrough in nuclear fusion, more efficient solar) or massive political changes (conventional nuclear, carbon taxes). Probably a combination of all 3.

It's probably a fatalist way of looking at things but if the lockdown, with it's massive changes to our normal lifestyles, isn't doing enough then is it even realistically possible for us to change?

choeger 6y ago

No. Because just scrapping the economy won't do. I know there are many people out there that firmly believe that "less is more" and "growth must be stopped". But these people do almost definitely do not live in countries where children die because of poverty. Our economics might be perverse in some regards, but they are the most efficient way to generate material wealth that we know of. And we need material wealth. As an example, just think of what is necessary to mass-produce a hypothetical Corona vaccine. So what can we do? Swing away from CO2-emitting energy generation as quickly as possible, plant forests, prepare for inevitable climate changes (drought, storm, ocean rising), and plant even more forests.

CuriousSkeptic 6y ago
I think we now of better ways in theory. It’s a political issue not a lack of knowledge. A dividend from a global carbon tax could put a bit of money in the hands of those who live in poverty. And giving poor people money has been proven to be an efficient approach to increase wealth.
- choeger 6y ago
  Of course you can redistribute wealth in many meaningful ways. (just think of mandatory social insurance or minimum wages.) The problem is how to produce the wealth you want to distribute in the first place. There has been no system that comes even close in regards to innovation and efficiency when it comes to production.
  - CuriousSkeptic 6y ago
    My point was that the suggestion actually have been proven to “produce wealth” efficiently. And I’m pretty sure there at a lot of such knowledge in out there. So it’s not really a problem of finding ways to produce wealth. It’s a problem of how to inform policy based on existing knowledge.

adrianN 6y ago

The lockdown is not an appropriate means of stopping climate change. People still need to eat and to heat their homes. We need to switch to sustainable means of providing for these (and other) necessities. We don't need to stop our economy to stop producing CO2. We need to stop burning fossil fuels.

VBprogrammer 6y ago
Sure, the intention of the lock down is not to prevent climate change. However, the knock on effects are clearly beneficial; a complete halting of nonessential travel, anyone who can work from home working from home, a lot of business and industry shut down. In effect it is at or beyond the upper bound on what personal choice could achieve. All of that and it basically sets the rate of increase back a decade or so. To stop burning fossil fuels requires huge advances in energy storage (grid scale batteries, hydrogen / ammonia, thermal storage), energy production (breakthrough in nuclear fusion, more efficient solar) or massive political changes (conventional nuclear, carbon taxes). Probably a combination of all 3.