3 ms·

The problem with measures like that is that they would still not be enough. With everything that hass been pledged so far in terms of policy, we are still well

The problem with measures like that is that they would still not be enough. With everything that hass been pledged so far in terms of policy, we are still well on our way to >= 3°C in warming, which would have catastrophic consequences. But even getting those concessions was extremely difficult, and there is still no guarantee everything will even be implemented as promised. But the changes we actually need run much deeper, and they would directly impact our lifestyle, because our current one is not sustainable. The problem with that is that if governments were to attempt to implement those changes, they will be voted out. For instance, the French government tried to do a carbon tax, but was met with weeks of violent protests. It's also a game theory issue for governments: putting a carbon tax on your country's production will make your economy less competitive compared to those that won't. You can mitigate the consequences for that by carbon taxing imports, but that will not help you with your exports. The bottom line is that we need to do much more, but it's politically not feasible at this point. It will only be when people's lives are being much more severely impacted, but by that time, it will be too late to avoid a catastrophic outcome. IMO the only realistic hope we have is the development of active carbon capture technologies that can be deployed on a global scale. Whether that is feasible in time remains to be seen.

BosunoB 6y ago
I'm pretty sure 90% of the changes won't impact anyone's lifestyle. Moving to renewable energy and phasing out ICE cars allow for the exact same lifestyle. The only things that might have to change are things that require carbon emissions, like plane trips or meat production (although this one also might not require carbon emissions in 20 years). I guess you could argue that slightly more expensive manufactured goods impact a person's lifestyle, but that's a pretty minor change, and if you do a carbon tax and dividend, that's going to be moot for all but maybe 10% of the population.
hodgesrm 6y ago
> But the changes we actually need run much deeper, and they would directly impact our lifestyle, because our current one is not sustainable. In exactly what sense is our current lifestyle not sustainable? The way you've stated the assumption it's analogous to arguing that we can't feed billions of humans. That's precisely the Malthusian argument, which was wrong. Agricultural productivity has increased by orders of magnitude in the last couple of centuries. I'm not arguing against solving climate change. But the "we have to change everything" formulation is very limiting. In fact, I think it's pretty much a guarantee that we'll experience catastrophic effects.

BosunoB 6y ago

I'm pretty sure 90% of the changes won't impact anyone's lifestyle. Moving to renewable energy and phasing out ICE cars allow for the exact same lifestyle. The only things that might have to change are things that require carbon emissions, like plane trips or meat production (although this one also might not require carbon emissions in 20 years). I guess you could argue that slightly more expensive manufactured goods impact a person's lifestyle, but that's a pretty minor change, and if you do a carbon tax and dividend, that's going to be moot for all but maybe 10% of the population.

hodgesrm 6y ago

> But the changes we actually need run much deeper, and they would directly impact our lifestyle, because our current one is not sustainable. In exactly what sense is our current lifestyle not sustainable? The way you've stated the assumption it's analogous to arguing that we can't feed billions of humans. That's precisely the Malthusian argument, which was wrong. Agricultural productivity has increased by orders of magnitude in the last couple of centuries. I'm not arguing against solving climate change. But the "we have to change everything" formulation is very limiting. In fact, I think it's pretty much a guarantee that we'll experience catastrophic effects.