3 ms·

This article gets the problem right, but misses some other reasons for making personal changes to combat climate change. For one, the more people that buy prod

This article gets the problem right, but misses some other reasons for making personal changes to combat climate change. For one, the more people that buy products that are more environmentally-friendly, the more the market will shift towards offering environmentally-friendly options. If consumers were beating down car dealership doors to buy every EV they could, car manufacturers would shift heavily towards EVs. If everyone buying a house were looping in a solar panel installation into their loan, we'd probably see more competition and faster price drops in solar panels. The more people that buy meat alternatives, the more money gets invested in developing meat alternatives. Secondly, each individual action has the potential to influence someone else. If you see your neighborhood switching to EV's, you may be more likely to buy one. Or if a friend had a great experience with reducing their energy costs by upgrading their windows, you might be more likely to get it done yourself. Put the first two factors together, and then it is much, much easier to build political support for the legislation needed to enact big climate change initiatives. If more people take personal ownership of climate change, that helps those people drive political will towards addressing climate change. Politicians absolutely will respond to public pressure, but if the public is largely indifferent on the issue, it makes it less likely politicians will spend political capital on climate change initiatives.

readhn 6y ago
"If consumers were beating down car dealership doors to buy every EV they could, car manufacturers would shift heavily towards EVs. If everyone buying a house were looping in a solar panel installation into their loan, we'd probably see more competition and faster price drops in solar panels." this logic is part of the problem. you live in a privileged bubble where people buy electric cars and install solar panels on their houses. Median American household has only $10K saved up, many below that and live paycheck to paycheck. What EV/What homes/ solar panels? First we have to solve socio-economic wealth gap issue THEN address climate change.
- GVIrish 6y ago
  Why can't we do both? For people who don't own homes, we need to invest in clean energy sources for the power grid. For people that can't afford EV's now, if there were actually better demand for EV's auto manufacturers could make the investments to reach the economies of scale so that more people could afford an EV, PHEV, FCEV, whatever it may be. And if there is a big shift towards clean energy that will create new jobs as well as reduce pollution that causes health problems, particularly in low income neighborhoods. On an individual level, if someone has the means to reduce their carbon footprint, why shouldn't they? On a national level, developed nations have more capital they can spend on shifting to clean energy. Poorer countries won't be able to afford to make some of those shifts. If the nations with the means make the shifts first, they can help bring down the costs of some of those green technologies to where it's more feasible for poorer nations in the world. We're already at the point that wind and solar power is starting to be cheaper than coal power. Continuing along that path means the developing world can continue developing and expanding their economies with clean energy instead of fossil fuels.

readhn 6y ago

"If consumers were beating down car dealership doors to buy every EV they could, car manufacturers would shift heavily towards EVs. If everyone buying a house were looping in a solar panel installation into their loan, we'd probably see more competition and faster price drops in solar panels." this logic is part of the problem. you live in a privileged bubble where people buy electric cars and install solar panels on their houses. Median American household has only $10K saved up, many below that and live paycheck to paycheck. What EV/What homes/ solar panels? First we have to solve socio-economic wealth gap issue THEN address climate change.

GVIrish 6y ago
Why can't we do both? For people who don't own homes, we need to invest in clean energy sources for the power grid. For people that can't afford EV's now, if there were actually better demand for EV's auto manufacturers could make the investments to reach the economies of scale so that more people could afford an EV, PHEV, FCEV, whatever it may be. And if there is a big shift towards clean energy that will create new jobs as well as reduce pollution that causes health problems, particularly in low income neighborhoods. On an individual level, if someone has the means to reduce their carbon footprint, why shouldn't they? On a national level, developed nations have more capital they can spend on shifting to clean energy. Poorer countries won't be able to afford to make some of those shifts. If the nations with the means make the shifts first, they can help bring down the costs of some of those green technologies to where it's more feasible for poorer nations in the world. We're already at the point that wind and solar power is starting to be cheaper than coal power. Continuing along that path means the developing world can continue developing and expanding their economies with clean energy instead of fossil fuels.