4 ms·

I think the reason they're being ignored is because the required solution is now political, and our governing institutions are inadequate and unable to address

I think the reason they're being ignored is because the required solution is now political, and our governing institutions are inadequate and unable to address the problem.

bamboozled 6y ago
They're just changing I feel. Maybe it's too slow but the end is near for fossil fuels, it's either because humans will end up extinct if we keep burning it at the current rate or because it's not economically competitive anymore. As corrupt and as rotten as politics is, there is a limit to how far you can push for coal and fracking before it just becomes silly.
tomp 6y ago
The proposed solutions are political. When someone tells me I need to stop eating meat, pave forests with solar panels and stop flying, I know they're talking politics, not climate change. I hate ideologies trying to control my life. What happened to nuclear, geoengineering, fair revenue-neutral carbon taxes - those are reasonable solutions. Instead, I have to chew on a slimy paper straw...
- triceratops 6y ago
  > need to stop eating meat, stop flying That'll happen anyway with carbon taxes. Or at least it'll cost a lot more and many people will do less of it. Until we have carbon taxes, you could choose to do it voluntarily to help out. > pave forests with solar panels I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that. > What happened to nuclear Expensive and difficult to build. But if you like it, France, the UK and India are still doing it. And you're always free to advocate for it. "They oppose nuclear" isn't a great reason to stop working with people on solving the problem of climate change. Why be so prescriptive in solutions by saying "nukes or bust"? > geoengineering You mean the thing that's already gotten us into this mess? > fair revenue-neutral carbon taxes Cheers to that. A lot of the people you dislike politically support those. Work with them.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    Agreeing with the rest of your comment, but: >> geoengineering > You mean the thing that's already gotten us into this mess? What got us into this mess is geo-moving-fast-and-breaking-things. Everyone chasing short-term profits and dumping externalities on everyone else. I don't get the hate for geoengineering - i.e. planned, large-scale interventions. Sure, it would be better to not need it, but the way things are heading, we very well might.
    - _-___________-_ 6y ago
      Given the huge uncertainty in all models of the climate, how can we be sure our large scale interventions don’t have large scale unintended consequences?
      - TeMPOraL 6y ago
        We can't, but at some point in the near future, the consequences of our current course of action will be bad enough to risk it. Think of geoengineering as chemo for the planet - a very blunt treatment with bad, large-scale consequences, that we apply anyway, because the disease it fights is even worse.
    - triceratops 6y ago
      > planned, large-scale interventions. Unintended consequences. Unless it's direct carbon capture, there is no guarantee we won't create worse problems.
      - TeMPOraL 6y ago
        Doesn't explain the hate any mention of geoengineering seems to be getting. "Unintended consequences" shouldn't be used as a generic counterargument/thought-terminating cliché. What particular consequences are we talking about, and how they stake against the problem we're sure to have?
        6y ago
- JauntTrooper 6y ago
  Carbon taxes and more nuclear power are also political solutions. So are controlling emissions from meat producers, stricter emission standards on airplanes, and investments in infrastructure for renewable energy. Preventing climate change from getting worse requires coordinated action at the national and international levels. There are many proposed solutions, but so far none of them have been implemented and it's unclear our government systems are sophisticated enough to do so, to the detriment of us all. Incidentally, I think the primary driver of state-level bans on single use plastic straws was to reduce plastic waste, especially in the oceans.
- porb121 6y ago
  Incredible that some how a tax appears less political to you than suggested behavioral change
  - tomp 6y ago
    If we want different results then we need to change behaviour, that's a given. But a ideological behavioral change ("eat less meat") enforced on everybody is much more political (ideological) than just implementing the required nudges/incentives (less carbon) and allowing everybody to adjust their behavior as they see fit.
  - pixl97 6y ago
    Behaviour change is just a political. You are hammered every day with political advertising spread as astroturfing via social media and even the regular news. Everything involving money is political.
  - andromeduck 6y ago
    Taxes change incentives which though affecting behavior in aggregate but each individual still gets to choose how they want to approach it. Trying to mandate behavior directly on the other hand is heavy handed and more politicial because it assumes that everyone has the same set of preferences. Carbon taxes also allow solutions to be arrived at organically vs via fiat which also reduces opportunity for corruption when the pricing is transparent.

I think the reason they're being ignored is because the required solution is now political, and our governing institutions are inadequate and unable to address the problem.

bamboozled 6y ago

They're just changing I feel. Maybe it's too slow but the end is near for fossil fuels, it's either because humans will end up extinct if we keep burning it at the current rate or because it's not economically competitive anymore. As corrupt and as rotten as politics is, there is a limit to how far you can push for coal and fracking before it just becomes silly.

tomp 6y ago

The proposed solutions are political. When someone tells me I need to stop eating meat, pave forests with solar panels and stop flying, I know they're talking politics, not climate change. I hate ideologies trying to control my life. What happened to nuclear, geoengineering, fair revenue-neutral carbon taxes - those are reasonable solutions. Instead, I have to chew on a slimy paper straw...

triceratops 6y ago
> need to stop eating meat, stop flying That'll happen anyway with carbon taxes. Or at least it'll cost a lot more and many people will do less of it. Until we have carbon taxes, you could choose to do it voluntarily to help out. > pave forests with solar panels I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that. > What happened to nuclear Expensive and difficult to build. But if you like it, France, the UK and India are still doing it. And you're always free to advocate for it. "They oppose nuclear" isn't a great reason to stop working with people on solving the problem of climate change. Why be so prescriptive in solutions by saying "nukes or bust"? > geoengineering You mean the thing that's already gotten us into this mess? > fair revenue-neutral carbon taxes Cheers to that. A lot of the people you dislike politically support those. Work with them.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Agreeing with the rest of your comment, but: >> geoengineering > You mean the thing that's already gotten us into this mess? What got us into this mess is geo-moving-fast-and-breaking-things. Everyone chasing short-term profits and dumping externalities on everyone else. I don't get the hate for geoengineering - i.e. planned, large-scale interventions. Sure, it would be better to not need it, but the way things are heading, we very well might.
  - _-___________-_ 6y ago
    Given the huge uncertainty in all models of the climate, how can we be sure our large scale interventions don’t have large scale unintended consequences?
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      We can't, but at some point in the near future, the consequences of our current course of action will be bad enough to risk it. Think of geoengineering as chemo for the planet - a very blunt treatment with bad, large-scale consequences, that we apply anyway, because the disease it fights is even worse.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    > planned, large-scale interventions. Unintended consequences. Unless it's direct carbon capture, there is no guarantee we won't create worse problems.
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      Doesn't explain the hate any mention of geoengineering seems to be getting. "Unintended consequences" shouldn't be used as a generic counterargument/thought-terminating cliché. What particular consequences are we talking about, and how they stake against the problem we're sure to have?
      - 6y ago
JauntTrooper 6y ago
Carbon taxes and more nuclear power are also political solutions. So are controlling emissions from meat producers, stricter emission standards on airplanes, and investments in infrastructure for renewable energy. Preventing climate change from getting worse requires coordinated action at the national and international levels. There are many proposed solutions, but so far none of them have been implemented and it's unclear our government systems are sophisticated enough to do so, to the detriment of us all. Incidentally, I think the primary driver of state-level bans on single use plastic straws was to reduce plastic waste, especially in the oceans.
porb121 6y ago
Incredible that some how a tax appears less political to you than suggested behavioral change
- tomp 6y ago
  If we want different results then we need to change behaviour, that's a given. But a ideological behavioral change ("eat less meat") enforced on everybody is much more political (ideological) than just implementing the required nudges/incentives (less carbon) and allowing everybody to adjust their behavior as they see fit.
- pixl97 6y ago
  Behaviour change is just a political. You are hammered every day with political advertising spread as astroturfing via social media and even the regular news. Everything involving money is political.
- andromeduck 6y ago
  Taxes change incentives which though affecting behavior in aggregate but each individual still gets to choose how they want to approach it. Trying to mandate behavior directly on the other hand is heavy handed and more politicial because it assumes that everyone has the same set of preferences. Carbon taxes also allow solutions to be arrived at organically vs via fiat which also reduces opportunity for corruption when the pricing is transparent.