3 ms·

The pandemic proved that disrupting the global economy to save lives wasn't an issue at all. The issue is the right people feeling threatened for their lives.

The pandemic proved that disrupting the global economy to save lives wasn't an issue at all. The issue is the right people feeling threatened for their lives. As soon as you can convince rich people that their survival is at risk, and they can't just fly off to another planet or live in their own biosphere somewhere in the Alps, something will be done.

pmiller2 6y ago
Exactly, and truly getting serious about it would basically destroy the global economy in the short term. That's why rich people (and capitalism) don't like it, so they don't do anything about it. There's a big difference between a ~1-2 year disruption and a 5-10 year disruption, which is what I think it would take to make any serious difference vis a vis air pollution.
leetcrew 6y ago
you (and the other commenters) are ignoring the time component, which is quite important here. when quarantine started, most people thought it would only be for a few weeks or a couple months at the most. obviously some people are resisting, but most are willing to make a short-term sacrifice to help slow the spread. telling people they need to permanently reduce their level of consumption to combat climate change is a much bigger ask.
- nonbirithm 6y ago
  Maybe if instead of a pandemic a catastrophic climate event happened to occur in a sudden period of time, people might get the same impression that it's at most a thing that would last a few weeks or years because "there's no way this would happen to us now." But when more data comes in and it turns out the damage is permanent or long lasting, maybe those people forced to make changes won't end up going back to their original equilibrium. We could not in general forsee the sheer calamity the pandemic has caused in its short timeframe near the beginning. Large and drastic changes would probably have a greater effect on short-term memory than if we're essentially frogs in boiling water, even if the degree of environmental consequences ends up the same. Because the changes the pandemic caused were drastic by its nature, so much behavior was regulated and put into law (large gatherings illegal, etc.) in such a short time. If it's inevitable that climate change will never occur drastically, how can those restrictions on growth and consumption not continually get pushed back because of lobbyists who see no short-term consequences? Or given how humans can act, maybe they'd go back to their normal levels of consumption out of spite anyways. It's hard to tell.

pmiller2 6y ago

Exactly, and truly getting serious about it would basically destroy the global economy in the short term. That's why rich people (and capitalism) don't like it, so they don't do anything about it. There's a big difference between a ~1-2 year disruption and a 5-10 year disruption, which is what I think it would take to make any serious difference vis a vis air pollution.

leetcrew 6y ago

you (and the other commenters) are ignoring the time component, which is quite important here. when quarantine started, most people thought it would only be for a few weeks or a couple months at the most. obviously some people are resisting, but most are willing to make a short-term sacrifice to help slow the spread. telling people they need to permanently reduce their level of consumption to combat climate change is a much bigger ask.

nonbirithm 6y ago
Maybe if instead of a pandemic a catastrophic climate event happened to occur in a sudden period of time, people might get the same impression that it's at most a thing that would last a few weeks or years because "there's no way this would happen to us now." But when more data comes in and it turns out the damage is permanent or long lasting, maybe those people forced to make changes won't end up going back to their original equilibrium. We could not in general forsee the sheer calamity the pandemic has caused in its short timeframe near the beginning. Large and drastic changes would probably have a greater effect on short-term memory than if we're essentially frogs in boiling water, even if the degree of environmental consequences ends up the same. Because the changes the pandemic caused were drastic by its nature, so much behavior was regulated and put into law (large gatherings illegal, etc.) in such a short time. If it's inevitable that climate change will never occur drastically, how can those restrictions on growth and consumption not continually get pushed back because of lobbyists who see no short-term consequences? Or given how humans can act, maybe they'd go back to their normal levels of consumption out of spite anyways. It's hard to tell.