3 ms·

> If they treated the climate emergency as the crisis it is They treat it as politicians that need to get re-elected, since that's linked to direct and indirec

by f6v 6y ago

> If they treated the climate emergency as the crisis it is They treat it as politicians that need to get re-elected, since that's linked to direct and indirect financial rewards. However, climate is something which is going to dramatically change in 50-100 years. The sea levels might not rise by 1 meter in the next 10-20 years. That means climate change isn't this government's problem. So no, there isn't a government on this planet that is going to treat climate change as an emergency.

Ma8ee 6y ago
It’s just enough that enough of their constituents do for them to start caring. A lot of young people and people with kids already care a lot. If people can worry about the deficit 10 or 15 years down the line people can worry about climate change.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > A lot of young people and people with kids already care a lot. A lot of young people say they want to combat climate change and want politicians to do so. But I've also seen the studies when those same people are asked about willingness to pay/sacrifice to accomplish that goal. They are... not good. We will see if the next generation supports a carbon tax if it means higher prices for consumer goods and the benefits disproportionately accrue to people 2 generations down the line.
  - Ma8ee 6y ago
    Which studies?
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/who-is-willing-to-pay-more-for-renewable-energy/ https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/who-is-wi... Interestingly, the younger generation is less willing to pay than the 30-44 age group, even though willingness to pay is uncorrelated with income.
      - Ma8ee 6y ago
        Talk about cherrypicking the results. Yes, slightly more 30-44 year olds are willing to pay more for renewable energy than 18-29 year olds. But both of those groups are much bigger than the two groups 45-59 and 60+. So the reasonable conclusion is the opposite of what you suggest.
        whimsicalism 6y ago
        I guess my thinking is combatting climate change is going to cost more than $10/mo on the electrical bill, I pay like $5k/mo in tax and apparently most people in a similar financial situation can't accept an increase of like 0.5% of what they pay in taxes to avert climate change. $10/mo is very little, and the fact that we can barely get majorities of the younger generation to say that that would be okay is disheartening.

by f6v 6y ago

Ma8ee 6y ago

It’s just enough that enough of their constituents do for them to start caring. A lot of young people and people with kids already care a lot. If people can worry about the deficit 10 or 15 years down the line people can worry about climate change.

whimsicalism 6y ago
> A lot of young people and people with kids already care a lot. A lot of young people say they want to combat climate change and want politicians to do so. But I've also seen the studies when those same people are asked about willingness to pay/sacrifice to accomplish that goal. They are... not good. We will see if the next generation supports a carbon tax if it means higher prices for consumer goods and the benefits disproportionately accrue to people 2 generations down the line.
- Ma8ee 6y ago
  Which studies?
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/who-is-willing-to-pay-more-for-renewable-energy/ https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/who-is-wi... Interestingly, the younger generation is less willing to pay than the 30-44 age group, even though willingness to pay is uncorrelated with income.
    - Ma8ee 6y ago
      Talk about cherrypicking the results. Yes, slightly more 30-44 year olds are willing to pay more for renewable energy than 18-29 year olds. But both of those groups are much bigger than the two groups 45-59 and 60+. So the reasonable conclusion is the opposite of what you suggest.
      - whimsicalism 6y ago
        I guess my thinking is combatting climate change is going to cost more than $10/mo on the electrical bill, I pay like $5k/mo in tax and apparently most people in a similar financial situation can't accept an increase of like 0.5% of what they pay in taxes to avert climate change. $10/mo is very little, and the fact that we can barely get majorities of the younger generation to say that that would be okay is disheartening.