6 ms·

There's nothing totalitarian about holding people responsible for the long term damage they do to the environment. It should also be painfully obvious at this p

There's nothing totalitarian about holding people responsible for the long term damage they do to the environment. It should also be painfully obvious at this point that a more passive approach does very little.

ThomPete 6y ago
There is, as often its the cost of improving and saving our lives. The idea that we can both live in a modern world with all the benefits and have no impact on nature is ignoring the cold hard facts. Nature didn't give us a safe and friendly place we made unsafe, it gave us a hostile and deadly environment we made safe through the use of energy and by transforming it into a safer environment for us. Of course we should work on reducing the negative externalities but the positive far outweigh the negative EVEN with something as polluting as coal.
nlqp 6y ago
It is totalitarian when the measures come at a time when it is convenient for large corporations to jump on the eko-bandwagon and entrench their positions against new competitors. I would not have minded a $2/liter petrol tax 30 years ago, when it was inconvenient for the incumbents.
newsclues 6y ago
What if I told you, you can’t have a gas powered car anymore because it’s killing the planet and humans? What if I said the same thing about all oil powered ships and planes? Because I feel the planet is worth saving, can I force you to abandon all fossil fuels despite the massive financial cost and the limits on things and experiences you can enjoy in the future? Now, imagine I forced you to do all this but instead of being a hippie who lived environmentally but I was a politician who continued to be driven in cars and fly around the world and had armed security while banning guns for everyone else?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- teachingassist 6y ago
  If governments had the guts to implement these policies (e.g.) 10 years ago with phased introduction, then we would already have replacement fuel sources and not have to limit anything. I'd personally be happy if we did that even now, but the longer we put it off, the larger the cost to be paid. Your last point describes a corrupt government which can happen either way, and is not particularly relevant to environmental policy.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    Do you have a source for the claim about other fuel sources? Some replacements are physically constrained (like lithium for batteries). There has been a lot of money already spent to find replacements like super capacitors, and for much longer than 10 years.
    - teachingassist 6y ago
      I can't source a hypothetical, no. Do you think that invalidates my point? [Edited in response to your edit: fuel and battery technology has improved significantly over the last decade, with little or no political pressure, and shows signs that it will continue to improve. I expect that it would have improved more quickly with political pressure, yes.]
      - giantg2 6y ago
        Yes, I do. Throwing more money at a problem won't necessarily speed up the time to delivery. This is very similar to the idea that throwing more devs at a project will help it deliver more quickly.
        teachingassist 6y ago
        > This is very similar to the idea that throwing more devs at a project will help it deliver more quickly. This is a nonsense ad absurdum argument. It's self-evidently true that more devs will, in general, deliver projects more quickly - especially considering that we are talking about a system, not a single project. Otherwise, we could have One True Dev delivering all of the world's software. Do you think that is reasonable? Political pressure won't necessarily make a difference, as you say, but sustained and genuine political pressure will almost certainly make a difference.
- codefined 6y ago
  It feels like it's about direct / indirect issues. If to buy a gas powered car I had to go out and shoot somebody, I doubt we'd have nearly as many cars around. Air pollution kills 7 million people a year[0]. That's not including other forms of pollution. I also feel nobody is arguing to cancel everything immediately. They're arguing to stop building new coal power plants when there are alternatives. They're arguing for increased taxes on companies that produce pollution so that they have motivation to reduce their external effects. Etc. [0] https://www.who.int/phe/eNews_63.pdf https://www.who.int/phe/eNews_63.pdf
- 127 6y ago
  What if I told you, you can't dumb toxic sewage on my backyard anymore because it's causing serious health problems? What if I said the same thing about all toxic sewage dumping on peoples back yards? Because I feel that the toxic sewage dumping on peoples backyards is a problem, can I force you to abandon all toxic sewage dumping despite the massive financial costs and the limits on things and experiences you can enjoy in the future? The rest is non-sequitur.
- fny 6y ago
  This might be more palatable: Say you are a developing country. The US comes to you and says we're going to restrict trade until you get your carbon footprint in line. This is, of course, being done for your own good (you're an agricultural nation after all--climate change will scorch your exports!) by countries who have dumped carbon into the atmosphere for centuries while they were industrializing. https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/news-insights/international-climate-cooperation-might-require-carbon-tariffs/ https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/news-insights/international...
  - gus_massa 6y ago
    1) You close the local steel smelter that use a lot of CO2 and produce the steel you sell to the US. 2) You start a campaign to eliminate agricultural subsidies globally and also make them reforest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forests_of_the_United_States#Deforestation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forests_of_the_United_States#D... so they must buy your agricultural products at a higher price. 3) They invade you.
  - mdiesel 6y ago
    At the moment, the incentives are all aligned with us keeping the 3rd world as it is for as long as possible. IMO we need to recognise that the rhetoric of it being "our fault" doesn't sell well, right or wrong. We need to change to saying that it's in our interests to help the rest of the world change quickly. Better still would be to make it in everyone's financial interests to do so that incentives are back aligned with the best outcome for the planet. We need to continue the R&D we're doing, and give away the research so that the nations currently industrialising can skip over that step. There are social issues as well, industrialisation of Britain was a major driver behind democratising the country and enabling social mobility, so it's hard to rush that as well.
  - SCHiM 6y ago
    Who cares about the optics of it? We now know it's bad, that type of whataboutism is the most destructive and dumb kind that exists. Serously we should just pay for their solar panels, windfarms and reactors and be done with it.
- YorickPeterse 6y ago
  > What if I told you, you can’t have a gas powered car anymore because it’s killing the planet and humans? I don't have a car, so that's fine. Also there's this thing called "an electric car". You should look it up :) > What if I said the same thing about all oil powered ships and planes? I'm not sure where this "it's either A or B" mindset comes from, but it's not a particular intelligent one. Just because we need to stop destroying our environment doesn't mean we have to stop doing _everything_ that involves fossil fuels. Long term maybe, but not necessarily all at once. > Because I feel the planet is worth saving, can I force you to abandon all fossil fuels despite the massive financial cost and the limits on things and experiences you can enjoy in the future? When given the choice between no fossil fuels and no Earth, I think the choice is easy. Fortunately we're not quite there yet, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
Verdex 6y ago
The thing is though, that given the choice between effective and totalitarian people like to choose totalitarianism because it's just so much easier to just do whatever they want vs actually thinking about how to build a sustainable system. Honestly it's highly analogous to environmental protection. Instead of thinking about the external damage they're causing, groups of people just think about the fastest most effective way to make a buck. And just like environmentally irresponsible corporations, societally irresponsible governance will result in environmental damage. If you say, "Give these guys all the power and they'll make the environment safe." then the result is going to be a safer environment until they get bored. Then they'll damage the environment because they have the power to do so and it's easier for the environment to be damaged. (Or people offer them bribes, or because they see ways to grab more power, or ... ) The concern to avoid totalitarianism is necessary to avoid long term environmental damage.
- Aerroon 6y ago
  >If you say, "Give these guys all the power and they'll make the environment safe." then the result is going to be a safer environment until they get bored. Then they'll damage the environment because they have the power to do so and it's easier for the environment to be damaged. I find this part to be an unlikely scenario. A much more plausible scenario is that the group that gets the power realizes that if they fix the problem, then they will lose their power. Therefore, they decide not to fully fix it. They will perpetually work towards improving it to maintain power.
giantg2 6y ago
"It should also be painfully obvious at this point that a more passive approach does very little." That's not really true. We have seen reductions in many types of pollution in the last few decades. Not all of it is forced on people through laws. Much it of comes about as improvements in technology that provide efficiency and cost savings. You can see this is the use LEDs, better fuel milage (before the mandates), adoption of solar panel roofs (in areas that don't mandate it), siphonmatic toilets vs wash-down toilets, etc. "There's nothing totalitarian about holding people responsible for the long term damage they do to the environment." I generally agree. The issue us whether an international organization can hold other countries accountable. This could be a major sovereignty issue, especially when the law does not explicitly define what is legitimate consumption or use and what is ecocide. For example, does lithium mining constitute ecocide? It causes environmental damage, but is then used in some industries that might reduce impact in other areas (electric vehicles).
- Retric 6y ago
  Global CO2 emissions where higher in 2019 than 2010, higher in 2010 than 2000, higher in 2000 than 1990 etc. We aren’t fixing the problem. Now, you might look a such trends and say it’s fine everything is going to work out, but I think that’s hard to justify. Some local trends look promising, but advanced economies outsourcing manufacturing and thus CO2 emissions isn’t actually helpful.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    Sure, if you want to pick just one metric that might be true. Do you have the per capita metrics? I don't know what it would show. Maybe it's higher than before due to more consumerism, maybe it's lower than in the past due to technology improvements. What about all the other pollution like mercury, sulfur, etc? All I'm saying is that the general trend has been the adoption of cleaner technology over time, and that some of it is from efficiency or costs as opposed to laws. One example would be diesel electric trains vs the old coal powered steam engines - way cleaner, more efficient, easier to maintain, and less water usage. "Some local trends look promising, but advanced economies outsourcing manufacturing and thus CO2 emissions isn’t actually helpful." I completely agree. Much of it has been a shell game. Without true authority over those manufacturing countries, they will likely play a shell game. The real issue will be the lack of definition of what constitutes ecocide and putting that determination by an international body against the sovereignty of the offending country.
Fern_Blossom 6y ago
You 100% missed the point. There's something totalitarian about setting vague rules to hold people responsible when you deem fit to prosecute. As an example of how this is going to be politically misused, if you actual read the Paris Accord, you'll know that this ecocide law set is going to be a shitshow. In the Paris Accord, it literally summed up, "You need to sign this agreement, pay the commission $100m, and then we'll setup a commission to figure out what the commission should look like that'll setup the various commissions that'll determine the environmental laws that you have now agreed to." I'm not kidding, what so ever. There were no targets or plans in the original accord that countries had to sign, which preemptively had them agree to whatever the hell the commission would decide YEARS later. Why is anyone to think more of these harsh "environment laws" are going to be precise or even effective if we're to be honest. I guarantee you that these ecocide rules are going to be just as vague as anti-mercenary international laws. However, ecocide is going to be a political tool to bully countries to toe a line or face severe penalties. Other countries performing ecocide, as long as playing ball, won't face charges. This is a case of helping make sure that, "everyone is guilty of something". Toss in the public impression of, "That political figure is committing ecocide!", even when they're not, you now have yourself the ultimate political weapon. Just because someone claims they want to save the world, doesn't mean they actually intend to. There's this thing called lying for personal gains. Fairly new invention, but you should be aware of it. A very small amount of politicians do it and only recently.
- cool_dude85 6y ago
  We have already seen the seeds of this type of thing in the US media. When Morales was couped, there was plenty of hand-wringing about how he was developing extractive industry (i.e., nationalized lithium), and how Bolivia was burning the rain forest, etc. and in general a lot of noise from "green" "activists" about how good the coup was. Just look at who gets prosecuted by the ICC to get an idea of how an EU-led international agreement will wind up.
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    For the last time just because somebody you like is removed from office for crikws is not a coup. Hell it is blatant projection given one of his last actions was to try to remove the term limit.
SkyBelow 6y ago
One of the most damaging acts that most people do to the environment is having children. Controlling that would greatly improve the environment. While any single person is far smaller than the scale you want enforced, you could have standards pushing for reduced population that would penalize countries that don't implement those standards or large corporations that engage in actions that promote population increases.
Mattasher 6y ago
People seem to think that if they approve of a goal, actions taking in the name of that goal can't be totalitarian, or fascist, or bad in any way. Every authoritarian measure in history was justified by something that sounded like good intentions. That you agree with a stated goal is orthogonal to whether a measure is totalitarian.
dahfizz 6y ago
This is a very common pattern of miscommunication I see, particularly when criticizing traditionally left-leaning policy. A: "The way we are implementing X is dangerous and should be discussed" B: "X is imperative, we must do X. You may not question anything related to X" It can be true that protecting the environment is good, but also true that the things that people in power do while claiming to protect the environment is not good.

ThomPete 6y ago

There is, as often its the cost of improving and saving our lives. The idea that we can both live in a modern world with all the benefits and have no impact on nature is ignoring the cold hard facts. Nature didn't give us a safe and friendly place we made unsafe, it gave us a hostile and deadly environment we made safe through the use of energy and by transforming it into a safer environment for us. Of course we should work on reducing the negative externalities but the positive far outweigh the negative EVEN with something as polluting as coal.

nlqp 6y ago

It is totalitarian when the measures come at a time when it is convenient for large corporations to jump on the eko-bandwagon and entrench their positions against new competitors. I would not have minded a $2/liter petrol tax 30 years ago, when it was inconvenient for the incumbents.

newsclues 6y ago

What if I told you, you can’t have a gas powered car anymore because it’s killing the planet and humans? What if I said the same thing about all oil powered ships and planes? Because I feel the planet is worth saving, can I force you to abandon all fossil fuels despite the massive financial cost and the limits on things and experiences you can enjoy in the future? Now, imagine I forced you to do all this but instead of being a hippie who lived environmentally but I was a politician who continued to be driven in cars and fly around the world and had armed security while banning guns for everyone else?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
teachingassist 6y ago
If governments had the guts to implement these policies (e.g.) 10 years ago with phased introduction, then we would already have replacement fuel sources and not have to limit anything. I'd personally be happy if we did that even now, but the longer we put it off, the larger the cost to be paid. Your last point describes a corrupt government which can happen either way, and is not particularly relevant to environmental policy.
- giantg2 6y ago
  Do you have a source for the claim about other fuel sources? Some replacements are physically constrained (like lithium for batteries). There has been a lot of money already spent to find replacements like super capacitors, and for much longer than 10 years.
  - teachingassist 6y ago
    I can't source a hypothetical, no. Do you think that invalidates my point? [Edited in response to your edit: fuel and battery technology has improved significantly over the last decade, with little or no political pressure, and shows signs that it will continue to improve. I expect that it would have improved more quickly with political pressure, yes.]
    - giantg2 6y ago
      Yes, I do. Throwing more money at a problem won't necessarily speed up the time to delivery. This is very similar to the idea that throwing more devs at a project will help it deliver more quickly.
      - teachingassist 6y ago
        > This is very similar to the idea that throwing more devs at a project will help it deliver more quickly. This is a nonsense ad absurdum argument. It's self-evidently true that more devs will, in general, deliver projects more quickly - especially considering that we are talking about a system, not a single project. Otherwise, we could have One True Dev delivering all of the world's software. Do you think that is reasonable? Political pressure won't necessarily make a difference, as you say, but sustained and genuine political pressure will almost certainly make a difference.
codefined 6y ago
It feels like it's about direct / indirect issues. If to buy a gas powered car I had to go out and shoot somebody, I doubt we'd have nearly as many cars around. Air pollution kills 7 million people a year[0]. That's not including other forms of pollution. I also feel nobody is arguing to cancel everything immediately. They're arguing to stop building new coal power plants when there are alternatives. They're arguing for increased taxes on companies that produce pollution so that they have motivation to reduce their external effects. Etc. [0] https://www.who.int/phe/eNews_63.pdf https://www.who.int/phe/eNews_63.pdf
127 6y ago
What if I told you, you can't dumb toxic sewage on my backyard anymore because it's causing serious health problems? What if I said the same thing about all toxic sewage dumping on peoples back yards? Because I feel that the toxic sewage dumping on peoples backyards is a problem, can I force you to abandon all toxic sewage dumping despite the massive financial costs and the limits on things and experiences you can enjoy in the future? The rest is non-sequitur.
fny 6y ago
This might be more palatable: Say you are a developing country. The US comes to you and says we're going to restrict trade until you get your carbon footprint in line. This is, of course, being done for your own good (you're an agricultural nation after all--climate change will scorch your exports!) by countries who have dumped carbon into the atmosphere for centuries while they were industrializing. https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/news-insights/international-climate-cooperation-might-require-carbon-tariffs/ https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/news-insights/international...
- gus_massa 6y ago
  1) You close the local steel smelter that use a lot of CO2 and produce the steel you sell to the US. 2) You start a campaign to eliminate agricultural subsidies globally and also make them reforest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forests_of_the_United_States#Deforestation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forests_of_the_United_States#D... so they must buy your agricultural products at a higher price. 3) They invade you.
- mdiesel 6y ago
  At the moment, the incentives are all aligned with us keeping the 3rd world as it is for as long as possible. IMO we need to recognise that the rhetoric of it being "our fault" doesn't sell well, right or wrong. We need to change to saying that it's in our interests to help the rest of the world change quickly. Better still would be to make it in everyone's financial interests to do so that incentives are back aligned with the best outcome for the planet. We need to continue the R&D we're doing, and give away the research so that the nations currently industrialising can skip over that step. There are social issues as well, industrialisation of Britain was a major driver behind democratising the country and enabling social mobility, so it's hard to rush that as well.
- SCHiM 6y ago
  Who cares about the optics of it? We now know it's bad, that type of whataboutism is the most destructive and dumb kind that exists. Serously we should just pay for their solar panels, windfarms and reactors and be done with it.
YorickPeterse 6y ago
> What if I told you, you can’t have a gas powered car anymore because it’s killing the planet and humans? I don't have a car, so that's fine. Also there's this thing called "an electric car". You should look it up :) > What if I said the same thing about all oil powered ships and planes? I'm not sure where this "it's either A or B" mindset comes from, but it's not a particular intelligent one. Just because we need to stop destroying our environment doesn't mean we have to stop doing _everything_ that involves fossil fuels. Long term maybe, but not necessarily all at once. > Because I feel the planet is worth saving, can I force you to abandon all fossil fuels despite the massive financial cost and the limits on things and experiences you can enjoy in the future? When given the choice between no fossil fuels and no Earth, I think the choice is easy. Fortunately we're not quite there yet, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Verdex 6y ago

The thing is though, that given the choice between effective and totalitarian people like to choose totalitarianism because it's just so much easier to just do whatever they want vs actually thinking about how to build a sustainable system. Honestly it's highly analogous to environmental protection. Instead of thinking about the external damage they're causing, groups of people just think about the fastest most effective way to make a buck. And just like environmentally irresponsible corporations, societally irresponsible governance will result in environmental damage. If you say, "Give these guys all the power and they'll make the environment safe." then the result is going to be a safer environment until they get bored. Then they'll damage the environment because they have the power to do so and it's easier for the environment to be damaged. (Or people offer them bribes, or because they see ways to grab more power, or ... ) The concern to avoid totalitarianism is necessary to avoid long term environmental damage.

Aerroon 6y ago
>If you say, "Give these guys all the power and they'll make the environment safe." then the result is going to be a safer environment until they get bored. Then they'll damage the environment because they have the power to do so and it's easier for the environment to be damaged. I find this part to be an unlikely scenario. A much more plausible scenario is that the group that gets the power realizes that if they fix the problem, then they will lose their power. Therefore, they decide not to fully fix it. They will perpetually work towards improving it to maintain power.

giantg2 6y ago

"It should also be painfully obvious at this point that a more passive approach does very little." That's not really true. We have seen reductions in many types of pollution in the last few decades. Not all of it is forced on people through laws. Much it of comes about as improvements in technology that provide efficiency and cost savings. You can see this is the use LEDs, better fuel milage (before the mandates), adoption of solar panel roofs (in areas that don't mandate it), siphonmatic toilets vs wash-down toilets, etc. "There's nothing totalitarian about holding people responsible for the long term damage they do to the environment." I generally agree. The issue us whether an international organization can hold other countries accountable. This could be a major sovereignty issue, especially when the law does not explicitly define what is legitimate consumption or use and what is ecocide. For example, does lithium mining constitute ecocide? It causes environmental damage, but is then used in some industries that might reduce impact in other areas (electric vehicles).

Retric 6y ago
Global CO2 emissions where higher in 2019 than 2010, higher in 2010 than 2000, higher in 2000 than 1990 etc. We aren’t fixing the problem. Now, you might look a such trends and say it’s fine everything is going to work out, but I think that’s hard to justify. Some local trends look promising, but advanced economies outsourcing manufacturing and thus CO2 emissions isn’t actually helpful.
- giantg2 6y ago
  Sure, if you want to pick just one metric that might be true. Do you have the per capita metrics? I don't know what it would show. Maybe it's higher than before due to more consumerism, maybe it's lower than in the past due to technology improvements. What about all the other pollution like mercury, sulfur, etc? All I'm saying is that the general trend has been the adoption of cleaner technology over time, and that some of it is from efficiency or costs as opposed to laws. One example would be diesel electric trains vs the old coal powered steam engines - way cleaner, more efficient, easier to maintain, and less water usage. "Some local trends look promising, but advanced economies outsourcing manufacturing and thus CO2 emissions isn’t actually helpful." I completely agree. Much of it has been a shell game. Without true authority over those manufacturing countries, they will likely play a shell game. The real issue will be the lack of definition of what constitutes ecocide and putting that determination by an international body against the sovereignty of the offending country.

Fern_Blossom 6y ago

You 100% missed the point. There's something totalitarian about setting vague rules to hold people responsible when you deem fit to prosecute. As an example of how this is going to be politically misused, if you actual read the Paris Accord, you'll know that this ecocide law set is going to be a shitshow. In the Paris Accord, it literally summed up, "You need to sign this agreement, pay the commission $100m, and then we'll setup a commission to figure out what the commission should look like that'll setup the various commissions that'll determine the environmental laws that you have now agreed to." I'm not kidding, what so ever. There were no targets or plans in the original accord that countries had to sign, which preemptively had them agree to whatever the hell the commission would decide YEARS later. Why is anyone to think more of these harsh "environment laws" are going to be precise or even effective if we're to be honest. I guarantee you that these ecocide rules are going to be just as vague as anti-mercenary international laws. However, ecocide is going to be a political tool to bully countries to toe a line or face severe penalties. Other countries performing ecocide, as long as playing ball, won't face charges. This is a case of helping make sure that, "everyone is guilty of something". Toss in the public impression of, "That political figure is committing ecocide!", even when they're not, you now have yourself the ultimate political weapon. Just because someone claims they want to save the world, doesn't mean they actually intend to. There's this thing called lying for personal gains. Fairly new invention, but you should be aware of it. A very small amount of politicians do it and only recently.

cool_dude85 6y ago
We have already seen the seeds of this type of thing in the US media. When Morales was couped, there was plenty of hand-wringing about how he was developing extractive industry (i.e., nationalized lithium), and how Bolivia was burning the rain forest, etc. and in general a lot of noise from "green" "activists" about how good the coup was. Just look at who gets prosecuted by the ICC to get an idea of how an EU-led international agreement will wind up.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  For the last time just because somebody you like is removed from office for crikws is not a coup. Hell it is blatant projection given one of his last actions was to try to remove the term limit.

SkyBelow 6y ago

One of the most damaging acts that most people do to the environment is having children. Controlling that would greatly improve the environment. While any single person is far smaller than the scale you want enforced, you could have standards pushing for reduced population that would penalize countries that don't implement those standards or large corporations that engage in actions that promote population increases.

Mattasher 6y ago

People seem to think that if they approve of a goal, actions taking in the name of that goal can't be totalitarian, or fascist, or bad in any way. Every authoritarian measure in history was justified by something that sounded like good intentions. That you agree with a stated goal is orthogonal to whether a measure is totalitarian.

dahfizz 6y ago

This is a very common pattern of miscommunication I see, particularly when criticizing traditionally left-leaning policy. A: "The way we are implementing X is dangerous and should be discussed" B: "X is imperative, we must do X. You may not question anything related to X" It can be true that protecting the environment is good, but also true that the things that people in power do while claiming to protect the environment is not good.