8 ms·

> Everyone consumes, and rich people consume less than poor people relative to their wealth. Which, of course, means that all this talk about blaming the rich

by makomk 5y ago

> Everyone consumes, and rich people consume less than poor people relative to their wealth. Which, of course, means that all this talk about blaming the rich are a distraction from one unavoidable thing: since most of the consumption comes from ordinary people and not the rich, any substantial decrease in consumption has to come from them too. It's the ordinary masses that will lose the ability to travel abroad (and probably be limited in their ability to travel within their own country), who won't be able to see their friends and family so much anymore, who will lose a lot of the daily comforts of life. Blaming the rich can't change that. Guardian headlines about how "just 100 companies" are responsible for most emissions based on counting all emissions from the fossil fuels produced by them as their emissions, regardless of whether they're being burnt in everyone's cars and to heat everyone's homes, won't change that either. All it does is hopefully distract blame from the activists trying to take things away from everyone.

j_wtf_all_taken 5y ago
> It's the ordinary masses that will lose the ability to travel abroad (and probably be limited in their ability to travel within their own country), who won't be able to see their friends and family so much anymore, who will lose a lot of the daily comforts of life. Pretty dark view of the future. Its not that we have to lose all those things, we just got to change a little bit in how we produce things and electricity and how we travel. And got to insulate houses a little. We don't have to give up any of the comforts of modern life. That's actually the worst part of it all: its not even that we would have to give up something in order to prevent climate change. We'd just have to CHANGE something, but even that seems to be too much to ask. That really makes me mad. So incredibly unnecessary :(
- fogihujy 5y ago
  Problem is that those changes will be prohibitly expensive for a lot of people. There's a lot of people who rarely get out, and who's struggling just to be able to buy a cheap smart phone every year and a last-minute all-inclusive trip to Las Palmas twice per decade. If rents go up due to climate-saving efforts, they will have to give those up. Because landlords won't give up their profits. Change incurs costs. Costs means someone is paying.
  - j_wtf_all_taken 5y ago
    > Problem is that those changes will be prohibitly expensive for a lot of people. There's this idea that we introduce a carbon tax, and pay out the money to people. Seems like this could be designed in a way those people don't suffer. > If rents go up due to climate-saving efforts, they will have to give those up. Because landlords won't give up their profits. That's why we can implement laws forcing them to. If they add insulation to the house, the cost for heating will go down. So we just got to make sure that the one makes up for the other. > Change incurs costs. Costs means someone is paying. But its an investment, isn't it? Its not like we're throwing the money out of the window. We're investing, we are building things that will have a positive net return in the long run. For example, solar and wind are so cheap now and don't require constant imports (or digging up of) fuel. So in the long run, we'll have a more robust and cheaper energy production. Or from above - insulating a house will cost money now, but we'll save money in the long run.
    - fogihujy 5y ago
      > There's this idea that we introduce a carbon tax Where I live, there is a carbon tax already. It's going straight to the coffers of the state, and I have little hope that they'll let go of those money as it's used to finance other things. > That's why we can implement laws forcing them to Assuming you get a political majority to approve it. If you do, the costs will indeed be transferred to others, but I don't think it's politically feasible. > long run Current society is fixated around short-term profits, and has little regard for the good of humanity. I agree that all those things would be nice and that they would improve the situation. If we ever get a majority in favour of such changes it might happen, but believe that'll take far more time than we'd like.
      - j_wtf_all_taken 5y ago
        > Assuming you get a political majority to approve it. If you do, the costs will indeed be transferred to others, but I don't think it's politically feasible. > Current society is fixated around short-term profits, and has little regard for the good of humanity. Kind of sad. We could do it in a fair way, we just don't care enough. But was there ever a time when that was actually different? I assume not, and even though lots of things are crappy right now, we're probably still better off than ever (speaking for Europe, at least ...)

by makomk 5y ago

j_wtf_all_taken 5y ago

> It's the ordinary masses that will lose the ability to travel abroad (and probably be limited in their ability to travel within their own country), who won't be able to see their friends and family so much anymore, who will lose a lot of the daily comforts of life. Pretty dark view of the future. Its not that we have to lose all those things, we just got to change a little bit in how we produce things and electricity and how we travel. And got to insulate houses a little. We don't have to give up any of the comforts of modern life. That's actually the worst part of it all: its not even that we would have to give up something in order to prevent climate change. We'd just have to CHANGE something, but even that seems to be too much to ask. That really makes me mad. So incredibly unnecessary :(

fogihujy 5y ago
Problem is that those changes will be prohibitly expensive for a lot of people. There's a lot of people who rarely get out, and who's struggling just to be able to buy a cheap smart phone every year and a last-minute all-inclusive trip to Las Palmas twice per decade. If rents go up due to climate-saving efforts, they will have to give those up. Because landlords won't give up their profits. Change incurs costs. Costs means someone is paying.
- j_wtf_all_taken 5y ago
  > Problem is that those changes will be prohibitly expensive for a lot of people. There's this idea that we introduce a carbon tax, and pay out the money to people. Seems like this could be designed in a way those people don't suffer. > If rents go up due to climate-saving efforts, they will have to give those up. Because landlords won't give up their profits. That's why we can implement laws forcing them to. If they add insulation to the house, the cost for heating will go down. So we just got to make sure that the one makes up for the other. > Change incurs costs. Costs means someone is paying. But its an investment, isn't it? Its not like we're throwing the money out of the window. We're investing, we are building things that will have a positive net return in the long run. For example, solar and wind are so cheap now and don't require constant imports (or digging up of) fuel. So in the long run, we'll have a more robust and cheaper energy production. Or from above - insulating a house will cost money now, but we'll save money in the long run.
  - fogihujy 5y ago
    > There's this idea that we introduce a carbon tax Where I live, there is a carbon tax already. It's going straight to the coffers of the state, and I have little hope that they'll let go of those money as it's used to finance other things. > That's why we can implement laws forcing them to Assuming you get a political majority to approve it. If you do, the costs will indeed be transferred to others, but I don't think it's politically feasible. > long run Current society is fixated around short-term profits, and has little regard for the good of humanity. I agree that all those things would be nice and that they would improve the situation. If we ever get a majority in favour of such changes it might happen, but believe that'll take far more time than we'd like.
    - j_wtf_all_taken 5y ago
      > Assuming you get a political majority to approve it. If you do, the costs will indeed be transferred to others, but I don't think it's politically feasible. > Current society is fixated around short-term profits, and has little regard for the good of humanity. Kind of sad. We could do it in a fair way, we just don't care enough. But was there ever a time when that was actually different? I assume not, and even though lots of things are crappy right now, we're probably still better off than ever (speaking for Europe, at least ...)