4 ms·

As an individual, there isn't really anything you can do. Going vegetarian doesn't help. Recycling doesn't help. Using your shower for 5 minutes doesn't help.

by Taek 5y ago

As an individual, there isn't really anything you can do. Going vegetarian doesn't help. Recycling doesn't help. Using your shower for 5 minutes doesn't help. As a society, we've chosen to manage resources via capitalism. If you use less water, what that means is water is cheaper so some corporation can afford another few acres of almond trees. If consumers cut their waste in half, the slack would be picked up at the corporate level. I genuinely believe the only answer is violently enforced regulation. Set a standard like the Geneva convention that says how much pollution and waste you are allowed to generate on a per-area basis, and actually go to war against countries that don't meet the goals. Throw executives in jail that increase profits by migrating production to countries with less regulation around emissions and waste. This is a tragedy of the commons problem, and you aren't going to fix it by having even a large percentage of the population agree to be respectful of the commons. You have to declare war against those that aren't respecting the commons. I don't see another path that will actually result in meaningful change.

pphysch 5y ago
I agree with you but as it stands the dominant ideology of the USA-led "international rule-based order" is Liberalism (i.e. the individual is the authority). Until there is an ideological revolution in the West, this is "just how it is". Every scientifically-correct, readily-implementable strategy to address this crisis will be killed at some point for infringing on sacred "individual liberties". Look at Biden currently doing huge damage to the international solar industry as a byproduct of Washington's floundering ideological crusade against "authoritarianism" [1]. [1] - https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3139062/us-ban-chinas-xinjiang-solar-products-linked-alleged-forced https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3139062/u...
- 6f8986c3 5y ago
  Environmentalists fought against nuclear power for 70 years. The result? We burned coal.
  - pphysch 5y ago
    SOME "environmentalists" fought against nuclear power for 70+ years.
    - 6f8986c3 5y ago
      No, most of them did.
      - pphysch 5y ago
        You should have specified that. Sure, big media ops like Greenpeace are anti-nuclear. However, many actual scientists like James Lovelock is staunchly pro-nuclear [1]. [1] - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/18/james-lovelock-the-biosphere-and-i-are-both-in-the-last-1-per-cent-of-our-lives https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/18/james-lo...
loopz 5y ago
Maybe you're right, maybe war is the answer to less CO2: https://www.co2levels.org/ https://www.co2levels.org/ However, it is interesting that people find "solutions", before they've even described and analysed the entire problem set.
nkingsy 5y ago
You could just say enforced. The violence is implicit. I think an infinite metadata approach also gets you there. It appears that culture becomes homogenized in a direct relationship with information transfer. So if we continue on the path of generating metadata for EVERYTHING, we will arrive in a world where we can obtain detailed supply chain information just by virtue of the fact that a thing exists. Transparent supply chains and homogenized culture seems like a good recipe for internalizing externalities without regulation per say (rather propaganda).
staplers 5y ago
You'll get downvoted, but we punish personal drug use significantly more than catastrophic world-ending environmental crimes.
danenania 5y ago
Wars are not exactly beneficial to the planet. And it would be a nice joke if your righteous war to save the planet from climate change ends up leading us into a nuclear winter. Neither violence or authoritarianism are necessary to solve the problem. We who live in democracies "just" have to elect governments sufficiently not corrupt that they will impose the required environmental restrictions on industry, and use strong economic pressure on other nations that don't get their houses in order.
- pphysch 5y ago
  > We "just" have to elect a government sufficiently not corrupt that it will impose the required environmental restrictions on industry, and use strong economic pressure on other nations that don't get their houses in order. This is essentially the operating definition of "authoritarianism" in Washington, though. If you can't be bought, you must be anti-freedom.
- Taek 5y ago
  > Wars are not exactly beneficial to the planet. And it would be a nice joke if your righteous war to save the planet from climate change ends up leading us into a nuclear winter. Fully agree. War is worth avoiding at all costs. > We who live in democracies "just" have to elect governments sufficiently not corrupt that they will impose the required environmental restrictions on industry, and use strong economic pressure on other nations that don't get their houses in order. I may be overly cynical but I just don't see this happening. But I would absolutely rejoice if it did work out that way.
- pope_meat 5y ago
  I can't believe we forgot to try that. Just vote, people. Heavy sarcasm
samzon44 5y ago
A dictatorship[1] of the proletariat could do that! > I genuinely believe the only answer is violently enforced regulation. I would like to point out that 'violence' is not _strictly_ necessary, except as a defensive measure. An internationally-organized working class could simply refuse to work on destructive projects (new oil pipelines, etc). Unfortunately, people in power tend to react with increasing violence when their power is threatened (see for example the police response to DAPL protests), so you do have to be prepared to respond to violence one way or another during the transition of power. i.e. better organized = less violence. Unfortunately we are very disorganized currently, and organizing is (in my experience) hard. Better get on that. [1] This word makes the whole term sound undemocratic but actually refers to the proletariat as a whole enforcing their will (which must by definition be determined in a democratic way) despite the will of the existing ruling class without the need for negotiation.
- slibhb 5y ago
  If the "working class" revolts, it's going to be against climate change-focused regulations, not in favor of them.
- Taek 5y ago
  You need violence because the US and China stepping up to stop pollution doesn't fix things if the Philippines refuses to take initiative. The Philippines alone contributes almost 1/3 of the plastics in the ocean despite having only about 1.5% of the world's people.
nickpp 5y ago
Always the violent dictators ready to save us from ourselves… for our own good too. Never let a good crisis go to waste, heh?!
DFHippie 5y ago
I agree that we need regulation. We need to force the majority not to freeload on the efforts of others. That's what regulation will achieve. But that being said, regulation will work because it will get more people to do the things you say will not work. If everyone voluntarily used less resources -- ate less meat, bought less virgin plastic, drove smaller cars less often for shorter distances, etc. -- that would produce the effect of regulation. There are things we can do as individuals, but we need all the other individuals in the high-consumption parts of the world also to do these things. One drop of rain doesn't carve a river but water does carve rivers.
fragbait65 5y ago
I mostly agree with what you say, but I don't think any other economic/political system would do better than capitalism. The problem isn't really with which system you use, no known political/economic system can handle greedy/selfish entities, be it people, groups, companies or countries. And enforcing rules like the Geneva convention will not work for the same reason. There will always be entities that bend or circulate the rules. (Example: Geneva Convention and the US and China (Not bashing the US here, just stating facts) There will never be any saving the climate unless the US and China are onboard, and currently they are not. I might see that the US could be in the future, but currently China is hell bent on being the number one super power and they are ready to break some eggs on the way.
lovemenot 5y ago
This kind of argument is often made, but it is wrong. >> As an individual, there isn't really anything you can do. Going vegetarian doesn't help. These words are expressed as absolute. "isn't really anything" ... "doesn't help" Yet the reality is such activities are positive in a small way. They may be far from sufficient, but they are not nothing. To be clear I am not arguing that individual action alone will be sufficient, nor am I against collective action enforced by rules where appropriate. It's just the tenor of your post is wrong. We can have both individual and collective action. And individual action alone, even if insufficient, is certainly not nothing. Less GHG emitted is better than more. Even at micro-scale this remains true.
- Taek 5y ago
  Humans psychologically keep an internal karma counter, this has been established in scientific studies. People who performed small acts of kindness earlier in the day were less likely to take responsibility during bigger problems later in the day. We can apply that to global warming. If you do your part by recycling, this makes you less likely to feel the need to participate in bigger discussions around controlling emissions. If you are going to spend energy every day on climate change, spend it in pursuit of bigger wins. We aren't going to solve climate change without bigger wins, and if we do get the bigger wins we probably will solve it without the smaller efforts
  - lovemenot 5y ago
    Thanks for replying. I thought that might be your reasoning. Without agreeing or disagreeing with your rationale, for me it would be better if you'd make this more clear from the outset. Something like: individuals can only make very limited positive impact, which in many instances is confounded by psychological factors driving behaviour in the wrong direction. Your understanding is better than your initial communication. There are in fact aspects of your argument that I disagree with concerning the Overton Window, but we needn't go there for now. At least you are no longer infuriating to me.

by Taek 5y ago

pphysch 5y ago

I agree with you but as it stands the dominant ideology of the USA-led "international rule-based order" is Liberalism (i.e. the individual is the authority). Until there is an ideological revolution in the West, this is "just how it is". Every scientifically-correct, readily-implementable strategy to address this crisis will be killed at some point for infringing on sacred "individual liberties". Look at Biden currently doing huge damage to the international solar industry as a byproduct of Washington's floundering ideological crusade against "authoritarianism" [1]. [1] - https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3139062/us-ban-chinas-xinjiang-solar-products-linked-alleged-forced https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3139062/u...

6f8986c3 5y ago
Environmentalists fought against nuclear power for 70 years. The result? We burned coal.
- pphysch 5y ago
  SOME "environmentalists" fought against nuclear power for 70+ years.
  - 6f8986c3 5y ago
    No, most of them did.
    - pphysch 5y ago
      You should have specified that. Sure, big media ops like Greenpeace are anti-nuclear. However, many actual scientists like James Lovelock is staunchly pro-nuclear [1]. [1] - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/18/james-lovelock-the-biosphere-and-i-are-both-in-the-last-1-per-cent-of-our-lives https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/18/james-lo...

loopz 5y ago

Maybe you're right, maybe war is the answer to less CO2: https://www.co2levels.org/ https://www.co2levels.org/ However, it is interesting that people find "solutions", before they've even described and analysed the entire problem set.

nkingsy 5y ago

You could just say enforced. The violence is implicit. I think an infinite metadata approach also gets you there. It appears that culture becomes homogenized in a direct relationship with information transfer. So if we continue on the path of generating metadata for EVERYTHING, we will arrive in a world where we can obtain detailed supply chain information just by virtue of the fact that a thing exists. Transparent supply chains and homogenized culture seems like a good recipe for internalizing externalities without regulation per say (rather propaganda).

staplers 5y ago

You'll get downvoted, but we punish personal drug use significantly more than catastrophic world-ending environmental crimes.

danenania 5y ago

Wars are not exactly beneficial to the planet. And it would be a nice joke if your righteous war to save the planet from climate change ends up leading us into a nuclear winter. Neither violence or authoritarianism are necessary to solve the problem. We who live in democracies "just" have to elect governments sufficiently not corrupt that they will impose the required environmental restrictions on industry, and use strong economic pressure on other nations that don't get their houses in order.

pphysch 5y ago
> We "just" have to elect a government sufficiently not corrupt that it will impose the required environmental restrictions on industry, and use strong economic pressure on other nations that don't get their houses in order. This is essentially the operating definition of "authoritarianism" in Washington, though. If you can't be bought, you must be anti-freedom.
Taek 5y ago
> Wars are not exactly beneficial to the planet. And it would be a nice joke if your righteous war to save the planet from climate change ends up leading us into a nuclear winter. Fully agree. War is worth avoiding at all costs. > We who live in democracies "just" have to elect governments sufficiently not corrupt that they will impose the required environmental restrictions on industry, and use strong economic pressure on other nations that don't get their houses in order. I may be overly cynical but I just don't see this happening. But I would absolutely rejoice if it did work out that way.
pope_meat 5y ago
I can't believe we forgot to try that. Just vote, people. Heavy sarcasm

samzon44 5y ago

A dictatorship[1] of the proletariat could do that! > I genuinely believe the only answer is violently enforced regulation. I would like to point out that 'violence' is not _strictly_ necessary, except as a defensive measure. An internationally-organized working class could simply refuse to work on destructive projects (new oil pipelines, etc). Unfortunately, people in power tend to react with increasing violence when their power is threatened (see for example the police response to DAPL protests), so you do have to be prepared to respond to violence one way or another during the transition of power. i.e. better organized = less violence. Unfortunately we are very disorganized currently, and organizing is (in my experience) hard. Better get on that. [1] This word makes the whole term sound undemocratic but actually refers to the proletariat as a whole enforcing their will (which must by definition be determined in a democratic way) despite the will of the existing ruling class without the need for negotiation.

slibhb 5y ago
If the "working class" revolts, it's going to be against climate change-focused regulations, not in favor of them.
Taek 5y ago
You need violence because the US and China stepping up to stop pollution doesn't fix things if the Philippines refuses to take initiative. The Philippines alone contributes almost 1/3 of the plastics in the ocean despite having only about 1.5% of the world's people.

nickpp 5y ago

Always the violent dictators ready to save us from ourselves… for our own good too. Never let a good crisis go to waste, heh?!

DFHippie 5y ago

I agree that we need regulation. We need to force the majority not to freeload on the efforts of others. That's what regulation will achieve. But that being said, regulation will work because it will get more people to do the things you say will not work. If everyone voluntarily used less resources -- ate less meat, bought less virgin plastic, drove smaller cars less often for shorter distances, etc. -- that would produce the effect of regulation. There are things we can do as individuals, but we need all the other individuals in the high-consumption parts of the world also to do these things. One drop of rain doesn't carve a river but water does carve rivers.

fragbait65 5y ago

I mostly agree with what you say, but I don't think any other economic/political system would do better than capitalism. The problem isn't really with which system you use, no known political/economic system can handle greedy/selfish entities, be it people, groups, companies or countries. And enforcing rules like the Geneva convention will not work for the same reason. There will always be entities that bend or circulate the rules. (Example: Geneva Convention and the US and China (Not bashing the US here, just stating facts) There will never be any saving the climate unless the US and China are onboard, and currently they are not. I might see that the US could be in the future, but currently China is hell bent on being the number one super power and they are ready to break some eggs on the way.

lovemenot 5y ago

This kind of argument is often made, but it is wrong. >> As an individual, there isn't really anything you can do. Going vegetarian doesn't help. These words are expressed as absolute. "isn't really anything" ... "doesn't help" Yet the reality is such activities are positive in a small way. They may be far from sufficient, but they are not nothing. To be clear I am not arguing that individual action alone will be sufficient, nor am I against collective action enforced by rules where appropriate. It's just the tenor of your post is wrong. We can have both individual and collective action. And individual action alone, even if insufficient, is certainly not nothing. Less GHG emitted is better than more. Even at micro-scale this remains true.

Taek 5y ago
Humans psychologically keep an internal karma counter, this has been established in scientific studies. People who performed small acts of kindness earlier in the day were less likely to take responsibility during bigger problems later in the day. We can apply that to global warming. If you do your part by recycling, this makes you less likely to feel the need to participate in bigger discussions around controlling emissions. If you are going to spend energy every day on climate change, spend it in pursuit of bigger wins. We aren't going to solve climate change without bigger wins, and if we do get the bigger wins we probably will solve it without the smaller efforts
- lovemenot 5y ago
  Thanks for replying. I thought that might be your reasoning. Without agreeing or disagreeing with your rationale, for me it would be better if you'd make this more clear from the outset. Something like: individuals can only make very limited positive impact, which in many instances is confounded by psychological factors driving behaviour in the wrong direction. Your understanding is better than your initial communication. There are in fact aspects of your argument that I disagree with concerning the Overton Window, but we needn't go there for now. At least you are no longer infuriating to me.