3 ms·

CO2 emissions are a chemical problem. We know the answer to the chemical/physical problem: stop doing the reactions which produce CO2 gas as an output. But wh

CO2 emissions are a chemical problem. We know the answer to the chemical/physical problem: stop doing the reactions which produce CO2 gas as an output. But what makes it so confounding is it's also a political problem: people get to decide for themselves whether to do those reactions, and they overwhelmingly choose to do them. Their choices are informed by all kinds of social, emotional and symbolic influences - one of which is the Olympics. While the Olympics may not be a huge event relative to the entire global economy, it is pretty big relative to the entire global mindshare.

cogman10 5y ago
This makes the assumption that the CO2 chemical experiment is done in a shared manner. That's not the case. In fact, very few organizations run the experiment to an extent that impacts the global climate. Businesses are certainly aware of climate change, who isn't at this point? The issue is that those businesses care FAR more about profit than they do about the future. You could say "Ok, it's the consumers responsibility to vote with their wallet!" But that doesn't mean anything. How can I impact agricultural CO2 emissions at the grocery store? There's not label on the food goods which says "This is a high CO2 emission product". And even if I did that, how can you expect the general population to do the same? We can't even convince the general population that wearing a mask to slow the spread of a respiratory illness is a good idea. We can't even convince everyone that a vaccine doesn't "magnetize" you. What's worse, this sort of thing would very likely backfire. Sure, everyone that thinks climate change is an issue will say it's a good to ok move. However, those in deep denial about climate change, the 40% of the population we need to convince it is a problem, will see a move like this as being "liberal cancel culture gone mad!" If I'm going to poke the outrage machine, I'd rather poke it with measures that are effective at addressing climate change. Carbon taxes and subsidies for green tech and farming.

cogman10 5y ago

This makes the assumption that the CO2 chemical experiment is done in a shared manner. That's not the case. In fact, very few organizations run the experiment to an extent that impacts the global climate. Businesses are certainly aware of climate change, who isn't at this point? The issue is that those businesses care FAR more about profit than they do about the future. You could say "Ok, it's the consumers responsibility to vote with their wallet!" But that doesn't mean anything. How can I impact agricultural CO2 emissions at the grocery store? There's not label on the food goods which says "This is a high CO2 emission product". And even if I did that, how can you expect the general population to do the same? We can't even convince the general population that wearing a mask to slow the spread of a respiratory illness is a good idea. We can't even convince everyone that a vaccine doesn't "magnetize" you. What's worse, this sort of thing would very likely backfire. Sure, everyone that thinks climate change is an issue will say it's a good to ok move. However, those in deep denial about climate change, the 40% of the population we need to convince it is a problem, will see a move like this as being "liberal cancel culture gone mad!" If I'm going to poke the outrage machine, I'd rather poke it with measures that are effective at addressing climate change. Carbon taxes and subsidies for green tech and farming.