3 ms·

> The biggest challenge in climate change (for example) is that it's simply happening on too long a timescale for the average person to pay much attention to i

by tharne 5y ago

> The biggest challenge in climate change (for example) is that it's simply happening on too long a timescale for the average person to pay much attention to it. I disagree. This may be a problem, but I think the bigger problem is one that was described in a post on HN a few weeks back. Namely, that most of the folks advocating for action and sacrifice on climate change are themselves unwilling to lead by example, e.g. stop using air travel, give up or very sharply reduce automobile usage, etc. This leads a lot of people to either 1) Write the whole thing off as some BS cooked up by elites or; 2) conclude that no one, including those who claim to care most about the issue is actually going to do anything about the problem. You can't have Congressmen and Senators calling climate change an "existential threat" while they're hopping on a commercial airliner every week to fly back home from DC. While these folks may be correct in their assessment of climate change, their own behavior completely destroys any credibility they may have had on the issue.

mden 5y ago
I don't buy into the argument that if those people limited their travel and consumption then all of the sudden the non-believers will start believing. There's just no evidence that's an effective way to have societal impact. Not an exact parallel but just because people talk about wanting higher overall taxes and at the same time don't want to pay more than what is required doesn't mean they are hypocritical and it doesn't mean that if they did pay more others would follow.
- tharne 5y ago
  > I don't buy into the argument that if those people limited their travel and consumption then all of the sudden the non-believers will start believing. Maybe it would convince folks, maybe it wouldn't, but you'd have a chance. By contrast, any effort that involves "Do as I say, not as I do", is pretty much guaranteed to fail, and rightfully so. Trying to force others to do something that you yourself are unwilling to do voluntarily is the exact opposite of leadership.
- mistermann 5y ago
  > I don't buy into the argument that if those people limited their travel and consumption then all of the sudden the non-believers will start believing. "All of a sudden" was not claimed. > There's just no evidence that's an effective way to have societal impact. No evidence, or none that you are aware of? Also, evidence is not required for something to be true. > and it doesn't mean that if they did pay more others would follow. It could be achieved via legislation, which is to some degree influenced by public sentiment, which is to some degree influenced by the manner in which we discuss and conceptualize reality.
NationalPark 5y ago
Anyone even vaguely familiar with the science understands that we need to cut emissions on a wide scale, and that air travel by a few hundred politicians is a meaninglessly small fraction of the actual problem. This is essentially a bad faith attack on the few people in congress trying to do something about climate change. Where is your ire for the dozens of Republican congressmen who don't believe climate change is real or believe the Christian end times will happen first? Please, be serious and don't engage in contrarian purity tests that only serve to set back our attempts at mitigation.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kbelder 5y ago
  How about your and mine air travel? Meaninglessly small fraction of the actual problem?
  - NationalPark 5y ago
    Indeed, commercial aviation is only something like 3% of overall carbon dioxide emissions globally. If you want to make a personal difference you would be an order of magnitude more effective if you stop commuting in a non-electric car or gave up consuming meat when dining in restaurants. Expecting individual action to fix this (or worse, blaming individual actions for it) isn't going to work though. Individual consumption is not the majority source of emissions, and it's a bit of a classic prisoners dilemma problem anyway, and we know how much Americans trust each other these days.
    - mistermann 5y ago
      Are you taking the human/mass psychology apect (which underlies human actions) of the problem into consideration?
- disgruntledphd2 5y ago
  > Anyone even vaguely familiar with the science understands that we need to cut emissions on a wide scale, and that air travel by a few hundred politicians is a meaninglessly small fraction of the actual problem. This is essentially a bad faith attack on the few people in congress trying to do something about climate change. The post you replied to isn't talking about the science, but rather the politics. Humans tend to respond badly to authority figures saying but not doing, and this is a real problem that we need to fix (by electing/creating better leaders) in order to meet the requirements of the moment. So yeah, the total Congress emissions are tiny scientifically, but they're rather large politically. Also, someone I once read highlighted that political polarisation increased when Reps could fly back home every weekend. Maybe one should require that Senators maintain their primary residence in D.C.?

by tharne 5y ago

mden 5y ago

I don't buy into the argument that if those people limited their travel and consumption then all of the sudden the non-believers will start believing. There's just no evidence that's an effective way to have societal impact. Not an exact parallel but just because people talk about wanting higher overall taxes and at the same time don't want to pay more than what is required doesn't mean they are hypocritical and it doesn't mean that if they did pay more others would follow.

tharne 5y ago
> I don't buy into the argument that if those people limited their travel and consumption then all of the sudden the non-believers will start believing. Maybe it would convince folks, maybe it wouldn't, but you'd have a chance. By contrast, any effort that involves "Do as I say, not as I do", is pretty much guaranteed to fail, and rightfully so. Trying to force others to do something that you yourself are unwilling to do voluntarily is the exact opposite of leadership.
mistermann 5y ago
> I don't buy into the argument that if those people limited their travel and consumption then all of the sudden the non-believers will start believing. "All of a sudden" was not claimed. > There's just no evidence that's an effective way to have societal impact. No evidence, or none that you are aware of? Also, evidence is not required for something to be true. > and it doesn't mean that if they did pay more others would follow. It could be achieved via legislation, which is to some degree influenced by public sentiment, which is to some degree influenced by the manner in which we discuss and conceptualize reality.

NationalPark 5y ago

Anyone even vaguely familiar with the science understands that we need to cut emissions on a wide scale, and that air travel by a few hundred politicians is a meaninglessly small fraction of the actual problem. This is essentially a bad faith attack on the few people in congress trying to do something about climate change. Where is your ire for the dozens of Republican congressmen who don't believe climate change is real or believe the Christian end times will happen first? Please, be serious and don't engage in contrarian purity tests that only serve to set back our attempts at mitigation.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kbelder 5y ago
How about your and mine air travel? Meaninglessly small fraction of the actual problem?
- NationalPark 5y ago
  Indeed, commercial aviation is only something like 3% of overall carbon dioxide emissions globally. If you want to make a personal difference you would be an order of magnitude more effective if you stop commuting in a non-electric car or gave up consuming meat when dining in restaurants. Expecting individual action to fix this (or worse, blaming individual actions for it) isn't going to work though. Individual consumption is not the majority source of emissions, and it's a bit of a classic prisoners dilemma problem anyway, and we know how much Americans trust each other these days.
  - mistermann 5y ago
    Are you taking the human/mass psychology apect (which underlies human actions) of the problem into consideration?
disgruntledphd2 5y ago
> Anyone even vaguely familiar with the science understands that we need to cut emissions on a wide scale, and that air travel by a few hundred politicians is a meaninglessly small fraction of the actual problem. This is essentially a bad faith attack on the few people in congress trying to do something about climate change. The post you replied to isn't talking about the science, but rather the politics. Humans tend to respond badly to authority figures saying but not doing, and this is a real problem that we need to fix (by electing/creating better leaders) in order to meet the requirements of the moment. So yeah, the total Congress emissions are tiny scientifically, but they're rather large politically. Also, someone I once read highlighted that political polarisation increased when Reps could fly back home every weekend. Maybe one should require that Senators maintain their primary residence in D.C.?