3 ms·

I wouldn't be surprised that if this trend increases and the push comes to shove, then the voters - especially those on marginal incomes - might decide that act

I wouldn't be surprised that if this trend increases and the push comes to shove, then the voters - especially those on marginal incomes - might decide that actually they much prefer lower energy prices instead of supporting renewables and CO2-neutral energy; and in democratic countries it's the general public who are entitled to make that choice for their country instead of accepting the decisions of elites/experts and waiting for safety net policies to compensate for the suck. I agree that faster deployment of renewables and CO2-neutral energy does require high energy prices - however, it's not my decision to make whether that benefit is so desirable to justify the costs, it's up to the people in each specific country to decide - and taking into account the benefit to them specifically and the costs to them, not the global benefit and someone else's budget. And IMHO governments have not really asked them for a proper informed decision, it all has just-sort-of-happened without informed consent of the masses and they might just refuse that consent if the price rises sufficiently. In some sense a clean environment and less dangerous future are "luxury goods" that societies and people want to buy if they can afford to, but should not be forced if they can't afford the expense.

marvin 5y ago
> In some sense a clean environment and less dangerous future are "luxury goods" that societies and people want to buy if they can afford to, but should not be forced if they can't afford the expense. While I sympathize with this view on a certain level, applying it to policy consistently and literally is a likely path towards chaos and immense death and suffering 70 years from now. That's a high cost to pay to consider climate policies an optional luxury good. I'm increasingly convinced that bribing part of the voters with some sort of climate tax dividend is a sensible policy to keep society moving towards climate gas neutrality. I certainly agree with the view that all climate policies are worthless if they don't take into account real-world considerations such as free will and what significant parts of society are able/willing to afford. It's painful to watch this slow-motion tragedy play out. Certainly interested in hearing suggestions for improving it.
- ip26 5y ago
  bribing part of the voters with some sort of climate tax dividend is a sensible policy It's not really a bribe. If running your leaf blower pollutes the air that others breathe, is a (tiny) payment from you to those people not simply compensation for (tiny) harm you've caused? A carbon tax dividend simply manifests this concept (though aimed at carbon instead of pm2.5) It's always seemed like a really promising policy that drives many of the right incentives, but getting it passed seems impossible.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  A big problem is the international aspect and the requirement for what effectively are wealth transfers. Countries often are willing to bribe part of the voters to make some universal policies tolerable, having internal transfer payments for the benefit of the country as a whole. The world is (IMHO clearly) very, very limited in its willingness to bribe part of foreign voters to make some global policies tolerable, having international transfer payments for the benefit of the world as a whole. There are some examples, but they're very limited in scale compared to intra-country wealth transfers. It's plausible to convince voters for some reallocation between themselves, even if many specific voters would not individually benefit - but it's a hard sell to convince voters to assign significant resources (as opposed to current international aid/charity) to primarily benefit people in another country, which IMHO seems to be necessary because there's so big country-to-country variation in the actions needed to reduce global warming, the ability to afford these actions, and the severity of local consequences of global warming.
bserge 5y ago
> it's the general public who are entitled to make that choice for their country instead of accepting the decisions of elites/experts and waiting for safety net policies to compensate for the suck. Nah, people will do as they're told.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  That sort of is the democratic principle. There are three alternatives: 1. This choice gets made in whatever way does get (at least passive) consent of the general public; 2. The leaders try to make a different choice and get promptly replaced in the next elections with whichever populists promise to ignore the elites and roll back these choices; 3. The leaders make a different choice and violently enforce them in an authoritarian manner despite dissent. And IMHO the lifestyle changes required to stop global warming would be sufficiently large to cause meaningful mass dissent if enforced. I don't see any fourth option - do you?
  - bserge 5y ago
    1 or 2, very likely without violence. Just spin it properly. I hate to bring it as example, but everyone but a minority followed Covid guidelines, locked themselves home, lost their jobs, lived on savings. For the greater good. Those protesting were seen as idiots. So, yeah, people will do as they're told.
    - PeterisP 5y ago
      Okay, consent can be "manufactured" in some sense if you "spin it properly"; however my point in the parent post was that as of now, it seems that it has not been done (yet?). The arguments were made, and "spun properly" but they have convinced (excuse me for crude stereotypes grouping people, but here averages matter, not individuals) middle-or-upper-class urban liberals, but have not convinced large quantities of lower income people. However, their consent is required as well, they have their rights, opinions, votes and possibility to (re)act, and the current message is not really reaching them, so it's not being "spun properly" as far as I see, because it's not succeeding. People will do as they're told if either they're convinced or if the "ask" is not too high. There's a "green consensus" that supports the environment with small scale action that does not affect your budget that much. There is not (yet?) a consensus that a major part of the country's resources should be devoted to reducing climate change risk or impact. Covid is a relevant example, and IMHO it quite clearly showed the limits of how much people were willing to follow guidelines even in the presence of immediate threat with clear obvious results happening right now. If you would be asking something comparable to Covid restrictions so that in 30 years perhaps the impact would be lower... (the delay in time, the uncertainty of impact...) IMHO Covid experience shows that people simply won't accept that.
ip26 5y ago
In some sense a clean environment and less dangerous future are "luxury goods" The people who can least afford to pay for clean energy etc are the ones who will also be most impacted by heat waves, declining air quality, and natural disasters. So it's a similar "luxury good" as "functioning healthcare".
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  But you need to pay your electricity bill today,... ...and buy food to eat... ...global warming is something for future-you to care about.
  - ip26 5y ago
    Yes, I understand the future-you aspect. You handle the most immediate costs first. But I don't think that qualifies "adequate dental care" or "maintaining a healthy weight" (two problems frequently prioritized below this month's rent) as luxuries. Not only are they something everyone should have, deferring attention to those things is a net cost for everyone in the end (sufferers are miserable, society pays). This is why health insurance has started subsidizing preventative care. Climate change is a similar can of worms.
    - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
      I mean... I agree that fixing your tooth now for 100eur (price of a filling here) will save you from an artificial tooth (1000+eur) in the long run,... but this doesn't help you a lot if you don't have 100eur now. If you have enough money, you can insulate your house, build geothermal heating, solar heating+power, and all that stuff. At that "richness level", a power bill increase is a negligable cost. If you're really poor, power bill increases mean choosing between freezing at home or eating. I pay ~45eur monthly for power (i get heat from elsewhere), and doubling that to 90eur would mean one less aliexpress toy for me. It would also mean around 10 days of cheap food for someone poor. Basically, rich can afford to be green, but forcing green policies impacts poor the most. Ban non-eco cars? Sure... someone rich already has a car with low exhausts to pass the bar, and they will replace the car for a new one, even cleaner in a few years... poor people have an old beater with a shitty engine, burning oil, and a new eco policy means, that they have no way to drive to work anymore.

marvin 5y ago

> In some sense a clean environment and less dangerous future are "luxury goods" that societies and people want to buy if they can afford to, but should not be forced if they can't afford the expense. While I sympathize with this view on a certain level, applying it to policy consistently and literally is a likely path towards chaos and immense death and suffering 70 years from now. That's a high cost to pay to consider climate policies an optional luxury good. I'm increasingly convinced that bribing part of the voters with some sort of climate tax dividend is a sensible policy to keep society moving towards climate gas neutrality. I certainly agree with the view that all climate policies are worthless if they don't take into account real-world considerations such as free will and what significant parts of society are able/willing to afford. It's painful to watch this slow-motion tragedy play out. Certainly interested in hearing suggestions for improving it.

ip26 5y ago
bribing part of the voters with some sort of climate tax dividend is a sensible policy It's not really a bribe. If running your leaf blower pollutes the air that others breathe, is a (tiny) payment from you to those people not simply compensation for (tiny) harm you've caused? A carbon tax dividend simply manifests this concept (though aimed at carbon instead of pm2.5) It's always seemed like a really promising policy that drives many of the right incentives, but getting it passed seems impossible.
PeterisP 5y ago
A big problem is the international aspect and the requirement for what effectively are wealth transfers. Countries often are willing to bribe part of the voters to make some universal policies tolerable, having internal transfer payments for the benefit of the country as a whole. The world is (IMHO clearly) very, very limited in its willingness to bribe part of foreign voters to make some global policies tolerable, having international transfer payments for the benefit of the world as a whole. There are some examples, but they're very limited in scale compared to intra-country wealth transfers. It's plausible to convince voters for some reallocation between themselves, even if many specific voters would not individually benefit - but it's a hard sell to convince voters to assign significant resources (as opposed to current international aid/charity) to primarily benefit people in another country, which IMHO seems to be necessary because there's so big country-to-country variation in the actions needed to reduce global warming, the ability to afford these actions, and the severity of local consequences of global warming.

bserge 5y ago

> it's the general public who are entitled to make that choice for their country instead of accepting the decisions of elites/experts and waiting for safety net policies to compensate for the suck. Nah, people will do as they're told.

PeterisP 5y ago
That sort of is the democratic principle. There are three alternatives: 1. This choice gets made in whatever way does get (at least passive) consent of the general public; 2. The leaders try to make a different choice and get promptly replaced in the next elections with whichever populists promise to ignore the elites and roll back these choices; 3. The leaders make a different choice and violently enforce them in an authoritarian manner despite dissent. And IMHO the lifestyle changes required to stop global warming would be sufficiently large to cause meaningful mass dissent if enforced. I don't see any fourth option - do you?
- bserge 5y ago
  1 or 2, very likely without violence. Just spin it properly. I hate to bring it as example, but everyone but a minority followed Covid guidelines, locked themselves home, lost their jobs, lived on savings. For the greater good. Those protesting were seen as idiots. So, yeah, people will do as they're told.
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    Okay, consent can be "manufactured" in some sense if you "spin it properly"; however my point in the parent post was that as of now, it seems that it has not been done (yet?). The arguments were made, and "spun properly" but they have convinced (excuse me for crude stereotypes grouping people, but here averages matter, not individuals) middle-or-upper-class urban liberals, but have not convinced large quantities of lower income people. However, their consent is required as well, they have their rights, opinions, votes and possibility to (re)act, and the current message is not really reaching them, so it's not being "spun properly" as far as I see, because it's not succeeding. People will do as they're told if either they're convinced or if the "ask" is not too high. There's a "green consensus" that supports the environment with small scale action that does not affect your budget that much. There is not (yet?) a consensus that a major part of the country's resources should be devoted to reducing climate change risk or impact. Covid is a relevant example, and IMHO it quite clearly showed the limits of how much people were willing to follow guidelines even in the presence of immediate threat with clear obvious results happening right now. If you would be asking something comparable to Covid restrictions so that in 30 years perhaps the impact would be lower... (the delay in time, the uncertainty of impact...) IMHO Covid experience shows that people simply won't accept that.

ip26 5y ago

In some sense a clean environment and less dangerous future are "luxury goods" The people who can least afford to pay for clean energy etc are the ones who will also be most impacted by heat waves, declining air quality, and natural disasters. So it's a similar "luxury good" as "functioning healthcare".

ajsnigrutin 5y ago
But you need to pay your electricity bill today,... ...and buy food to eat... ...global warming is something for future-you to care about.
- ip26 5y ago
  Yes, I understand the future-you aspect. You handle the most immediate costs first. But I don't think that qualifies "adequate dental care" or "maintaining a healthy weight" (two problems frequently prioritized below this month's rent) as luxuries. Not only are they something everyone should have, deferring attention to those things is a net cost for everyone in the end (sufferers are miserable, society pays). This is why health insurance has started subsidizing preventative care. Climate change is a similar can of worms.
  - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
    I mean... I agree that fixing your tooth now for 100eur (price of a filling here) will save you from an artificial tooth (1000+eur) in the long run,... but this doesn't help you a lot if you don't have 100eur now. If you have enough money, you can insulate your house, build geothermal heating, solar heating+power, and all that stuff. At that "richness level", a power bill increase is a negligable cost. If you're really poor, power bill increases mean choosing between freezing at home or eating. I pay ~45eur monthly for power (i get heat from elsewhere), and doubling that to 90eur would mean one less aliexpress toy for me. It would also mean around 10 days of cheap food for someone poor. Basically, rich can afford to be green, but forcing green policies impacts poor the most. Ban non-eco cars? Sure... someone rich already has a car with low exhausts to pass the bar, and they will replace the car for a new one, even cleaner in a few years... poor people have an old beater with a shitty engine, burning oil, and a new eco policy means, that they have no way to drive to work anymore.