3 ms·

> 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

by 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.
- hrfbi 5y ago
  4. The decisions are taken by the unaccountable EU. (Precisely what's been happening for quite some time now)
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    Yes, that's what's been happening but it's exactly what I'd call "just-sort-of-happened without informed consent of the masses" - which is sustainable only while the costs are relatively trivial. If the impact grows, it will have to devolve to one of the three scenarios; the EU core institutions are composed of country's prime ministers and of directly elected representatives - all of those could and would be held accountable as soon as the people started to be bothered enough about the EU-wide decisions; currently they mostly vote for local parties based on their local issues, but if (when?) climate change and various options for tackling it (or not) would become an important issue in elections, then the same parties will put their EU-level votes as a key part of their election agenda.

by bserge 5y ago

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.
hrfbi 5y ago
4. The decisions are taken by the unaccountable EU. (Precisely what's been happening for quite some time now)
- PeterisP 5y ago
  Yes, that's what's been happening but it's exactly what I'd call "just-sort-of-happened without informed consent of the masses" - which is sustainable only while the costs are relatively trivial. If the impact grows, it will have to devolve to one of the three scenarios; the EU core institutions are composed of country's prime ministers and of directly elected representatives - all of those could and would be held accountable as soon as the people started to be bothered enough about the EU-wide decisions; currently they mostly vote for local parties based on their local issues, but if (when?) climate change and various options for tackling it (or not) would become an important issue in elections, then the same parties will put their EU-level votes as a key part of their election agenda.