3 ms·

Their part to fix the problem would be to make sure they're able to do the maximum to affect things at a macro level. That means not bothering to obsess about i

Their part to fix the problem would be to make sure they're able to do the maximum to affect things at a macro level. That means not bothering to obsess about individual acts of emitting carbon, or putting finite resources into guilt-mollifying individual carbon offsets. If an environmentalist needs to attend a conference where they can better-influence the movers and shakers of the world, then they should take the most convenient form of transport to get there, not a sailboat.

Syonyk 5y ago
Can you point to any instance in history when a stance of "Suffering for thee, not for me!" has actually worked well? If the people who claim to be leading the movement aren't even willing to take major steps in their own lives to reduce their impact, how are they likely to lead others in that direction? Humans always have been, and always will, remain quite sensitive to hypocrisy. I can make the best arguments ever heard for a vegan diet, but if I do so while munching a bacon double cheeseburger on the side, nobody is going to take me even the slightest bit seriously.
- aisengard 5y ago
  You're missing the point. Humans/citizens generally don't need to change their behavior, the world needs to change how it meets the demands of humans. There may be some environmentalists out there who say we need degrowth, or we all need to live in a commune, but those people are not going to be the ones who deliver the solution, because you're right, no one is going to bother following those people into the abyss, even if they do practice what they preach.
  - AstralStorm 5y ago
    There are a few things we can and must do immediately. 1) Build any big power plants that will work for 30 years with no carbon emissions. If you're near equator or right on thermal vents, this may be renewable. Otherwise, build the darn nuclear fission plants post haste. We do not have 50 years to develop the alternative technologies. We barely have 15 to deploy all this. (I'm counting 3.5 C increase as likely deadly.) Close all fossil fuel plants. (You can have some for emergencies, just offline.) No ifs, buts or whens. This immediately makes electric cars and other transportation more useful and viable too. Tax won't do, it would get passed on to users. This includes oil and gas pipelines. They need to go. 2) Pour everything we can research wise into carbon capture or other means of cooling the planet, keeping water and food supplies rinning. Biotech, physics, chemistry, space technologies. It's too late to research clean energy sources at this point, though improvements in batteries and decentralized grid will be nice too. Heck, halt ITER if it will get these researchers to work on immediately critical problems. (Like say desalination or batteries even.) 3) Ban fossil fueled transportation. Tax won't do, it's too slow and weak. Reduce transportation if we can. Note that this immediately kills big airplane operators. (Electric or renewable don't have the mileage - use boats or airships.) To avoid the temptation, retrofit or scrap these immediately instead of shipping to poor countries. 4) Stop making stuff from hydrocarbons. There are alternative plastics that do not outgas or require methane. Heck, growing feedstock for some will capture carbon. 5) Prepare agriculture and housing for extreme climate, depending on place this will be drought, cyclones, floods, desertification, even potentially freezing. There are ways to deal with every such challenge. For the love of all that is holy, stop cutting Amazon forests for beef farming. Provide incentives and alternatives, and if that does not work, outright ban it. Ensure all farming is redone to minimize methane emissions. 6) Secure garbage disposal against methane outflow and water table contamination. Do not ship garbage thousands kilometers away to not be processed.
RattleyCooper 5y ago
> If an environmentalist needs to attend a conference where they can better-influence the movers and shakers of the world, then they should take the most convenient form of transport to get there, not a sailboat. I never suggested they should. But if a climate scientist can't be bothered to do any of the things that would be required from the rest of society in order to fix the "end of the world" scenario, then they'd be a complete nutter to expect other people to jump on board. The best way to lead is by example, not saying "ya'll need to do all these things that I'm not willing to do myself". That's a strategy straight out of the narcissists handbook, and has a tendency to completely backfire. If we're dealing with something like an "end of the world" scenario, this has got to be the single most insane thing for someone to do, or suggest should be the case. If you care about swaying minds, don't take the "rules for thee, not for me" approach. It won't work and you'll have just as much blood on your hands for being a nitwit.
trav4225 5y ago
Yeah, as skeptical as I am about a lot of this stuff (for one, I personally believe that the climate is too chaotic and has too many significant independent variables to model with much certainty), I've always cringed a bit at the people who insist that the leaders in the movement should all but stop emitting carbon. Certainly there is hypocrisy among those leaders who preach guilt and carbon abstinence, but there is a logical case to be made for pragmatism and focusing on the macro things rather than the micro details. I probably could word this better... but I think I've mostly made my point. :)

Syonyk 5y ago

Can you point to any instance in history when a stance of "Suffering for thee, not for me!" has actually worked well? If the people who claim to be leading the movement aren't even willing to take major steps in their own lives to reduce their impact, how are they likely to lead others in that direction? Humans always have been, and always will, remain quite sensitive to hypocrisy. I can make the best arguments ever heard for a vegan diet, but if I do so while munching a bacon double cheeseburger on the side, nobody is going to take me even the slightest bit seriously.

aisengard 5y ago
You're missing the point. Humans/citizens generally don't need to change their behavior, the world needs to change how it meets the demands of humans. There may be some environmentalists out there who say we need degrowth, or we all need to live in a commune, but those people are not going to be the ones who deliver the solution, because you're right, no one is going to bother following those people into the abyss, even if they do practice what they preach.
- AstralStorm 5y ago
  There are a few things we can and must do immediately. 1) Build any big power plants that will work for 30 years with no carbon emissions. If you're near equator or right on thermal vents, this may be renewable. Otherwise, build the darn nuclear fission plants post haste. We do not have 50 years to develop the alternative technologies. We barely have 15 to deploy all this. (I'm counting 3.5 C increase as likely deadly.) Close all fossil fuel plants. (You can have some for emergencies, just offline.) No ifs, buts or whens. This immediately makes electric cars and other transportation more useful and viable too. Tax won't do, it would get passed on to users. This includes oil and gas pipelines. They need to go. 2) Pour everything we can research wise into carbon capture or other means of cooling the planet, keeping water and food supplies rinning. Biotech, physics, chemistry, space technologies. It's too late to research clean energy sources at this point, though improvements in batteries and decentralized grid will be nice too. Heck, halt ITER if it will get these researchers to work on immediately critical problems. (Like say desalination or batteries even.) 3) Ban fossil fueled transportation. Tax won't do, it's too slow and weak. Reduce transportation if we can. Note that this immediately kills big airplane operators. (Electric or renewable don't have the mileage - use boats or airships.) To avoid the temptation, retrofit or scrap these immediately instead of shipping to poor countries. 4) Stop making stuff from hydrocarbons. There are alternative plastics that do not outgas or require methane. Heck, growing feedstock for some will capture carbon. 5) Prepare agriculture and housing for extreme climate, depending on place this will be drought, cyclones, floods, desertification, even potentially freezing. There are ways to deal with every such challenge. For the love of all that is holy, stop cutting Amazon forests for beef farming. Provide incentives and alternatives, and if that does not work, outright ban it. Ensure all farming is redone to minimize methane emissions. 6) Secure garbage disposal against methane outflow and water table contamination. Do not ship garbage thousands kilometers away to not be processed.

RattleyCooper 5y ago

> If an environmentalist needs to attend a conference where they can better-influence the movers and shakers of the world, then they should take the most convenient form of transport to get there, not a sailboat. I never suggested they should. But if a climate scientist can't be bothered to do any of the things that would be required from the rest of society in order to fix the "end of the world" scenario, then they'd be a complete nutter to expect other people to jump on board. The best way to lead is by example, not saying "ya'll need to do all these things that I'm not willing to do myself". That's a strategy straight out of the narcissists handbook, and has a tendency to completely backfire. If we're dealing with something like an "end of the world" scenario, this has got to be the single most insane thing for someone to do, or suggest should be the case. If you care about swaying minds, don't take the "rules for thee, not for me" approach. It won't work and you'll have just as much blood on your hands for being a nitwit.

trav4225 5y ago

Yeah, as skeptical as I am about a lot of this stuff (for one, I personally believe that the climate is too chaotic and has too many significant independent variables to model with much certainty), I've always cringed a bit at the people who insist that the leaders in the movement should all but stop emitting carbon. Certainly there is hypocrisy among those leaders who preach guilt and carbon abstinence, but there is a logical case to be made for pragmatism and focusing on the macro things rather than the micro details. I probably could word this better... but I think I've mostly made my point. :)