7 ms·

Few willing to change lifestyle to save the planet, climate survey finds

34 points by perfunctory 5y ago

LorenPechtel 5y ago
There's the perennial problem with such polls in that people have serious doubts about whether incurring costs for environmental reasons will actually accomplish the objective. An awful lot of environmental rules simply export the problem but do nothing to stop it.
PicassoCTs 5y ago
What do we need to change this? Education? Behavioral Hacking? More discussion ejection seat buzzwords? Surplus Resources produced by cornucopia machinery? Governments that are resistant to bribery and clan-think(aka human nature)? Or a virus that drastically reduces economic dynamics and individual exertions? Can in a dysfunctional society and system, a virus be considered a valid policy, to prevent far greater dangers through suicidal economic policies? Does the need of the many yet to come outweigh the need of those present? Just doing the devils advocate here. In the longterm im guessing it needs cornucopia to kick the can of worms further down the road. To change humanity, fix all the hardcoded brain-bugs and de-faulty heuristics, alot more has to happen. Just some dopamine-milk machine in the cellphone will not change moohmanity.
- lazyeye 5y ago
  We need the technology.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  The thing that would change this would be clear, certain, imminent and obvious impact to local welfare, combined with trustworthy assurances that the desired actions will change that. If we look at e.g. the IPCC reports, then we see statements which effectively say "there will be a much higher probability of various bad events in the far future, most of them somewhere else, that are likely to have various unspecified very bad consequences to people in general, most of them in other communities; and by the way the changes are already irreversible", which fails all those criteria. People will not be willing to make sacrifices as long as it's not clear (from sources you trust - experts may not suffice, as covid shows) what exact very harmful near-term consequences you and your community will face; how exactly the proposed sacrifice will change that; and how the coordination problem will be solved so that other large countries including those on the other side of the world also take that sacrifice, which is a key part of showing that the sacrifice will have an effect.
CM30 5y ago
I'm not surprised. Trying to rely on people to voluntarily change their behaviour while leaving companies to seemingly do whatever they want without consequences is a terrible idea. Why should people sacrifice their lifestyle while large corporations continue to make cheap, disposable goods and waste resources anyway? What's the incentive to consume less and change our lifestyles if leaders/celebrities/billionaires just fly to conferences in private jets at a whim, and waste such resources at an immense scale anyway? Plus... saying things is easy. Actually doing things differently are not.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  Yeah, it's the wrong question, and thus a distraction from getting the problem solved. Instead they should have asked "Do you support a tax on the top 1% of polluters, which is paid as a dividend to the bottom 99%?" I suppose that might have the unintended consequence / cobra effect of making people want the top 1% to pollute more, so they get a bigger dividend payment, but, on the other hand, I don't think that the top 1% care about what the rest of us want, so their only incentive will be to reduce their tax burden.
  - AtlasBarfed 5y ago
    It's an interesting idea, but the rich and powerful run the world and basically don't pay taxes. You don't need environmental dress-up, you just need the rich to pay their taxes. Wow, the world is pumping 40 gigatons per year excess CO2, which (at 100$/ton, god I hope we find a cheap way to remove carbon) is 4 trillion per year. There are historically about 2 teratons of excess carbon in the air. Christ that's 200 trillion dollars. Wow are we in trouble. Even if we only tried to get half of it out and get neutral, that is a massive amount of money. But the thing is, globally, there does exist probably 10 trillion dollars we can devote to fixing the problem (4 to stop the current bleeding, 6 to start drawing down the existing "debt"). Hopefully we find something cheaper.
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      > 4 trillion per year. For comparison, the Gross World Product[0] of 2019 was estimated to be 88 trillion, so a 5% global tax devoted to carbon removal would be sufficient. Countries could even be given a quota, and they would get a rebate for every ton they came in under that quota, such that they would pay net zero tax if they were net zero on carbon emissions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product
cybert00th 5y ago
There's no way I'm changing my lifestyle so a bunch of PH.Ds and tenured Profs can retire on the Costa del Sol.
- _Microft 5y ago
  This is pretty out of touch with academic reality.
pauldenton 5y ago
What you mean the rich and famous won't stop owning a dozen cars and a private plane, because of climate change? Not surprising. We hear stories all the time about airports being full of private planes at climate conferences. People didn't exactly carpool to g20
exabrial 5y ago
... most importantly, all of the "world leaders" at the "climate summits".
throwaway55421 5y ago
The current divide on coronavirus measures seems fairly similar to me, just with the speed dial turned up. Current climate chat is about social distancing and lockdowns. We need it to be about antivirals, vaccines, immunity etc. Basically, how do we fix this, not what do we do to hide from it for a bit. It is unsustainable to suggest that everyone just restricts their lifestyle forever in an endless loop.
gremloni 5y ago
This is good. This particular change has to be top down. The ability to put pressure on government and industry should be grass roots, not behavioral changes themselves.
- ergot_vacation 5y ago
  Bingo. Fuck this gaslighting. The vast majority of pollution in general, and CO2 in particular, comes from industry, not individuals. Tossing trash everywhere and running gas through your bus-like SUV like a maniac is an asshole move, and your neighbors don't appreciate it, but it doesn't move the needle much on actual environmental issues. Big companies and big foreign nations are where the CO2 is coming from. They have a stranglehold on congress thanks to their money, so good luck forcing change. But in the meantime let's stop wringing our hands over "lifestyle changes". They don't matter.
  - juanani 5y ago
    And then you have your golden boy US Arms industry who will rather label you a terrorist than stop their violent greed. They are 'required' or but but power vaccuum, everyone else is just as greedy, ree.
  - gremloni 5y ago
    Exactly. But at the same time we can’t wash our hand at the grassroots level. We have to continue to be environmentally conscious and put pressure on industry.
  - Melting_Harps 5y ago
    > Bingo. Fuck this gaslighting. The vast majority of pollution in general, and CO2 in particular, comes from industry, not individuals. Military (which I'd argue is in fact Industry) up until recently, actually; but somehow that gets swept under the rug. Moreover, when Industry loses a significant case in which they are forced to pay for their blatant environmental misconduct they can intimidate, and retaliate against the counselors [0] in some grotesque way to put a chilling effect on those who want to do the same. I intermittent fast eat meat only 3 times a week and try to maintain a 5;1 plant to animal protein ratio, lowered my carbon footprint in many ways for 16 years now (from farming in large scale regenerative farms to living in towns where I don't need a car) and have been reducing my consumption more and more as I get older--it does nothing for me and I'm pretty utilitarian about my purchase and will prefer to buy used over new. In many ways I'm pretty sure my actions have made me (individually) carbon negative. But, as you mentioned, the conclusion you realize after living this way is that Industry can essentially null all of the actions I've taken in a day of operation as it's activity in terms of GHG emission, pollution or wide-scale contamination of the environment. This is why I think Ecocide [1] should be enforced to all including corps as well as Governments and individuals (directors of investor's funds) and Hedgefunds who have benefited from these events. Anything short of this is political theater and will ensure that business as normal is maintained--COP26, Bilderburg et al are examples of how State and Cooperate power exempt themselves from all the things they decry are responsible for these impacts at scale. With that said, I place greater confidence in the ingenuity of Humans to create solutions to these problems. Incentivizing this is what we should be doing instead of continuing to bail out failed business models from megacorps via infinite QE. 0: https://archive.md/F2UTs https://archive.md/F2UTs 1: https://choice.npr.org/index.html?origin=https://www.npr.org/2021/06/27/1010402568/ecocide-environment-destruction-international-crime-criminal-court https://choice.npr.org/index.html?origin=https://www.npr.org...
sien 5y ago
68% of Americans say they wouldn't pay $10 a month in higher electricity bills to combat Climate Change: https://www.cato.org/blog/68-americans-wouldnt-pay-10-month-higher-electric-bills-combat-climate-change https://www.cato.org/blog/68-americans-wouldnt-pay-10-month-... What politicians say they want to do about global warming is very, very different to what people say they will pay for.
- telesilla 5y ago
  That's what's so damn infuriating. Taxpayers are paying that now in subsidies/lack of taxes for non-renewables because of lobbying and corruption. Make it a fair playing field and renewables will get the investment instead without any noticeable rise in user fees.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  IMHO politicians are quite well aware of that, so they say that what they want to about global warming is to express concern, make plans and perhaps subsidize some local industries which they might have subsidized just purely as an economic stimulus - because if they would actually require significant transfer of wealth for these issues or significant mandates (either direct or as hefty tax incentives) to change lifestyles, then the voters would simply vote them out.
  - sien 5y ago
    France has ~1/3 the per capita greenhouse gas emissions of the US and is a rich country so it's certainly possible. France uses nuclear for 70% of their electricity generation and petrol is ~$7 / gallon ( $1.9/litre ). Politicians just need to be honest about the costs and people just have to want it.
    - PeterisP 5y ago
      Well, you don't get to say what people "have to want", they have their own free will, and for the majority USA to transition to e.g. transportation habits of France would be a major lifestyle change, which they could make if they were forced to, but which they quite explicitly do not want - so if politicians are honest about the costs, that makes it certain that the policies won't be adopted, because there is not a willingness to pay them. I mean, $7/gallon is approximately double the current price, and if we made a poll across the USA asking "Would you be willing to double the gas prices in order to ...." then the vast majority would not even read past the beginning, they are certain that nothing that they have ever thought about climate change would justify that amount of change right now.
MaybeItsMia 5y ago
Yes, it's a collective action problem which can't be solved by individual consumer activism. You need meaningful policies which internalize external costs. Of course you need to also need to work to eliminate rent seeking within the political system to make that possible as well.

34 points by perfunctory 5y ago

There's the perennial problem with such polls in that people have serious doubts about whether incurring costs for environmental reasons will actually accomplish the objective. An awful lot of environmental rules simply export the problem but do nothing to stop it.

PicassoCTs 5y ago

What do we need to change this? Education? Behavioral Hacking? More discussion ejection seat buzzwords? Surplus Resources produced by cornucopia machinery? Governments that are resistant to bribery and clan-think(aka human nature)? Or a virus that drastically reduces economic dynamics and individual exertions? Can in a dysfunctional society and system, a virus be considered a valid policy, to prevent far greater dangers through suicidal economic policies? Does the need of the many yet to come outweigh the need of those present? Just doing the devils advocate here. In the longterm im guessing it needs cornucopia to kick the can of worms further down the road. To change humanity, fix all the hardcoded brain-bugs and de-faulty heuristics, alot more has to happen. Just some dopamine-milk machine in the cellphone will not change moohmanity.

lazyeye 5y ago
We need the technology.
PeterisP 5y ago
The thing that would change this would be clear, certain, imminent and obvious impact to local welfare, combined with trustworthy assurances that the desired actions will change that. If we look at e.g. the IPCC reports, then we see statements which effectively say "there will be a much higher probability of various bad events in the far future, most of them somewhere else, that are likely to have various unspecified very bad consequences to people in general, most of them in other communities; and by the way the changes are already irreversible", which fails all those criteria. People will not be willing to make sacrifices as long as it's not clear (from sources you trust - experts may not suffice, as covid shows) what exact very harmful near-term consequences you and your community will face; how exactly the proposed sacrifice will change that; and how the coordination problem will be solved so that other large countries including those on the other side of the world also take that sacrifice, which is a key part of showing that the sacrifice will have an effect.

CM30 5y ago

I'm not surprised. Trying to rely on people to voluntarily change their behaviour while leaving companies to seemingly do whatever they want without consequences is a terrible idea. Why should people sacrifice their lifestyle while large corporations continue to make cheap, disposable goods and waste resources anyway? What's the incentive to consume less and change our lifestyles if leaders/celebrities/billionaires just fly to conferences in private jets at a whim, and waste such resources at an immense scale anyway? Plus... saying things is easy. Actually doing things differently are not.

dane-pgp 5y ago
Yeah, it's the wrong question, and thus a distraction from getting the problem solved. Instead they should have asked "Do you support a tax on the top 1% of polluters, which is paid as a dividend to the bottom 99%?" I suppose that might have the unintended consequence / cobra effect of making people want the top 1% to pollute more, so they get a bigger dividend payment, but, on the other hand, I don't think that the top 1% care about what the rest of us want, so their only incentive will be to reduce their tax burden.
- AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  It's an interesting idea, but the rich and powerful run the world and basically don't pay taxes. You don't need environmental dress-up, you just need the rich to pay their taxes. Wow, the world is pumping 40 gigatons per year excess CO2, which (at 100$/ton, god I hope we find a cheap way to remove carbon) is 4 trillion per year. There are historically about 2 teratons of excess carbon in the air. Christ that's 200 trillion dollars. Wow are we in trouble. Even if we only tried to get half of it out and get neutral, that is a massive amount of money. But the thing is, globally, there does exist probably 10 trillion dollars we can devote to fixing the problem (4 to stop the current bleeding, 6 to start drawing down the existing "debt"). Hopefully we find something cheaper.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    > 4 trillion per year. For comparison, the Gross World Product[0] of 2019 was estimated to be 88 trillion, so a 5% global tax devoted to carbon removal would be sufficient. Countries could even be given a quota, and they would get a rebate for every ton they came in under that quota, such that they would pay net zero tax if they were net zero on carbon emissions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product

cybert00th 5y ago

There's no way I'm changing my lifestyle so a bunch of PH.Ds and tenured Profs can retire on the Costa del Sol.

_Microft 5y ago
This is pretty out of touch with academic reality.

pauldenton 5y ago

What you mean the rich and famous won't stop owning a dozen cars and a private plane, because of climate change? Not surprising. We hear stories all the time about airports being full of private planes at climate conferences. People didn't exactly carpool to g20

exabrial 5y ago

... most importantly, all of the "world leaders" at the "climate summits".

throwaway55421 5y ago

The current divide on coronavirus measures seems fairly similar to me, just with the speed dial turned up. Current climate chat is about social distancing and lockdowns. We need it to be about antivirals, vaccines, immunity etc. Basically, how do we fix this, not what do we do to hide from it for a bit. It is unsustainable to suggest that everyone just restricts their lifestyle forever in an endless loop.

gremloni 5y ago

This is good. This particular change has to be top down. The ability to put pressure on government and industry should be grass roots, not behavioral changes themselves.

ergot_vacation 5y ago
Bingo. Fuck this gaslighting. The vast majority of pollution in general, and CO2 in particular, comes from industry, not individuals. Tossing trash everywhere and running gas through your bus-like SUV like a maniac is an asshole move, and your neighbors don't appreciate it, but it doesn't move the needle much on actual environmental issues. Big companies and big foreign nations are where the CO2 is coming from. They have a stranglehold on congress thanks to their money, so good luck forcing change. But in the meantime let's stop wringing our hands over "lifestyle changes". They don't matter.
- juanani 5y ago
  And then you have your golden boy US Arms industry who will rather label you a terrorist than stop their violent greed. They are 'required' or but but power vaccuum, everyone else is just as greedy, ree.
- gremloni 5y ago
  Exactly. But at the same time we can’t wash our hand at the grassroots level. We have to continue to be environmentally conscious and put pressure on industry.
- Melting_Harps 5y ago
  > Bingo. Fuck this gaslighting. The vast majority of pollution in general, and CO2 in particular, comes from industry, not individuals. Military (which I'd argue is in fact Industry) up until recently, actually; but somehow that gets swept under the rug. Moreover, when Industry loses a significant case in which they are forced to pay for their blatant environmental misconduct they can intimidate, and retaliate against the counselors [0] in some grotesque way to put a chilling effect on those who want to do the same. I intermittent fast eat meat only 3 times a week and try to maintain a 5;1 plant to animal protein ratio, lowered my carbon footprint in many ways for 16 years now (from farming in large scale regenerative farms to living in towns where I don't need a car) and have been reducing my consumption more and more as I get older--it does nothing for me and I'm pretty utilitarian about my purchase and will prefer to buy used over new. In many ways I'm pretty sure my actions have made me (individually) carbon negative. But, as you mentioned, the conclusion you realize after living this way is that Industry can essentially null all of the actions I've taken in a day of operation as it's activity in terms of GHG emission, pollution or wide-scale contamination of the environment. This is why I think Ecocide [1] should be enforced to all including corps as well as Governments and individuals (directors of investor's funds) and Hedgefunds who have benefited from these events. Anything short of this is political theater and will ensure that business as normal is maintained--COP26, Bilderburg et al are examples of how State and Cooperate power exempt themselves from all the things they decry are responsible for these impacts at scale. With that said, I place greater confidence in the ingenuity of Humans to create solutions to these problems. Incentivizing this is what we should be doing instead of continuing to bail out failed business models from megacorps via infinite QE. 0: https://archive.md/F2UTs https://archive.md/F2UTs 1: https://choice.npr.org/index.html?origin=https://www.npr.org/2021/06/27/1010402568/ecocide-environment-destruction-international-crime-criminal-court https://choice.npr.org/index.html?origin=https://www.npr.org...

sien 5y ago

68% of Americans say they wouldn't pay $10 a month in higher electricity bills to combat Climate Change: https://www.cato.org/blog/68-americans-wouldnt-pay-10-month-higher-electric-bills-combat-climate-change https://www.cato.org/blog/68-americans-wouldnt-pay-10-month-... What politicians say they want to do about global warming is very, very different to what people say they will pay for.

telesilla 5y ago
That's what's so damn infuriating. Taxpayers are paying that now in subsidies/lack of taxes for non-renewables because of lobbying and corruption. Make it a fair playing field and renewables will get the investment instead without any noticeable rise in user fees.
PeterisP 5y ago
IMHO politicians are quite well aware of that, so they say that what they want to about global warming is to express concern, make plans and perhaps subsidize some local industries which they might have subsidized just purely as an economic stimulus - because if they would actually require significant transfer of wealth for these issues or significant mandates (either direct or as hefty tax incentives) to change lifestyles, then the voters would simply vote them out.
- sien 5y ago
  France has ~1/3 the per capita greenhouse gas emissions of the US and is a rich country so it's certainly possible. France uses nuclear for 70% of their electricity generation and petrol is ~$7 / gallon ( $1.9/litre ). Politicians just need to be honest about the costs and people just have to want it.
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    Well, you don't get to say what people "have to want", they have their own free will, and for the majority USA to transition to e.g. transportation habits of France would be a major lifestyle change, which they could make if they were forced to, but which they quite explicitly do not want - so if politicians are honest about the costs, that makes it certain that the policies won't be adopted, because there is not a willingness to pay them. I mean, $7/gallon is approximately double the current price, and if we made a poll across the USA asking "Would you be willing to double the gas prices in order to ...." then the vast majority would not even read past the beginning, they are certain that nothing that they have ever thought about climate change would justify that amount of change right now.

MaybeItsMia 5y ago

Yes, it's a collective action problem which can't be solved by individual consumer activism. You need meaningful policies which internalize external costs. Of course you need to also need to work to eliminate rent seeking within the political system to make that possible as well.