6 ms·

There’s also the moral hazard problem. Yes it’ll be more expensive to remove carbon dioxide from the air in the future but i will be dead by then, so why do I

There’s also the moral hazard problem. Yes it’ll be more expensive to remove carbon dioxide from the air in the future but i will be dead by then, so why do I care? Also this moral hazard is made worst by decision makers whose financial outcomes are tied to not adopting extreme climate measures. Especially those without children, taking the long view of society seems to be very difficult.

Biologist123 5y ago
We know people are concerned about what happens to their families after they die as inheritance taxes are so unpopular!
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  Inheritance taxes only apply to rich people. So, at best, that tells you rich people care about what happens to their descendents. Do you have any evidence rich people care about the descendents of poor people?
  - math_denial 5y ago
    >Do you have any evidence rich people care about the descendents of poor people? No, but people care about their descendants, rich or poor.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - Biologist123 5y ago
    My answer is a response to the poster’s question as to why he might care. And I believe most people do care what happens to their descendants.
    - actually_a_dog 5y ago
      It doesn't matter if rich people care about their own descendents. Everybody knows rich people will be fine. Poor people have minimal capacity to do anything about the situation.
  - whywhywhywhy 5y ago
    No taxes ever apply to rich people. It’s only ever something that holds the working and middle class down.
luckylion 5y ago
> Especially those without children, taking the long view of society seems to be very difficult. Hey, that's me! But more importantly, I'm not super worried about it in general. I consider it mostly a number of engineering problems (making things more efficient, consuming less energy while doing the same, dealing with climate change). At the same time, I see plenty of people who say they're super concerned about it hopping from one plane to the next. When questioned, they say that talking about their individual contributions would just deflect from talking about "the system". If you want me to get behind those ideas (and that's a pretty easy sell, tbh, I'd barely have to change my lifestyle), you (not you specifically, I don't know you) need to act as if you mean it. So far it feels like the upper class saying the lower classes shouldn't travel, eat exotic food or meat, drive cars or heat their homes, while they obviously do all of those things. From my limited circle of friends, that's a pretty common perception, even among those with children.
- drekk 5y ago
  Talking about indidivual contributions is pointless without context. The richest 1% of humanity emits more than double the amount of CO2 as the poorest half. Air travel could use alternative fuel sources (or even solar) and I'm sure other large carbon emitters like concrete will become more efficient. What I'm not sure is that the richest 1% of the globe are willing to live like everyone else to avoid cooking the planet and passing that cost onto everyone else. I travel by plane once or twice a year, haven't had meat in years, own a car with good fuel efficiency, heat my home with gas, and it still doesn't register on the scale. If you want me to live like an ascetic to convince you that I am serious about the runaway consequences of increased average surface temperatures I don't know what to tell you. We are already seeing those effects, and it is doubtful that Miami, Dhubai, etc exist at the end of this century. There is no way to adjust individual consumption fast enough to fully decarbonize industrial economies so as to avoid 2C+ increases. Hence the systems problem. Why is Australia and the US subsidizing fossil fuels? Who is served by firing up retired coalfire power plants to mine Bitcoin? That's only looking at CO2, forget about our other biosphere limits (nitrogen, phosphorus to name a few) that we're rapidly approaching the ceiling of. Optimizing for profit means you have an incentive to gain today with tomorrow as collateral. Until companies and governments feel the full financial and human cost of their carbon economies we'll continue to get Chevron advertising about how it's all of our responsibility to turn off the lights when not in use, and that will somehow "turn off" climate change.
dennis_jeeves 5y ago

Biologist123 5y ago

We know people are concerned about what happens to their families after they die as inheritance taxes are so unpopular!

actually_a_dog 5y ago
Inheritance taxes only apply to rich people. So, at best, that tells you rich people care about what happens to their descendents. Do you have any evidence rich people care about the descendents of poor people?
- math_denial 5y ago
  >Do you have any evidence rich people care about the descendents of poor people? No, but people care about their descendants, rich or poor.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- Biologist123 5y ago
  My answer is a response to the poster’s question as to why he might care. And I believe most people do care what happens to their descendants.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    It doesn't matter if rich people care about their own descendents. Everybody knows rich people will be fine. Poor people have minimal capacity to do anything about the situation.
- whywhywhywhy 5y ago
  No taxes ever apply to rich people. It’s only ever something that holds the working and middle class down.

luckylion 5y ago

> Especially those without children, taking the long view of society seems to be very difficult. Hey, that's me! But more importantly, I'm not super worried about it in general. I consider it mostly a number of engineering problems (making things more efficient, consuming less energy while doing the same, dealing with climate change). At the same time, I see plenty of people who say they're super concerned about it hopping from one plane to the next. When questioned, they say that talking about their individual contributions would just deflect from talking about "the system". If you want me to get behind those ideas (and that's a pretty easy sell, tbh, I'd barely have to change my lifestyle), you (not you specifically, I don't know you) need to act as if you mean it. So far it feels like the upper class saying the lower classes shouldn't travel, eat exotic food or meat, drive cars or heat their homes, while they obviously do all of those things. From my limited circle of friends, that's a pretty common perception, even among those with children.

drekk 5y ago
Talking about indidivual contributions is pointless without context. The richest 1% of humanity emits more than double the amount of CO2 as the poorest half. Air travel could use alternative fuel sources (or even solar) and I'm sure other large carbon emitters like concrete will become more efficient. What I'm not sure is that the richest 1% of the globe are willing to live like everyone else to avoid cooking the planet and passing that cost onto everyone else. I travel by plane once or twice a year, haven't had meat in years, own a car with good fuel efficiency, heat my home with gas, and it still doesn't register on the scale. If you want me to live like an ascetic to convince you that I am serious about the runaway consequences of increased average surface temperatures I don't know what to tell you. We are already seeing those effects, and it is doubtful that Miami, Dhubai, etc exist at the end of this century. There is no way to adjust individual consumption fast enough to fully decarbonize industrial economies so as to avoid 2C+ increases. Hence the systems problem. Why is Australia and the US subsidizing fossil fuels? Who is served by firing up retired coalfire power plants to mine Bitcoin? That's only looking at CO2, forget about our other biosphere limits (nitrogen, phosphorus to name a few) that we're rapidly approaching the ceiling of. Optimizing for profit means you have an incentive to gain today with tomorrow as collateral. Until companies and governments feel the full financial and human cost of their carbon economies we'll continue to get Chevron advertising about how it's all of our responsibility to turn off the lights when not in use, and that will somehow "turn off" climate change.

dennis_jeeves 5y ago