4 ms·
> The authors argue that getting people to make the big leaps needed to decarbonise, such as buying an electric car or installing a domestic heat pump, instead
by slibhb 5y ago
> The authors argue that getting people to make the big leaps needed to decarbonise, such as buying an electric car or installing a domestic heat pump, instead requires “extreme positive incentives for change” (epics).
Seems like a recipe to lose elections.
- sofixa 5y agoBy saying there will be a government programme funding/giving a tax credit/interest free loan/whatever other incentive to retrofit your house with more efficient heating or better insulate it or upgrade to a more efficient vehicle? I really think it's the opposite, those kinds of things are popular with voters.
- slibhb 5y agoMaybe you're right but I think Republicans would have a field day with the term "extreme positive incentives for change".
- colinmhayes 5y agoPoliticians wouldn't use that term.
- cinntaile 5y agoPositive incentives are when you receive money as opposed to negative incentives such as fines where you have to pay money. So this is unlikely to cause a political party to lose elections, people like to receive money.
- AtlasBarfed 5y agoTaxes and regulations are the recipe to lose elections, too easily used to swing "undecided" voters. Incentives are giveaways, which even the most devout Big-R voters will jump on, because money is money.
- hardtke 5y agoThere are microeconomic concepts I learned in college that make decarbonization nearly impossible. First the FREE RIDER principle. Since CO2 (and methane) affects temperature globally, every nation (and individual) is incentivized to free ride off the decarbonization expenses of others. Second, the PRISONER'S DILEMMA. Most political systems have two main parties competing for power. Although both parties broadly agree that climate change is bad, policies that kick the can down the road are electorally advantageous (less taxes now always beats a better future). Thus the NASH EQUILIBRIUM is for political parties to always promise to undo any costly changes the other party is proposing.
- TremendousJudge 5y ago>Most political systems have two main parties competing for power I disagree. While this is true for some (US, UK), it's not true for other democracies (Spain, Germany), and even less true for more authoritarian systems (Russia, China). Some countries have political systems that are actually able to make long term decisions. >Although both parties broadly agree that climate change is bad True in some places, but not in others, such as Russia, Brazil, or (most importantly) the US. While I agree that decarbonization is really hard, and in part due to the reasons you listed, they are also not as universal as you paint them out to be.
- hardtke 5y agoAgree -- here in California where we only have one relevant political party the California Energy commission has been able to impose energy efficiency requirements for appliances and buildings that have had a huge positive impact on our energy usage per capita. We've also had EPICS like the tax credit and ability to drive in the carpool lane for hybrids and later electric cars. At a US national level we have partisan trench warfare exacerbated by a Senate dominated by small states and supermajoritarian voting rules. It's not entirely untrue that the the continued existence of the US Senate is incompatible with a future habitable planet.