5 ms·
Lots of talk about taxing this or repaying that but in Meadows's taxonomy of leverage points these amount to changes between level 10 and 7. What the article i
by nonrandomstring 5y ago
Lots of talk about taxing this or repaying that but in Meadows's
taxonomy of leverage points these amount to changes between level 10
and 7.
What the article is kinda saying is that these "extreme positive
incentives for change" (EPICs) that are labelled political/structural
instruments lie outside monetary economics and so hint towards level 5
and 4 changes, to system rules and to self-organisational motives. I
still don't get, if so, how? And if so, why not apply both?
But ultimately changing system goals away from consumerism might be
the gift everyone wants. I know many bored people who want to feel
like they're part of big change, what Alexis De Tocqueville called
"restive fervour" in early America - in British parlance being "up for
it".
If economists exacerbate climate problems it is by the tepidity of
their vision. I think we have forgotten as a society truly grand
ambition. The Panama canal. The Hoover Dam. The dykes of
Nederlands. US post-war Apollo Project. The Channel Tunnel. Imagine
human action at scale, not as ungrateful entitled protest, but
coordinated and purposeful action in the face of climate change. What
would that look like? If we can't even imagine it then we're truly
lost.
In the shadow of the pandemic and Russo-Ukraine war I think we'll have
an opportunity, and to avoid unrest maybe a necessity, for bold,
crazy-ass projects whose ROI can just be written off to posterity -
what William James called the "Moral Equivalent of War", not as mere
National Service, but as Global Service. Literally pay people salaries
to fight climate change.
Of course that would require a strategy backed up by good science.
But realising that monetary economics and "markets" isn't the only way
out would be a good step. The Economist article hints and plays with
that, and then backs off.
- mattcwilson 5y ago> what William James called the "Moral Equivalent of War", not as mere National Service, but as Global Service. Literally pay people salaries to fight climate change. I see what you’re going for with this, and I imagine I could be persuaded to a more workable version of this. What’s hanging me up is - how do you avoid these salaried people being captured by incentives to sustain their salary rather than be incentivized to ultimately solve the problem? We’ve tried this with the war on drugs, war on terror, war on homelessness... haven’t we? Is your suggestion different somehow?
- nonrandomstring 5y ago> We've tried this with the war on drugs, war on terror, war on homelessness... haven’t we? Is your suggestion different somehow? No, it's ill formed and to be honest you're probably the first person to take it seriously enough to return a comment that isn't ridicule or outrage. Self-fulfilling capture, and indeed malevolent hijacking seem unavoidable pitfalls of such projects, you're right. But I notice the other wars on abstract nouns you mention are against human weaknesses (drugs/exploitation, terror/wrath, homelessness/inequity). And these always get twisted; wars on poverty become wars against the poor; wars on drugs become wars on addicts; wars on terror become wars of terror. Is climate maybe different if it's an "external" threat? The danger is that becomes a "war on nature" which is how we got into this fine mess. So no easy answers. However James is canny in reminding us that war is a (the) strong organising principle for humans and there may be a way to twist that into benevolence.
- mattcwilson 5y agoI like the “leverage/hack human psychodynamics to achieve positive group outcomes” angle. Guess I should check out some William James. Wondering if maybe it’s less paying tsars and bureaus to solve climate change, and more about paying individual people as a direct incentive to reduce their own carbon output. Dunno that that helps as far as businesses or foreign nations go, though.
- ux-app 5y ago>paying individual people as a direct incentive to reduce their own carbon output Is there anything you can spend this money on that is not produced using fossil fuels?
- mattcwilson 5y agoMusic, art, books, comedy, pets, food, land, clothing, shelter... provided it’s all locally produced, I suppose. Are you going after something in particular? Seriously not trying to be facetious - I just don’t understand where you’re headed with this glib? rhetorical? question.