4 ms·

It seems fairly obvious that we do not have the collective will to make the kind of changes necessary to meaningfully change the trajectory of climate change.

It seems fairly obvious that we do not have the collective will to make the kind of changes necessary to meaningfully change the trajectory of climate change. Might as well spend our efforts planning on how we will live with it, as it happens. I doubt we will have any more success in the future finding the will to try geoengineering, either. We will just find millions of little ways to mitigate the pain.

pjmlp 5y ago
In Germany, one reason why there are so many delays is that the local governments allow everyone to block building renewals sources, so you have smaller European countries that already bypassed Germany in renewals adoption, while courts keep busy discussing where Windmills are allowed to be placed.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- js8 5y ago
  Reading this from Czechia had made me chuckle. Germany is so far ahead in renewables compared to us!
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  Following in the footsteps of America, I guess. We have made it extremely easy to block infrastructure improvements, even by individuals. There seems to be some idea that if we allow everyone to have a say, we can make everyone happy. Of course that doesn't work, and I'm surprised the idea gets so much traction. So we spend hundreds of millions of dollars drawing up grand plans that try to appease every possible interest group, and then give up when it is apparent that unanimous consensus will not be achieved.
tony_cannistra 5y ago
As with most modern societal changes, I don't think this one is going to come down to "collective will." The massive scale of the problem limits meaningful actions to those that have a similarly massive scale of response. Only those in power can enact those. Elect people who care. There are a lot of them.
- have_faith 5y ago
  What if people choose to elect those that don't?
  - tony_cannistra 5y ago
    You're living in that world right now.
  - mistermann 5y ago
    Or if those that claim to care do not actually, or if the current design of democracy is such that it isn't up to the task of getting the right people elected, &/or passing the right legislation. Betting so many chips on this one institution seems like not a great idea, especially since it is the one that has been driving the bus that got us to this location.
    - rootusrootus 5y ago
      > if the current design of democracy is such that it isn't up to the task of getting the right people elected, &/or passing the right legislation Before we can design a better democracy, we will need a better metric on what 'right' means.
      - mistermann 5y ago
        I don't see how that would necessarily be a constraint on proceeding with a design, although I would very much support that sort of functionality (and many others) being part of a sophisticated democracy platform that is more suited for the much more complex world we live in today. For example, a political candidate could have a profile, and voters would be able to get a faster and better idea for what type of a person they really are, as opposed to the meme-war-based approach we currently have. How one would go about designing a workflow for what information does and does not get included would be a complicated but fun exercise, and perhaps the public could learn a few things about abstract thinking if the followed along as the project moved forward. What domains are there other than politics where hardly anything materially important is upgraded over time as new capabilities and technology become available, and new problems arise? That hardly anyone seems to question (or is able/willing to even consider) whether the design of our democracy is remotely optimal suggests to me that the public has been subjected to some effective "marketing".
wanda 5y ago
I mean, I wouldn't say that we as a species lack the collective willpower to bring about broad social change. I think that it's very difficult to get that power on the ground with any traction when you have mixed messages coming from both sides of something that is always framed as a debate. For decades, climate change was studied, warned about, and yet the way it was referred to and is still referred to by some like so: "more news regarding the debate on climate change" rather than "more news regarding climate change" — as long as it's a debate, it's undecided, you don't know if you should do something or care because the scientific community has yet to reach consensus, and government inaction is seen as a reflection of this apparent lack of consensus rather than simply governments' unwillingness to go against the grain of business and the comfortable status quo. Even though the rhetoric surrounding climate change does seem to consider it a fact as of the last few years, you still have "experts" on both sides of the fence saying that it is and isn't real, which further enables people to put it out of their mind as something that's for other people to worry about because they're not in on it. And for those who do accept that climate change is a reality, I wouldn't mind betting that a non-trivial subset of those people largely think it's too late to do anything urgent or drastic and are therefore content to endure some bizarre weather while society slowly transitions to eco-friendly models in the next fifty years. It probably couldn't have gone much better, and if big bad business was truly all powerful, I doubt we would have seen any changes in society, but business has also driven the R&D of more efficient solar technology and the rapid expansion of wind power installations. I think the crowd that consider wind farms to be a blight on the landscape have mostly gone quiet after realising that J. M. W. Turner probably wouldn't have wanted to paint electricity pylons, freeways or Airbuses either, yet they're here to stay. I'm surprised geothermal didn't take off, though I probably shouldn't be surprised given that I know practically nothing about geothermal power extraction and thus have an overly simplistic model of a magma steam engine system in my head that probably isn't at all viable or efficient.
Nagyman 5y ago
Climate change is a scale, from bad to really really bad, and positive change is already happening. Here's some uplifting news in a well articulated video worth watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxgMdjyw8uw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxgMdjyw8uw Apathy is their weapon, and it's very effective.
- mistermann 5y ago
  They = whom, and how is this weapon wielded?
  - Nagyman 5y ago
    Sorry, it's in the video, but the oil/coal producers & related polluters who use the apathy to further limit change that affects their profits.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - mistermann 5y ago
      So the apathy is pre-existent, and they leverage this weakness - yes?
- Nav_Panel 5y ago
  > Apathy is their weapon, and it's very effective. Psychologically speaking, these tactics are approximately the same as the church's use of hell, in the sense of "fix your shit now, or else you're going to hell". This was very effective when the church held a huge amount of political sway + serious control over the media (no internet back then, people weren't even literate). It wont work nearly as well now. Don't get me wrong--I'm no Homo Economicus fan, not saying people are fundamentally selfish--I just think people are fundamentally averse to change, to breaking their habits. The climate change leadership needs a new tactic. I'm totally in support of e.g. tax cuts and incentives for renewables, reducing carbon emissions, etc. Or other ways of raising awareness and taking action that give people what they want/need, right now, rather than being entirely concerned with an image of the future (that for many people with no families, no kids, no legacy, doesn't even exist).
trinovantes 5y ago
See how many Canadians complained about carbon taxes on their recent fuel costs made me realize it's basically an impossible task -- especially considering we literally experienced the consequences of our actions in record breaking heatwaves, forest fires, and flood in the last 2 years
hotpotamus 5y ago
The thing about geoengineering (at least solar radiation management) is that it's within the budget of some of the world's richest individuals in theory at least. It definitely seems like the least worst half-assed fix from my (rather limited) knowledge of the subject.
- native_samples 5y ago
  Before getting too keen on geo-engineering, take a few minutes to ponder the following paragraph from an article in Newsweek: "Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality." http://www.denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf http://www.denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf If this paragraph makes no sense to you, it's because - with the exception of the proposed geo-engineering project - it sounds like something that could have been written last week. It was actually written in 1975 when climate change meant the coming ice age. Here's Spock to tell you more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQSBn50o_8M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQSBn50o_8M It's a good thing they didn't try to melt the arctic, right? But notice how there's absolutely no communication of any nuance, uncertainty or the possibility that the scientists were wrong. Only laments about how the "planners" were too sluggish to react to the scientist's warnings. Absolutely nothing changed except the directional temperature change of the proposed projects.

pjmlp 5y ago

In Germany, one reason why there are so many delays is that the local governments allow everyone to block building renewals sources, so you have smaller European countries that already bypassed Germany in renewals adoption, while courts keep busy discussing where Windmills are allowed to be placed.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
js8 5y ago
Reading this from Czechia had made me chuckle. Germany is so far ahead in renewables compared to us!
rootusrootus 5y ago
Following in the footsteps of America, I guess. We have made it extremely easy to block infrastructure improvements, even by individuals. There seems to be some idea that if we allow everyone to have a say, we can make everyone happy. Of course that doesn't work, and I'm surprised the idea gets so much traction. So we spend hundreds of millions of dollars drawing up grand plans that try to appease every possible interest group, and then give up when it is apparent that unanimous consensus will not be achieved.

tony_cannistra 5y ago

As with most modern societal changes, I don't think this one is going to come down to "collective will." The massive scale of the problem limits meaningful actions to those that have a similarly massive scale of response. Only those in power can enact those. Elect people who care. There are a lot of them.

have_faith 5y ago
What if people choose to elect those that don't?
- tony_cannistra 5y ago
  You're living in that world right now.
- mistermann 5y ago
  Or if those that claim to care do not actually, or if the current design of democracy is such that it isn't up to the task of getting the right people elected, &/or passing the right legislation. Betting so many chips on this one institution seems like not a great idea, especially since it is the one that has been driving the bus that got us to this location.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    > if the current design of democracy is such that it isn't up to the task of getting the right people elected, &/or passing the right legislation Before we can design a better democracy, we will need a better metric on what 'right' means.
    - mistermann 5y ago
      I don't see how that would necessarily be a constraint on proceeding with a design, although I would very much support that sort of functionality (and many others) being part of a sophisticated democracy platform that is more suited for the much more complex world we live in today. For example, a political candidate could have a profile, and voters would be able to get a faster and better idea for what type of a person they really are, as opposed to the meme-war-based approach we currently have. How one would go about designing a workflow for what information does and does not get included would be a complicated but fun exercise, and perhaps the public could learn a few things about abstract thinking if the followed along as the project moved forward. What domains are there other than politics where hardly anything materially important is upgraded over time as new capabilities and technology become available, and new problems arise? That hardly anyone seems to question (or is able/willing to even consider) whether the design of our democracy is remotely optimal suggests to me that the public has been subjected to some effective "marketing".

wanda 5y ago

I mean, I wouldn't say that we as a species lack the collective willpower to bring about broad social change. I think that it's very difficult to get that power on the ground with any traction when you have mixed messages coming from both sides of something that is always framed as a debate. For decades, climate change was studied, warned about, and yet the way it was referred to and is still referred to by some like so: "more news regarding the debate on climate change" rather than "more news regarding climate change" — as long as it's a debate, it's undecided, you don't know if you should do something or care because the scientific community has yet to reach consensus, and government inaction is seen as a reflection of this apparent lack of consensus rather than simply governments' unwillingness to go against the grain of business and the comfortable status quo. Even though the rhetoric surrounding climate change does seem to consider it a fact as of the last few years, you still have "experts" on both sides of the fence saying that it is and isn't real, which further enables people to put it out of their mind as something that's for other people to worry about because they're not in on it. And for those who do accept that climate change is a reality, I wouldn't mind betting that a non-trivial subset of those people largely think it's too late to do anything urgent or drastic and are therefore content to endure some bizarre weather while society slowly transitions to eco-friendly models in the next fifty years. It probably couldn't have gone much better, and if big bad business was truly all powerful, I doubt we would have seen any changes in society, but business has also driven the R&D of more efficient solar technology and the rapid expansion of wind power installations. I think the crowd that consider wind farms to be a blight on the landscape have mostly gone quiet after realising that J. M. W. Turner probably wouldn't have wanted to paint electricity pylons, freeways or Airbuses either, yet they're here to stay. I'm surprised geothermal didn't take off, though I probably shouldn't be surprised given that I know practically nothing about geothermal power extraction and thus have an overly simplistic model of a magma steam engine system in my head that probably isn't at all viable or efficient.

Nagyman 5y ago

Climate change is a scale, from bad to really really bad, and positive change is already happening. Here's some uplifting news in a well articulated video worth watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxgMdjyw8uw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxgMdjyw8uw Apathy is their weapon, and it's very effective.

mistermann 5y ago
They = whom, and how is this weapon wielded?
- Nagyman 5y ago
  Sorry, it's in the video, but the oil/coal producers & related polluters who use the apathy to further limit change that affects their profits.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - mistermann 5y ago
    So the apathy is pre-existent, and they leverage this weakness - yes?
Nav_Panel 5y ago
> Apathy is their weapon, and it's very effective. Psychologically speaking, these tactics are approximately the same as the church's use of hell, in the sense of "fix your shit now, or else you're going to hell". This was very effective when the church held a huge amount of political sway + serious control over the media (no internet back then, people weren't even literate). It wont work nearly as well now. Don't get me wrong--I'm no Homo Economicus fan, not saying people are fundamentally selfish--I just think people are fundamentally averse to change, to breaking their habits. The climate change leadership needs a new tactic. I'm totally in support of e.g. tax cuts and incentives for renewables, reducing carbon emissions, etc. Or other ways of raising awareness and taking action that give people what they want/need, right now, rather than being entirely concerned with an image of the future (that for many people with no families, no kids, no legacy, doesn't even exist).

trinovantes 5y ago

See how many Canadians complained about carbon taxes on their recent fuel costs made me realize it's basically an impossible task -- especially considering we literally experienced the consequences of our actions in record breaking heatwaves, forest fires, and flood in the last 2 years

hotpotamus 5y ago

The thing about geoengineering (at least solar radiation management) is that it's within the budget of some of the world's richest individuals in theory at least. It definitely seems like the least worst half-assed fix from my (rather limited) knowledge of the subject.

native_samples 5y ago
Before getting too keen on geo-engineering, take a few minutes to ponder the following paragraph from an article in Newsweek: "Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality." http://www.denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf http://www.denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf If this paragraph makes no sense to you, it's because - with the exception of the proposed geo-engineering project - it sounds like something that could have been written last week. It was actually written in 1975 when climate change meant the coming ice age. Here's Spock to tell you more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQSBn50o_8M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQSBn50o_8M It's a good thing they didn't try to melt the arctic, right? But notice how there's absolutely no communication of any nuance, uncertainty or the possibility that the scientists were wrong. Only laments about how the "planners" were too sluggish to react to the scientist's warnings. Absolutely nothing changed except the directional temperature change of the proposed projects.