6 ms·

I remain stunned by the lack of action on fossil fuels and lifestyles generally. Even leaving aside the fact we are wrecking the planet, we rely on some deeply

by hkt 4y ago

I remain stunned by the lack of action on fossil fuels and lifestyles generally. Even leaving aside the fact we are wrecking the planet, we rely on some deeply unsavoury countries for oil, gas and coal and we could have made a conscious choice to mitigate our dependence on them years ago and simply haven't done it. What's worse is politicians have no desire to lead, so it is life to people with "alternative" (eg sustainable) lifestyles to retrofit their homes, ride bicycles, and generate less waste. Presumably the fear is that we have invested so deeply in fossil fuels that we can't unwind that rapidly. I'm sure everyone here knows a sunk cost when they see one. I really do fear for my old age, and my kids lives. We've created too many incentives to wreck the world and people quite reasonably respond to them. Things have to change.

Gigachad 4y ago
Don’t have to look much further than this very website to see examples. Just look at the frothing rage in the comments every time the topic gets to reducing car and natural gas usage.
- starkd 4y ago
  The formula is very clear. When mankind has access to cheap and affordable energy, they prosper. When they don't, they struggle. And it's not about getting rich. We've already spent trillions on "green energy" and we are no where near getting rid of fossile fuels. It's embedded in everything we do. There's also a lot of doom on this page thinking the end of the world is nigh. Scientists do not walk in lockstep on this question. There are climatologists who have pulled back on the alarm - like Lomborg and Shellenberger. I'm not saying they are right, just to be wary of anyone telling you they know what's going to happen.
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    Do you navigate in your car by staring only in the rear-view mirror? There's parlous little contention that fossil fuels transformed the world for exceptional capabilities and productivity over the past 250 years. That's simply not the argument. The problem is both what their continued use will do to the overall environment, and what their finite supply means in terms of continued prosperity. Quite simply, you're ignoring (and repeatedly) the elephant in the room: unintended consequences of the continued use of fossil fuels. You might care to recognise the beast. It's formidable.
swayvil 4y ago
As individuals we are conscious and capable of conscious action. As groups, less so. As big groups, not at all.
- dijonman2 4y ago
  As an individual I want to see companies clean up their act before I have to sacrifice anything.
  - swayvil 4y ago
    You can't reason with an unsconscious creature, an animal, or a falling rock.
  - gruez 4y ago
    You realize that "companies clean[ing] up their act" involves sacrifice from you? Fossil fuels are used today because they're cheap. Not using fossil fuels will obviously make things more expensive, which is ultimately borne by the consumer.
    - swayvil 4y ago
      It does not necessarily involve sacrifice from me. The company could also settle for a reduced profit.
sharikous 4y ago
Considering the utter shitshow that is any kind of political system, modern democracies included, I am frankly surprised that we are tackling this at all, even if it 99% appearance and 1% substance. Anyway politicians to "lead" need a mandate from voters and to lead in a direction good for the climate they need to be able to take the heat for extremely unpopular policies. Unfortunately in the systems where unpopular policies can get through the leaders have the tendency to exploit that for their own gain rather than for sustainability sake. I believe it won't change until the situation will become so obvious and tangible that something will be done to mitigate it.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
  Nothing will be done about it until it the highest wealth classes have more to lose by continuing to ignore it than they do to gain.
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    The problem is that currently, the people in power to change things won’t really be affected by global warming - they have enough money to buy their way out of it. In a couple generations the problem will be critical enough that buying your way out of it will no longer be possible, and then we’ll see change.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
      Right, and the mechanism that will bring that about will be enough of the poorer classes being affected that they start to make the status quo less profitable. Inconvenient resource wars, rioting in the streets, maybe even some old fashioned eco terrorism. All of that could be accelerated if people felt strongly enough to demand change sooner and were willing to make sacrifices in order to force the issue, but they generally aren't and those at the top put effort into keeping it that way.
      - Nextgrid 4y ago
AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
micromacrofoot 4y ago
I’ve personally added solar panels, downsized from 2 cars to 1 ev, planted hundreds of trees (reforesting an acre), stopped eating meat, started composting and collecting rainwater… and lie awake every night thinking that it’s all basically undone by some senator with 5 houses…
- layer8 4y ago
  This is similar to the paradox of voting [1], and it is an important reason why many people don’t do as much, if anything. It depends on the individual’s psychology whether taking such measures are meaningfully beneficial for them personally (as opposed to for society). [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting
  - micromacrofoot 4y ago
    I guess this might also explain a little of why older people vote in greater numbers? They've seen that their vote has an eventual impact, while young people don't have such perspective?
    - layer8 4y ago
      I believe it’s because older people have experienced how politics impacts their live, and because they follow politics more. However they can’t have seen that their individual vote has had a discernible impact, as that would be counterfactual. Voting because you believe your personal vote will change the course of history is objectively irrational — you’re more likely to win the lottery.
    - timeon 4y ago
      Maybe, but in some countries there is also more of them.
bryanlarsen 4y ago
"Lack of action" is just plain wrong. If we would have done nothing, we'd be looking at about 6 degrees C of rise. If we stop at what we've done already, we're aiming for 4 degrees C. If our governments follow through on all our concrete commitments, we'd stop at about 2.5 degrees C. (Concrete commitments are specific, not nebulous like "net 0 by 2050"). 2.5 degrees is still too much, but it's not nothing, far from it. Saying "we've done nothing" is counter-productive IMO, it just encourages defeatism. IMO it's easier to do more when you acknowledge that what we have done has been effective.
- PheonixPharts 4y ago
  But we have done nothing. This is easy to demonstrate. You're claiming that we've made some progress regarding climate action, and that counterfactually it could have been worse. There is, essentially, one source of human CO2 emissions: fossil fuels. If what you claim is true then we should have a set of fossil fuels that we know about, can easily exploit, but refuse to because we won't be using them. This is the only way we can make progress on reducing emissions. So far the only limiting factor I know of for limiting fossil fuel extraction is the economic difficulty in extraction. A war is happening right now in order to control more oil and natural gas production, if we already have more oil in gas known about than we need, why are we fighting this war?
- hkt 4y ago
  The problem I have is that the action is designed to cause no inconvenience whatsoever to anybody. 2.5C is going to cause megadeaths, and we in the west aren't interested in giving up our cars for it, or raising prices in our datacentres, producing less e-waste, and generally consuming less so we end up with less embodied energy in our lives, etc.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    I mean, have YOU given up your car, moved entirely to renewables and stopped flying?
    - 4y ago

by hkt 4y ago

Gigachad 4y ago

Don’t have to look much further than this very website to see examples. Just look at the frothing rage in the comments every time the topic gets to reducing car and natural gas usage.

starkd 4y ago
The formula is very clear. When mankind has access to cheap and affordable energy, they prosper. When they don't, they struggle. And it's not about getting rich. We've already spent trillions on "green energy" and we are no where near getting rid of fossile fuels. It's embedded in everything we do. There's also a lot of doom on this page thinking the end of the world is nigh. Scientists do not walk in lockstep on this question. There are climatologists who have pulled back on the alarm - like Lomborg and Shellenberger. I'm not saying they are right, just to be wary of anyone telling you they know what's going to happen.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  Do you navigate in your car by staring only in the rear-view mirror? There's parlous little contention that fossil fuels transformed the world for exceptional capabilities and productivity over the past 250 years. That's simply not the argument. The problem is both what their continued use will do to the overall environment, and what their finite supply means in terms of continued prosperity. Quite simply, you're ignoring (and repeatedly) the elephant in the room: unintended consequences of the continued use of fossil fuels. You might care to recognise the beast. It's formidable.

swayvil 4y ago

As individuals we are conscious and capable of conscious action. As groups, less so. As big groups, not at all.

dijonman2 4y ago
As an individual I want to see companies clean up their act before I have to sacrifice anything.
- swayvil 4y ago
  You can't reason with an unsconscious creature, an animal, or a falling rock.
- gruez 4y ago
  You realize that "companies clean[ing] up their act" involves sacrifice from you? Fossil fuels are used today because they're cheap. Not using fossil fuels will obviously make things more expensive, which is ultimately borne by the consumer.
  - swayvil 4y ago
    It does not necessarily involve sacrifice from me. The company could also settle for a reduced profit.

sharikous 4y ago

Considering the utter shitshow that is any kind of political system, modern democracies included, I am frankly surprised that we are tackling this at all, even if it 99% appearance and 1% substance. Anyway politicians to "lead" need a mandate from voters and to lead in a direction good for the climate they need to be able to take the heat for extremely unpopular policies. Unfortunately in the systems where unpopular policies can get through the leaders have the tendency to exploit that for their own gain rather than for sustainability sake. I believe it won't change until the situation will become so obvious and tangible that something will be done to mitigate it.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
Nothing will be done about it until it the highest wealth classes have more to lose by continuing to ignore it than they do to gain.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  The problem is that currently, the people in power to change things won’t really be affected by global warming - they have enough money to buy their way out of it. In a couple generations the problem will be critical enough that buying your way out of it will no longer be possible, and then we’ll see change.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
    Right, and the mechanism that will bring that about will be enough of the poorer classes being affected that they start to make the status quo less profitable. Inconvenient resource wars, rioting in the streets, maybe even some old fashioned eco terrorism. All of that could be accelerated if people felt strongly enough to demand change sooner and were willing to make sacrifices in order to force the issue, but they generally aren't and those at the top put effort into keeping it that way.
    - Nextgrid 4y ago

AlgorithmicTime 4y ago

micromacrofoot 4y ago

I’ve personally added solar panels, downsized from 2 cars to 1 ev, planted hundreds of trees (reforesting an acre), stopped eating meat, started composting and collecting rainwater… and lie awake every night thinking that it’s all basically undone by some senator with 5 houses…

layer8 4y ago
This is similar to the paradox of voting [1], and it is an important reason why many people don’t do as much, if anything. It depends on the individual’s psychology whether taking such measures are meaningfully beneficial for them personally (as opposed to for society). [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting
- micromacrofoot 4y ago
  I guess this might also explain a little of why older people vote in greater numbers? They've seen that their vote has an eventual impact, while young people don't have such perspective?
  - layer8 4y ago
    I believe it’s because older people have experienced how politics impacts their live, and because they follow politics more. However they can’t have seen that their individual vote has had a discernible impact, as that would be counterfactual. Voting because you believe your personal vote will change the course of history is objectively irrational — you’re more likely to win the lottery.
  - timeon 4y ago
    Maybe, but in some countries there is also more of them.

bryanlarsen 4y ago

"Lack of action" is just plain wrong. If we would have done nothing, we'd be looking at about 6 degrees C of rise. If we stop at what we've done already, we're aiming for 4 degrees C. If our governments follow through on all our concrete commitments, we'd stop at about 2.5 degrees C. (Concrete commitments are specific, not nebulous like "net 0 by 2050"). 2.5 degrees is still too much, but it's not nothing, far from it. Saying "we've done nothing" is counter-productive IMO, it just encourages defeatism. IMO it's easier to do more when you acknowledge that what we have done has been effective.

PheonixPharts 4y ago
But we have done nothing. This is easy to demonstrate. You're claiming that we've made some progress regarding climate action, and that counterfactually it could have been worse. There is, essentially, one source of human CO2 emissions: fossil fuels. If what you claim is true then we should have a set of fossil fuels that we know about, can easily exploit, but refuse to because we won't be using them. This is the only way we can make progress on reducing emissions. So far the only limiting factor I know of for limiting fossil fuel extraction is the economic difficulty in extraction. A war is happening right now in order to control more oil and natural gas production, if we already have more oil in gas known about than we need, why are we fighting this war?
hkt 4y ago
The problem I have is that the action is designed to cause no inconvenience whatsoever to anybody. 2.5C is going to cause megadeaths, and we in the west aren't interested in giving up our cars for it, or raising prices in our datacentres, producing less e-waste, and generally consuming less so we end up with less embodied energy in our lives, etc.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  I mean, have YOU given up your car, moved entirely to renewables and stopped flying?
  - 4y ago