4 ms·

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

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
      I think that rioting and eco-terrorism can be kept at bay with increased surveillance. My bet is that the protests can be quashed long enough until the situation becomes so bad that actual life-threatening consequences arise even for those in power (extreme food scarcity and the breakdown of every supply chain out there).
      - starkd 4y ago
        People have to live in that environment. They are busy raising children, getting an education, living life. Most people don't live life sacrificing themselves to someone else's cause. Be very careful of falling into someone else's narrative.
  - germinalphrase 4y ago
    “ 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” So what is that line? The inability to maintain high quality food production? Modern manufacturing? Mass migration?
  - guerrilla 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. No, this assumes that civilization won't collapse. Their money means nothing if industrial society breaks down due to the catastrophic consequences of climate change. States are what enforce property rights and states fall apart as soon as the food runs out.
    - Nextgrid 4y ago
      I don't believe it'll collapse in these people's lifetimes though. It'll take another couple generations for that to become an existential threat.
      - guerrilla 4y ago
        Are the Heat Dome, massive floods in Germany and 50C in May in India not enough to make an induction that things have a pretty reasonable chance of getting a lot worse a lot faster than that?
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  Anybody with a good credit rating can increase their standard of living by buying an EV, putting solar panels on their roof and switching to using a heat pump for heating. All three of these pay off their premium in under a decade in most jurisdictions.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
    You've already excluded a huge segment of the population with your very first line. Regardless, all that does very little to stop the worst sources of the problem: industry. In fact, this obsession with mainting a lifestyle that only exists because of fossil fuels and environmentally damaging industry is part of the problem in my opinion.
    - bryanlarsen 4y ago
      I'm responding to a comment about rich people. Also, anything that reduces TCO benefits poor people more than rich people, so if they don't have the capital for an up-front investment governments should be providing cheap loans or grants. IMO the obsession with requiring sacrifice is alienating, counter-productive and unnecessary.
    - starkd 4y ago
      Why? Because people don't want to live life as if they were back in the 19th century? You go first.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
        Yeah, exactly my point. World going to shit around us as a direct consequence of our lifestyles and nobody is going to do anything about it because they feel entitled to said lifestyle. We could do something, we choose not to. Future generations will revile us, as we deserve that.
        starkd 4y ago
        "the world going to shit" carries a lot of assumptions. It's not just about amassing money. It's a bout survival for many people. Getting enough food to eat. Up to 100 million people (mostly Africans) could be facing starvation from not being able to import grain from the Ukraine. A crisis which is about the availability of energy. A little humility in realizing we don't know what's going to happen. There are consequences to any choice we make here.

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
    I think that rioting and eco-terrorism can be kept at bay with increased surveillance. My bet is that the protests can be quashed long enough until the situation becomes so bad that actual life-threatening consequences arise even for those in power (extreme food scarcity and the breakdown of every supply chain out there).
    - starkd 4y ago
      People have to live in that environment. They are busy raising children, getting an education, living life. Most people don't live life sacrificing themselves to someone else's cause. Be very careful of falling into someone else's narrative.
- germinalphrase 4y ago
  “ 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” So what is that line? The inability to maintain high quality food production? Modern manufacturing? Mass migration?
- guerrilla 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. No, this assumes that civilization won't collapse. Their money means nothing if industrial society breaks down due to the catastrophic consequences of climate change. States are what enforce property rights and states fall apart as soon as the food runs out.
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    I don't believe it'll collapse in these people's lifetimes though. It'll take another couple generations for that to become an existential threat.
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      Are the Heat Dome, massive floods in Germany and 50C in May in India not enough to make an induction that things have a pretty reasonable chance of getting a lot worse a lot faster than that?
bryanlarsen 4y ago
Anybody with a good credit rating can increase their standard of living by buying an EV, putting solar panels on their roof and switching to using a heat pump for heating. All three of these pay off their premium in under a decade in most jurisdictions.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
  You've already excluded a huge segment of the population with your very first line. Regardless, all that does very little to stop the worst sources of the problem: industry. In fact, this obsession with mainting a lifestyle that only exists because of fossil fuels and environmentally damaging industry is part of the problem in my opinion.
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    I'm responding to a comment about rich people. Also, anything that reduces TCO benefits poor people more than rich people, so if they don't have the capital for an up-front investment governments should be providing cheap loans or grants. IMO the obsession with requiring sacrifice is alienating, counter-productive and unnecessary.
  - starkd 4y ago
    Why? Because people don't want to live life as if they were back in the 19th century? You go first.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
      Yeah, exactly my point. World going to shit around us as a direct consequence of our lifestyles and nobody is going to do anything about it because they feel entitled to said lifestyle. We could do something, we choose not to. Future generations will revile us, as we deserve that.
      - starkd 4y ago
        "the world going to shit" carries a lot of assumptions. It's not just about amassing money. It's a bout survival for many people. Getting enough food to eat. Up to 100 million people (mostly Africans) could be facing starvation from not being able to import grain from the Ukraine. A crisis which is about the availability of energy. A little humility in realizing we don't know what's going to happen. There are consequences to any choice we make here.