3 ms·

A recent HN comment that I think applies: > This sounds like a typical US thing. Suffering from a solvable problem, while creating the maximum public drama and

by voisin 4y ago

A recent HN comment that I think applies: > This sounds like a typical US thing. Suffering from a solvable problem, while creating the maximum public drama and having the society incapable of reform

giantg2 4y ago
If you read their comment, you'll see this doesn't apply for two reasons: 1) This is a global problem that is not specific to the US (even if the US is a huge contributor). No other country has solved the issue. 2) The comment is implying that this isn't a solvable problem (or at least a solution has never been proposed) since all the green tech/policy isn't having an impact.
- xorcist 4y ago
  The reason China, Australia and India gets away with what they are doing without sanctions is because they are pointing at the US and saying "they get away without doing anything so why shouldn't we?". That creates a form of international stalemate because no one can form the necessary coalition required for the agreements to have any sort of economical and political teeth.
  - 411111111111111 4y ago
    I think that's just wishful thinking, honestly. There wouldn't be a significant change even if the US got it's act together. They'd just use different excuses
    - xorcist 4y ago
      Obviously, but having US onboard opens up possibilities to create incentives that credible international accords are built on. Or the other way around, without the US, China and Australia, even if the rest of the world does everything right, global carbon dioxide levels will not only keep increasing, but do so in an accelerating manner. And before you ask why not China could create credible incentives for the US, the answer is that they do not have the institutions for it, which the US has. At least in theory.
- lancesells 4y ago
  The possible solution is for the world to place limits on making, buying, and selling things. Use less, buy less, travel less, mend your own clothes, grow some of your own food (if possible), be able to repair and use your device for 20 years, turn off your devices at night, use mass transit, don't use the AC, buy furniture that lasts for decades, etc. That won't happen because of an economic collapse and no politician would ever get elected with this thinking (at least in the US). Plus, you've now taken away many freedoms that are inherit in democratic societies. To me green technologies are better than nothing but there's really a consumption problem. And I'm completely guilty of it as well.
  - supertrope 4y ago
    You're right. The average voter considers carbon tax, very high VAT, and scaling back of mass consumer good production indistinguishable from poverty. Airline flights in the US used to cost a month's salary before deregulation.
cnlevy 4y ago
Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31592976 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31592976

by voisin 4y ago

A recent HN comment that I think applies: > This sounds like a typical US thing. Suffering from a solvable problem, while creating the maximum public drama and having the society incapable of reform

giantg2 4y ago

If you read their comment, you'll see this doesn't apply for two reasons: 1) This is a global problem that is not specific to the US (even if the US is a huge contributor). No other country has solved the issue. 2) The comment is implying that this isn't a solvable problem (or at least a solution has never been proposed) since all the green tech/policy isn't having an impact.

xorcist 4y ago
The reason China, Australia and India gets away with what they are doing without sanctions is because they are pointing at the US and saying "they get away without doing anything so why shouldn't we?". That creates a form of international stalemate because no one can form the necessary coalition required for the agreements to have any sort of economical and political teeth.
- 411111111111111 4y ago
  I think that's just wishful thinking, honestly. There wouldn't be a significant change even if the US got it's act together. They'd just use different excuses
  - xorcist 4y ago
    Obviously, but having US onboard opens up possibilities to create incentives that credible international accords are built on. Or the other way around, without the US, China and Australia, even if the rest of the world does everything right, global carbon dioxide levels will not only keep increasing, but do so in an accelerating manner. And before you ask why not China could create credible incentives for the US, the answer is that they do not have the institutions for it, which the US has. At least in theory.
lancesells 4y ago
The possible solution is for the world to place limits on making, buying, and selling things. Use less, buy less, travel less, mend your own clothes, grow some of your own food (if possible), be able to repair and use your device for 20 years, turn off your devices at night, use mass transit, don't use the AC, buy furniture that lasts for decades, etc. That won't happen because of an economic collapse and no politician would ever get elected with this thinking (at least in the US). Plus, you've now taken away many freedoms that are inherit in democratic societies. To me green technologies are better than nothing but there's really a consumption problem. And I'm completely guilty of it as well.
- supertrope 4y ago
  You're right. The average voter considers carbon tax, very high VAT, and scaling back of mass consumer good production indistinguishable from poverty. Airline flights in the US used to cost a month's salary before deregulation.

cnlevy 4y ago

Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31592976 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31592976