7 ms·

What does meaningful system change mean to you? 1. Trillions of dollars of investment in the transition to solar? 2. Carbon tax (and other taxes on externalit

What does meaningful system change mean to you? 1. Trillions of dollars of investment in the transition to solar? 2. Carbon tax (and other taxes on externalities?) 3. Abandoning combustion engines and switching to electric? 4. Moral persuasion to convince people to that humans are a cancer upon the earth? 1,2,3 have huge potential for climate and economic value. 4 is a straw man that obviously does nothing. But what do you propose exactly?

carschno 4y ago
> What does meaningful system change mean to you? I would also like to have something more concrete here, but I think the GP hinted at why there is no single elevator pitch-like answer to real-world problems like climate change: >> [...] have a grasp on all of the different ways the environment is being destroyed (not just "climate")
almost_usual 4y ago
If I had to guess it’s ending consumerism and growth at all costs.
badpun 4y ago
Probably heavy taxation of consumption and lowering the average standard of living across the globe. Too bad it's a pipe dream, people will never vote for it and an dictator that tries to impose it will be overthrown.
- bjourne 4y ago
  Let's redefine "standard of living" from owning a SUV to feel "safe" to owning a guitar and having time to learn how to play it.
- Scarblac 4y ago
  Not across the globe. Only in rich countries where the current standard of living is unsustainable.
  - badpun 4y ago
    I'd be shocked if even one country does it in a meaningful way. It's just so contrary to human nature. I think the only thing that can save us short-term is technology. Inventing and implementing new gizmos is something we're actually good at. Long-term we're probably screwed anyway, because we'll eventually disturb the biological systems on the Earth too much (either via pollution, ocean acidification, killing biodiversity, soil depletion etc.), and they're way too immense and complex for us to fix. People forget that we're part of Earth's ecosystem, but if we disturb it too much we'll be reminded of it either via plagues (we got a taste of it already) and/or famines.
    - Scarblac 4y ago
      Well, it will happen, because the current standard is unsustainable, and that's the definition of the word. The only thing is whether any of it will be in a somewhat controlled, damage limiting fashion, or will it be just one stupid catastrophe after another. I feel new gizmos are generally just more fuel onto the fire of consumerism, and will just speed up the process, not slow it.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    It's not the "standard of living" that is unsustainable. The USA wastes a lot more resources to achieve similar standard of living to Europe. And even Europe is putting a lot of effort into policies that simultaneously improve their standard of living and reduce waste or pollution. Saying that "standard of living" is synonymous with "amount of fossil fuels you burn" is standard climate change denier rhetoric. People with efficient cars and well insulated homes have higher standards of living than those who don't.
    - badpun 4y ago
      > The USA wastes a lot more resources to achieve similar standard of living to Europe. It's not similar though. Americans live in way bigger homes and on way bigger plots of land. Streets are wider. Everything is less cramped in general. Also, US has possibly the best health care quality (note I'm not discussing health care _insurance_) in the world. They can also afford more consumer niceties (iPhones, nice cars, foreign vacations etc.). All that extra stuff and quality requires extra fossil fuels and minerals.
- Mildlypolite 4y ago
  "Environmental problems have contributed to numerous collapses of civilizations in the past. Now, for the first time, a global collapse appears likely. Overpopulation, overconsumption by the rich and poor choices of technologies are major drivers; dramatic cultural change provides the main hope of averting calamity." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3574335/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3574335/ The only pipe dream is to continue breaching the planet boundaries.
  - badpun 4y ago
    I mean, of course, it will happen, but not as a voluntary self-limitation, but as hitting against hard limits, especially as they start shriking.
    - Mildlypolite 4y ago
      Of course, voluntary self limitation is unlikely. But severe limitations were imposed during wars on the population by the state, so they are in the realm of possibility (once we acknowledge the severity of the problem, which we are not doing, because of many reasons). We should also add that the expansion of renewables energy create more jobs than the fossil fuel sector, therefore there is at least some hope of this limitations being not as severe as w think. It was calculated that, to be sustainable, the lifestyle should go back to the sixties, during which we lived fairly well but without a savage overconsumption as now.
  - dr_dshiv 4y ago
    The idea of planetary boundaries is ridiculous. Are you talking about the collapse of an ecosystem? Multiple ecosystems? That’s still defined. But planetary boundaries is another word for “saving the earth.” No. The earth doesn’t need saving. The diversity of life needs saving. Planetary boundaries is the wrong goal.
    - Mildlypolite 4y ago
      Read the paper please, planet boundaries are scientifically defined.
ttiurani 4y ago
None of them are system changes. Yes, 1 and 3 would be fantastic – although switching to electric without at the same time reducing SOVs is IMO very inadequate if you take int account all of the planetary boundaries, not just climate change. 2 is a policy that might stem from the system change, not the actual change. 4 is not based on facts: there are billions of people in the world who are living within planetary boundaries. Can't stress this enough: it's not "humans" that are the problem but the wealthy people that are taking more from nature than nature can regenerate. A meaningful system change to me is where there is a deliberate and continued reduction in material flows and energy use in the rich countries until they are below planetary boundaries. That can be done if they deliberately start reducing overproduction. That in turn would happen if governments would abandon the goal of aggregate economic growth across all sectors, but instead increase the parts of the economy that produce well-being and scale down the parts that don't. Another system change would be if the rich countries would pay for the catastrophic damage they have inflicted on the countries worst affected by climate change, and then stop taking advantage of poor countries by ending unequal exchange. Those would be system changes. I'm not saying nothing except politics is needed – everything would be doubly hard if e.g. solar wouldn't have become so cheap. But given what is easy in the current world (producing and selling stuff) and what is hard (creating political change), I wish that the most capable and smartest people in the world would work mostly on the hard parts.
- vaughandroid 4y ago
  "...if governments would abandon the goal of aggregate economic growth across all sectors..." You've obviously thought about this topic quite deeply - have you heard any realistic proposals on how to achieven this? I have yet to hear any, and until I do I'll be devoting my energy to changes that have at least some chance of being enacted, like a carbon tax.
  - ttiurani 4y ago
    There is no easy answer, and making a change this big is a monumental task. Personally I've still come to think that just because making this change is very hard, that's not an excuse for me to not try, because the alternative is so much worse. What I'm talking about is what the academic degrowth research has been working on for the past 20 years. (What's under the degrowth umbrella is the current wave of discussions started by the 50 year old "The Limits to Growth" report.) Doughnut economics is also intimately related. If you want to learn more, as it happens, there is a brand new book "Degrowth & Strategy" with a free PDF here: http://mayflybooks.org/degrowth-strategy http://mayflybooks.org/degrowth-strategy Note: I haven't yet read it, but it has got a lot of endorsements and great reviews from the top researches on the field, so it should be good.
collyw 4y ago
Where is the electricity coming from to charge your electric vehicles? Electric vehicles have a lot of potential to reduce pollution and noise in cities, but as a solution to "fixing" inevitable climate they are a con.
- dagss 4y ago
  Electric vehicles use a lot less energy in total in the supply chain than gasoline cars (extracting and refining and transporting oil uses a lot of energy too, some of it electricity). So electric vehicles reduces the energy required. Longer term: Gasoline cars are not viable at all; electric cars are viable to the extent one can secure the energy for them. It is a way of getting any road transportation done in the future AT ALL; that is surely not a con? I hope noone is arguing that moving to electric cars by itself is sufficient to stop climate change. That would be a con but also seems like a strawman. The goal should be net zero, and electric cars are needed to have road transportation at all.
  - tcfhgj 4y ago
    Nope, the goal must be net negative... If you dont want to end up with at least 4-8 degrees more
    - collyw 4y ago
      This is pure speculation, not based in any kind of falsifiable science.
      - tcfhgj 4y ago
        It's not speculation. It's just looking at CO2 levels and their corresponding equilibria
  - tremon 4y ago
    Absolutely agreed, except for one part: I don't think net zero will be enough. It might have been enough if we were at net zero thirty years ago. But now, in addition to net zero (which would be an impressive feat to achieve, society-wide), we need to work on absorbing carbon from the atmosphere, before the ocean does it for us.

carschno 4y ago

> What does meaningful system change mean to you? I would also like to have something more concrete here, but I think the GP hinted at why there is no single elevator pitch-like answer to real-world problems like climate change: >> [...] have a grasp on all of the different ways the environment is being destroyed (not just "climate")

almost_usual 4y ago

If I had to guess it’s ending consumerism and growth at all costs.

badpun 4y ago

Probably heavy taxation of consumption and lowering the average standard of living across the globe. Too bad it's a pipe dream, people will never vote for it and an dictator that tries to impose it will be overthrown.

bjourne 4y ago
Let's redefine "standard of living" from owning a SUV to feel "safe" to owning a guitar and having time to learn how to play it.
Scarblac 4y ago
Not across the globe. Only in rich countries where the current standard of living is unsustainable.
- badpun 4y ago
  I'd be shocked if even one country does it in a meaningful way. It's just so contrary to human nature. I think the only thing that can save us short-term is technology. Inventing and implementing new gizmos is something we're actually good at. Long-term we're probably screwed anyway, because we'll eventually disturb the biological systems on the Earth too much (either via pollution, ocean acidification, killing biodiversity, soil depletion etc.), and they're way too immense and complex for us to fix. People forget that we're part of Earth's ecosystem, but if we disturb it too much we'll be reminded of it either via plagues (we got a taste of it already) and/or famines.
  - Scarblac 4y ago
    Well, it will happen, because the current standard is unsustainable, and that's the definition of the word. The only thing is whether any of it will be in a somewhat controlled, damage limiting fashion, or will it be just one stupid catastrophe after another. I feel new gizmos are generally just more fuel onto the fire of consumerism, and will just speed up the process, not slow it.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  It's not the "standard of living" that is unsustainable. The USA wastes a lot more resources to achieve similar standard of living to Europe. And even Europe is putting a lot of effort into policies that simultaneously improve their standard of living and reduce waste or pollution. Saying that "standard of living" is synonymous with "amount of fossil fuels you burn" is standard climate change denier rhetoric. People with efficient cars and well insulated homes have higher standards of living than those who don't.
  - badpun 4y ago
    > The USA wastes a lot more resources to achieve similar standard of living to Europe. It's not similar though. Americans live in way bigger homes and on way bigger plots of land. Streets are wider. Everything is less cramped in general. Also, US has possibly the best health care quality (note I'm not discussing health care _insurance_) in the world. They can also afford more consumer niceties (iPhones, nice cars, foreign vacations etc.). All that extra stuff and quality requires extra fossil fuels and minerals.
Mildlypolite 4y ago
"Environmental problems have contributed to numerous collapses of civilizations in the past. Now, for the first time, a global collapse appears likely. Overpopulation, overconsumption by the rich and poor choices of technologies are major drivers; dramatic cultural change provides the main hope of averting calamity." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3574335/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3574335/ The only pipe dream is to continue breaching the planet boundaries.
- badpun 4y ago
  I mean, of course, it will happen, but not as a voluntary self-limitation, but as hitting against hard limits, especially as they start shriking.
  - Mildlypolite 4y ago
    Of course, voluntary self limitation is unlikely. But severe limitations were imposed during wars on the population by the state, so they are in the realm of possibility (once we acknowledge the severity of the problem, which we are not doing, because of many reasons). We should also add that the expansion of renewables energy create more jobs than the fossil fuel sector, therefore there is at least some hope of this limitations being not as severe as w think. It was calculated that, to be sustainable, the lifestyle should go back to the sixties, during which we lived fairly well but without a savage overconsumption as now.
- dr_dshiv 4y ago
  The idea of planetary boundaries is ridiculous. Are you talking about the collapse of an ecosystem? Multiple ecosystems? That’s still defined. But planetary boundaries is another word for “saving the earth.” No. The earth doesn’t need saving. The diversity of life needs saving. Planetary boundaries is the wrong goal.
  - Mildlypolite 4y ago
    Read the paper please, planet boundaries are scientifically defined.

ttiurani 4y ago

None of them are system changes. Yes, 1 and 3 would be fantastic – although switching to electric without at the same time reducing SOVs is IMO very inadequate if you take int account all of the planetary boundaries, not just climate change. 2 is a policy that might stem from the system change, not the actual change. 4 is not based on facts: there are billions of people in the world who are living within planetary boundaries. Can't stress this enough: it's not "humans" that are the problem but the wealthy people that are taking more from nature than nature can regenerate. A meaningful system change to me is where there is a deliberate and continued reduction in material flows and energy use in the rich countries until they are below planetary boundaries. That can be done if they deliberately start reducing overproduction. That in turn would happen if governments would abandon the goal of aggregate economic growth across all sectors, but instead increase the parts of the economy that produce well-being and scale down the parts that don't. Another system change would be if the rich countries would pay for the catastrophic damage they have inflicted on the countries worst affected by climate change, and then stop taking advantage of poor countries by ending unequal exchange. Those would be system changes. I'm not saying nothing except politics is needed – everything would be doubly hard if e.g. solar wouldn't have become so cheap. But given what is easy in the current world (producing and selling stuff) and what is hard (creating political change), I wish that the most capable and smartest people in the world would work mostly on the hard parts.

vaughandroid 4y ago
"...if governments would abandon the goal of aggregate economic growth across all sectors..." You've obviously thought about this topic quite deeply - have you heard any realistic proposals on how to achieven this? I have yet to hear any, and until I do I'll be devoting my energy to changes that have at least some chance of being enacted, like a carbon tax.
- ttiurani 4y ago
  There is no easy answer, and making a change this big is a monumental task. Personally I've still come to think that just because making this change is very hard, that's not an excuse for me to not try, because the alternative is so much worse. What I'm talking about is what the academic degrowth research has been working on for the past 20 years. (What's under the degrowth umbrella is the current wave of discussions started by the 50 year old "The Limits to Growth" report.) Doughnut economics is also intimately related. If you want to learn more, as it happens, there is a brand new book "Degrowth & Strategy" with a free PDF here: http://mayflybooks.org/degrowth-strategy http://mayflybooks.org/degrowth-strategy Note: I haven't yet read it, but it has got a lot of endorsements and great reviews from the top researches on the field, so it should be good.

collyw 4y ago

Where is the electricity coming from to charge your electric vehicles? Electric vehicles have a lot of potential to reduce pollution and noise in cities, but as a solution to "fixing" inevitable climate they are a con.

dagss 4y ago
Electric vehicles use a lot less energy in total in the supply chain than gasoline cars (extracting and refining and transporting oil uses a lot of energy too, some of it electricity). So electric vehicles reduces the energy required. Longer term: Gasoline cars are not viable at all; electric cars are viable to the extent one can secure the energy for them. It is a way of getting any road transportation done in the future AT ALL; that is surely not a con? I hope noone is arguing that moving to electric cars by itself is sufficient to stop climate change. That would be a con but also seems like a strawman. The goal should be net zero, and electric cars are needed to have road transportation at all.
- tcfhgj 4y ago
  Nope, the goal must be net negative... If you dont want to end up with at least 4-8 degrees more
  - collyw 4y ago
    This is pure speculation, not based in any kind of falsifiable science.
    - tcfhgj 4y ago
      It's not speculation. It's just looking at CO2 levels and their corresponding equilibria
- tremon 4y ago
  Absolutely agreed, except for one part: I don't think net zero will be enough. It might have been enough if we were at net zero thirty years ago. But now, in addition to net zero (which would be an impressive feat to achieve, society-wide), we need to work on absorbing carbon from the atmosphere, before the ocean does it for us.