3 ms·
> You won't get people to agree to make their life worse. Agreed. > Honestly, at this point tech is probably the only way climate change will be fixed. Disag
by jstummbillig 4y ago
> You won't get people to agree to make their life worse.
Agreed.
> Honestly, at this point tech is probably the only way climate change will be fixed.
Disagreed. I think it would be a really bad idea to ignore the power legislation has. People don't exactly agree on taxes. They just don't disagree enough to want to suffer the consequences (direct and societal)
Legislate things that people don't disagree with too much.
- YetAnotherNick 4y agoLegislation doesn't work on global level, unless you are ready to go to war. And I think world war 3 will kill more people than climate change could. At the very least Russia and China will flat out deny to follow any legislation related to this, with even US not very keen to legislate themselves.
- hackerlight 4y agoChina will. They're an importer of energy and they're suffering from air pollution. They show no ideological opposition to reducing CO2. Russia won't, but they're a smaller country and the impact isn't as big. Also, legislation isn't a thing on a world level. You have treaties and agreements. And if that doesn't work, you impose a carbon tarriff. There won't be a need for war.
- CM30 4y agoThe problem with that is that anything that most things that have the biggest effect here (not eating meat, not travelling a ton, etc) are also things that no government in the world would have support for limiting, and if they tried to regulate them, would probably get destroyed in the next election. Could you regulate some stuff? Sure, but anything that's remotely unpopular feels like a recipe for the opposing party to win by a landslide just by promising to remove said regulation. Or for someone who doesn't give a toss/is basically anti environmentalist to get elected, ala Bolsonaro in Brazil.