3 ms·

> (United Nations Climate Change conference) will be held by United Arab Emirates's minister for industry and CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil https://unwatch

> (United Nations Climate Change conference) will be held by United Arab Emirates's minister for industry and CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil https://unwatch.org/u-n-elects-saudi-arabia-to-womens-rights-commission/ https://unwatch.org/u-n-elects-saudi-arabia-to-womens-rights... A lot of regulatory bodies, commissions, councils, are for optics and captured by the governments or corporations they should be regulating in some way. Put another way we have the fox watching the hen house. Put another way it's all bullshit. It's just as true with our domestic regulation.

abricq 4y ago
This concerns me and saddens me a lot. Major changes are required in the near future, and the more I look at the news the less it seems like any of these changes are happening. If at some point I actually get to the conclusion that "it's all bullshit" (i.e. climate change is all bullshit) to those in charge of making these changes, then I have to see how to change those in charge. But really, the options are limited... It's a scary problem. But yeah, it seems like corporations have (often) a lot more to say in this that the what the majority of citizens want.
- scatters 4y ago
  > the more I look at the news the less it seems like any of these changes are happening What news are you reading? Last year the world invested $500bn in wind and solar, and another $500bn in energy efficiency. The IRA has $369bn for green tech, and Europe is going to spend $270bn. The invasion of Ukraine has left large amounts of Russian oil and gas effectively stranded. We're going to reach peak carbon in 5 years, and 2°C is looking increasingly feasible.
  - aporetics 4y ago
    Does it matter if by then we’ve fractured or cut down what’s left of the world’s forests? Deforestation the last decade https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation
jvm___ 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture I mean, if the sidewalks outside your house were government controlled, the most likely people to try to take control of them would be people with an interest in making money from them (somehow). Most people don't enter government to be the "Minister of Forestry" without some previous industry experience, and a plan of what to do with the forests. The people with industry experience and a plan are usually ones frustrated by the limits of the regulations and therefore they have the desire to take over and change the rules to suit them.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- user3939382 4y ago
  > The people with industry experience This is at the heart of the problem. You get these revolving doors between eg big positions at the FDA and big pharma staffed by the same individuals at different times in their careers, same with eg Wall St vs SEC. This extends to lobby group positions. One day Fred is the head of the FDA the next day he’s lobbying the FDA for Pfizer. This should be illegal. They mask the corruption this causes by saying “Hey we need someone with industry/regulatory experience” with no acknowledgement of the massive ($$) conflicts of interest inherent in that strategy.
  - firstlink 4y ago
    What you're suggesting is that a political preference to put the experts in positions of power is actually bad?
    - justinclift 4y ago
      Perhaps there's a difference between experts and lobbyists?
    - user3939382 4y ago
      The DEA is great at busting drug dealers without being drug dealers, neither are the cartels run by DEA agents. This wouldn't be an issue if creating a revolving door between industry and government didn't create huge conflicts of interest but it does.

abricq 4y ago

This concerns me and saddens me a lot. Major changes are required in the near future, and the more I look at the news the less it seems like any of these changes are happening. If at some point I actually get to the conclusion that "it's all bullshit" (i.e. climate change is all bullshit) to those in charge of making these changes, then I have to see how to change those in charge. But really, the options are limited... It's a scary problem. But yeah, it seems like corporations have (often) a lot more to say in this that the what the majority of citizens want.

scatters 4y ago
> the more I look at the news the less it seems like any of these changes are happening What news are you reading? Last year the world invested $500bn in wind and solar, and another $500bn in energy efficiency. The IRA has $369bn for green tech, and Europe is going to spend $270bn. The invasion of Ukraine has left large amounts of Russian oil and gas effectively stranded. We're going to reach peak carbon in 5 years, and 2°C is looking increasingly feasible.
- aporetics 4y ago
  Does it matter if by then we’ve fractured or cut down what’s left of the world’s forests? Deforestation the last decade https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation

jvm___ 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture I mean, if the sidewalks outside your house were government controlled, the most likely people to try to take control of them would be people with an interest in making money from them (somehow). Most people don't enter government to be the "Minister of Forestry" without some previous industry experience, and a plan of what to do with the forests. The people with industry experience and a plan are usually ones frustrated by the limits of the regulations and therefore they have the desire to take over and change the rules to suit them.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
user3939382 4y ago
> The people with industry experience This is at the heart of the problem. You get these revolving doors between eg big positions at the FDA and big pharma staffed by the same individuals at different times in their careers, same with eg Wall St vs SEC. This extends to lobby group positions. One day Fred is the head of the FDA the next day he’s lobbying the FDA for Pfizer. This should be illegal. They mask the corruption this causes by saying “Hey we need someone with industry/regulatory experience” with no acknowledgement of the massive ($$) conflicts of interest inherent in that strategy.
- firstlink 4y ago
  What you're suggesting is that a political preference to put the experts in positions of power is actually bad?
  - justinclift 4y ago
    Perhaps there's a difference between experts and lobbyists?
  - user3939382 4y ago
    The DEA is great at busting drug dealers without being drug dealers, neither are the cartels run by DEA agents. This wouldn't be an issue if creating a revolving door between industry and government didn't create huge conflicts of interest but it does.