4 ms·

There's a much simpler explanation: people are worried about the environment and global warming, so they are willing to try out a lot of different things that t

There's a much simpler explanation: people are worried about the environment and global warming, so they are willing to try out a lot of different things that they think might help, but lo and behold, it turns out that some of those things actually help and others turn out not to, and because some of the things that don't help maybe still get a lot of attention or the associated behaviors linger on, well-intentioned people look like idiots. But, realistically, how could any large scale movement to change the way we live be any different? What do you think you are contributing by being smug and cynical? (By the way, those college-educated Westerners are also choosing to live smaller, use more public transport, drive fewer miles, invest in durable goods, insulate their homes, buy heat pumps and vote for parties that want to do something about industrial pollution. It's not all canvas shopping bag virtue signaling.)

RandomLensman 4y ago
The climate change agenda often doesn't really have a great sales pitch: have high costs now, still experience climate change and then in the far future things might be better. This has to change to truly get everyone on board - there have to be benefits in the now.
- peterashford 4y ago
  Then we all go to hell together.
  - RandomLensman 4y ago
    Why? You think we cannot come up with better incentive structures? I doubt that very much.
    - peterashford 4y ago
      Because we require major systemic changes. That's not going to happen if we require everyone to choosing to do the right thing right now. Also, IMO, the changes need to happen at a governmental and corporate level. Individual people - which is where I was imagining you were thinking about when referring to incentives* - make a much smaller difference to AGW. *was I wrong about that? What incentive structures do you see working in this context?
      - RandomLensman 4y ago
        You will not get major systemic change if the median voter thinks they will be poorer afterwards. That isn't necessarily because voters don't believe in the science but rather they know that in next 50-100 years a lot can happen (bad or good) to somehow make their efforts rather worthless. In the end, the cost will wind up with individual people anyway. Industry will get subsidies and business funneled their way for the transition. On top, climate is a huge business - some sectors are salivating at the revenues to be made in the next decade or so - and those revenues will have to come from somewhere. So, I don't think you can enact any policies on top with noticeable costs to individuals. There is also the question of how subsidies will be paid back - maybe a lot more countries need to create some sort of wealth fund for the investments needed and then distribute back some revenues? Maybe some higher minimum wage for work in climate? Not saying I have the solutions.
tablespoon 4y ago
>> Most environmental action being taken out seems to be exclusively acts of religious-like penance. > There's a much simpler explanation: people are worried about the environment and global warming, so they are willing to try out a lot of different things that they think might help, but lo and behold, it turns out that some of those things actually help and others turn out not to... It's not one or the other, it's both. There's also the factor that people are more comfortable with changes that inconvenience others, but don't inconvenience them much; so there's often a major lack of consideration and empathy with the proposals. Couple that with religion-like moral urgency, and you get a lot of unnecessary conflict.
- stdbrouw 4y ago
  > There's also the factor that people are more comfortable with changes that inconvenience others, but don't inconvenience them much Religious-like penance and "I can't do anything about climate change, but you should" are polar opposites, though, so if you think that's a major factor you're arguing against the OP. The point of religious penance is that it is very, very inconvenient to me (not others) while solving nothing. Refusing to buy fruit that is out of season because you worry about the CO2 from transportation is perhaps a good example, because it can be a major inconvenience but shipping is so efficient that it's not clear that it would have much of an effect. The point of token adherence and kicking the can down the road is that it's all someone else's problem, as for example when people argue that gas furnaces (not stoves) or inefficient air conditioning should be illegal, which is fine by them because they have the money to buy a state-of-the-art system anyway and if it's too expensive for other people, that's their problem. Or, as in this story about the Farmers' protest party, stuff that inconveniences farmers but not them, though that's a very complex case.
vba616 4y ago
I increasingly get an overwhelming sense that all extant environmental activism is "canvas shopping bag virtue signaling" in a very profound and important way, but I wasn't convinced by specific printed or spoken rhetoric, nor can I automatically provide an explanation. I have to look within myself to explain why. But here is one of the possible foundations of my opinion: - A graph of atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa observatory: https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/carbon-dioxide-now-more-than-50-higher-than-pre-industrial-levels https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/carbon-dioxide-now-more-th... - The simple, pure shape of that graph, which appears to still be accelerating, affects me profoundly. It makes me think of all of the slightly different graphs that people use to show some progress on climate change, from estimated emissions to temperature changes, and that their deepest meaning is just that they are ways to deny *this* chart. Now that doesn't entirely express what makes me convinced. It is biased by what I think might convince you, which is what I was trying to let go of. But it is one of the pillars of my belief and it might stand on its own better than others.

RandomLensman 4y ago

The climate change agenda often doesn't really have a great sales pitch: have high costs now, still experience climate change and then in the far future things might be better. This has to change to truly get everyone on board - there have to be benefits in the now.

peterashford 4y ago
Then we all go to hell together.
- RandomLensman 4y ago
  Why? You think we cannot come up with better incentive structures? I doubt that very much.
  - peterashford 4y ago
    Because we require major systemic changes. That's not going to happen if we require everyone to choosing to do the right thing right now. Also, IMO, the changes need to happen at a governmental and corporate level. Individual people - which is where I was imagining you were thinking about when referring to incentives* - make a much smaller difference to AGW. *was I wrong about that? What incentive structures do you see working in this context?
    - RandomLensman 4y ago
      You will not get major systemic change if the median voter thinks they will be poorer afterwards. That isn't necessarily because voters don't believe in the science but rather they know that in next 50-100 years a lot can happen (bad or good) to somehow make their efforts rather worthless. In the end, the cost will wind up with individual people anyway. Industry will get subsidies and business funneled their way for the transition. On top, climate is a huge business - some sectors are salivating at the revenues to be made in the next decade or so - and those revenues will have to come from somewhere. So, I don't think you can enact any policies on top with noticeable costs to individuals. There is also the question of how subsidies will be paid back - maybe a lot more countries need to create some sort of wealth fund for the investments needed and then distribute back some revenues? Maybe some higher minimum wage for work in climate? Not saying I have the solutions.

tablespoon 4y ago

>> Most environmental action being taken out seems to be exclusively acts of religious-like penance. > There's a much simpler explanation: people are worried about the environment and global warming, so they are willing to try out a lot of different things that they think might help, but lo and behold, it turns out that some of those things actually help and others turn out not to... It's not one or the other, it's both. There's also the factor that people are more comfortable with changes that inconvenience others, but don't inconvenience them much; so there's often a major lack of consideration and empathy with the proposals. Couple that with religion-like moral urgency, and you get a lot of unnecessary conflict.

stdbrouw 4y ago
> There's also the factor that people are more comfortable with changes that inconvenience others, but don't inconvenience them much Religious-like penance and "I can't do anything about climate change, but you should" are polar opposites, though, so if you think that's a major factor you're arguing against the OP. The point of religious penance is that it is very, very inconvenient to me (not others) while solving nothing. Refusing to buy fruit that is out of season because you worry about the CO2 from transportation is perhaps a good example, because it can be a major inconvenience but shipping is so efficient that it's not clear that it would have much of an effect. The point of token adherence and kicking the can down the road is that it's all someone else's problem, as for example when people argue that gas furnaces (not stoves) or inefficient air conditioning should be illegal, which is fine by them because they have the money to buy a state-of-the-art system anyway and if it's too expensive for other people, that's their problem. Or, as in this story about the Farmers' protest party, stuff that inconveniences farmers but not them, though that's a very complex case.

vba616 4y ago

I increasingly get an overwhelming sense that all extant environmental activism is "canvas shopping bag virtue signaling" in a very profound and important way, but I wasn't convinced by specific printed or spoken rhetoric, nor can I automatically provide an explanation. I have to look within myself to explain why. But here is one of the possible foundations of my opinion: - A graph of atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa observatory: https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/carbon-dioxide-now-more-than-50-higher-than-pre-industrial-levels https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/carbon-dioxide-now-more-th... - The simple, pure shape of that graph, which appears to still be accelerating, affects me profoundly. It makes me think of all of the slightly different graphs that people use to show some progress on climate change, from estimated emissions to temperature changes, and that their deepest meaning is just that they are ways to deny *this* chart. Now that doesn't entirely express what makes me convinced. It is biased by what I think might convince you, which is what I was trying to let go of. But it is one of the pillars of my belief and it might stand on its own better than others.