4 ms·

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

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.

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.