4 ms·

I'm with you on this. And I am absolutely the furthest possible thing from a climate skeptic. If anything, it's just a recognition that this kind of communicati

I'm with you on this. And I am absolutely the furthest possible thing from a climate skeptic. If anything, it's just a recognition that this kind of communication from official sources is clearly ineffective. The climate crisis is never ever going to be solved by spontaneous collective action or by appeals to collective action. People will continue to do whatever it is they have to do to get their daily or yearly basic needs met. What we need are people in positions of power that care.

lisasays 4y ago
What we need are people in positions of power that care. Okay then - so how do we get those people to materialize? Absent "appeals to collective action" which you've already determined is never going to work.
myrmidon 4y ago
In a democracy, this means that people in aggregate need to care more about climate change consequences in the future than wealth/disposable income right now. That is simply a hard sell, always has been, and most of us are to blame for the consequences...
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Specially hard to sell when those in power don't seem to treat is as existential crisis that will kill them. I do not see them following their own messaging to utmost care.
  - myrmidon 4y ago
    I think its dishonest to shift all blame on "people in power" when living in a democracy. It seems pretty clear to me that specifically US policy would have been MUCH more climate focussed if people had voted like 60% Al-Gore in 2000 (who ran 100% on that platform). But that option was basically on the table, people went like "meh, might as well take generic republican junior instead" and then got distracted by counter-jihad for the decade after. Now most of the damage is already done, and the same things that would've really helped in 2000 are much less useful now because they're late. And its not like Europeans did much better in the meantime, but they at least have the excuse that their baseline emissions are about half US level already (per capita) and governance is more fractured (by design), too...

lisasays 4y ago

What we need are people in positions of power that care. Okay then - so how do we get those people to materialize? Absent "appeals to collective action" which you've already determined is never going to work.

myrmidon 4y ago

In a democracy, this means that people in aggregate need to care more about climate change consequences in the future than wealth/disposable income right now. That is simply a hard sell, always has been, and most of us are to blame for the consequences...

Ekaros 4y ago
Specially hard to sell when those in power don't seem to treat is as existential crisis that will kill them. I do not see them following their own messaging to utmost care.
- myrmidon 4y ago
  I think its dishonest to shift all blame on "people in power" when living in a democracy. It seems pretty clear to me that specifically US policy would have been MUCH more climate focussed if people had voted like 60% Al-Gore in 2000 (who ran 100% on that platform). But that option was basically on the table, people went like "meh, might as well take generic republican junior instead" and then got distracted by counter-jihad for the decade after. Now most of the damage is already done, and the same things that would've really helped in 2000 are much less useful now because they're late. And its not like Europeans did much better in the meantime, but they at least have the excuse that their baseline emissions are about half US level already (per capita) and governance is more fractured (by design), too...