11 ms·

I don't think you're "wrong" but... There is just no way to convince 7bn people to all act together. And the global nature of the problem means you need basic

I don't think you're "wrong" but... There is just no way to convince 7bn people to all act together. And the global nature of the problem means you need basically everyone, and there is a HUGE incentive to be the one NOT acting.

pstuart 3y ago
[flagged]
- runarberg 3y ago
  US doesn’t even need to lead by example. Not killing world saving international agreements such as the Kyoto protocol, would be a good start.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
    Did any country live up to their Kyoto commitments?
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      'Just asking questions'...
      - mistermann 3y ago
        'Just using thought terminating means to terminate thinking and maximize persuasion'... I mean, it could work, but what if it doesn't? Is there some point that we start thinking about a Plan B?
  - pstuart 3y ago
    Yes it does. It had made itself "the world's police" and has a long and sordid history in interfering with the affairs of other nations. But for the sacrifices and investments required, it's ludicrous to say "this needs to be done" and not actually do it.
    - runarberg 3y ago
      You are right, I was overemphasizing the role the USA had in destroying an agreement the world signed onto (and watering down all subsequent agreements), and in doing so I undervalued the role of the largest historic polluter has in actually lowering emissions.
      - pstuart 3y ago
        Thanks for the follow up -- it's frustrating to not reach consensus when you think you're right (and yes, I'm prepared to be wrong if the argument is persuasive enough).
regularfry 3y ago
I find hope in surprising places. For instance: have you ever considered how unlikely it is that the lounge suit, in the specific form it takes, should be quite as pervasive as it is? That's massive, global, collective, directed, and specific choice. Now if we could just get the exact same class of people who wear lounge suits by default to consider acting on climate change as the same sort of default...
- mistermann 3y ago
  This is the way.
DirectorKrennic 3y ago
What you're saying is that mankind needs a benevolent dictator to solve the problem. An empowered and effective benevolent dictator.
- lolive 3y ago
  Thanos was right ;) [Sorry, couldn't resist, please downvote]
- LatteLazy 3y ago
  Unless they were some sort of Superman, they'd just be overthrown. It would be a big effort to convince people to go for actually cutting CO2e. And that is without people (republicans, conspiracy theorists and 1001 other groups) poisoning the well...
melling 3y ago
You don’t need to convince 8 billion people. You simply need to convince the handful of people in charge. Unfortunately, this climate change thing really throws some of those people: https://youtu.be/3E0a_60PMR8 https://youtu.be/3E0a_60PMR8 “Here’s a snowball, it’s very cold out…” We send some pretty low IQ people to DC.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- explorer83 3y ago
  Republicans don't all not support climate change just because they don't believe it. Sure some don't believe it. But there's also those that believe it's not going to work out well to adopt aggressive climate saving measures if industrial and military rival nations don't also adopt the same measures.
  - melling 3y ago
    Yes, the “what about China excuse comes up a lot”. Another worthless excuse for doing absolutely nothing. Ranks up there with “we don’t want to destroy the economy” “adopt aggressive climate saving measures” They could have adopted “non-aggressive” measures and not feed the climate deniers. By doing nothing sooner, requires more pain later. We have been discussing the problem for almost 5 decades.
    - explorer83 3y ago
      How would you address nations such as China then? A lot of finger pointing here without addressing the point
      - lotsofpulp 3y ago
        There are probably more than a billion up and coming people in China, India, and other developing countries that would love to take advantage of lower flight and hotel prices in tropical destinations.
anamexis 3y ago
I think you're agreeing. The adaptation won't be based on collective action, but individual necessity.
- miroljub 3y ago
  Isn't this how humans work since the beginning of their existence?
  - anamexis 3y ago
    Are you asking if all humans take individual actions based on needs? I was clarifying that the OP was not suggesting grand collective action will take place to adapt to climate change.
runarberg 3y ago
Has been done before, and can be done again.
- LatteLazy 3y ago
  When have we ever gotten 8bn people to agree to painful, expensive changes simultaneously over a long term?
  - runarberg 3y ago
    * Ban on leaded gazoline * Ban on non-indigenous whaling * Ban on ozone depleting gasses * Several human rights treaties * Nuclear non-proliferation * Ban on mineral extraction and military activities on Antractica * etc.
    - LatteLazy 3y ago
      None of those are painful or expensive though? Leaded petroleum was such an easy, local problem that solving it just happened at the national level, no need for binding international agreements. I actually think the smart approach to serious action to prevent global warming would be similar to that taken for Nuclear non-proliferation: The big, strong countries force the others to accept they cannot have emissions and anyone who doesn't agree gets (at least) sanctioned into poverty or maybe "liberated"... But most countries are much more interested in cheap energy (and meat and construction and other CO2e sources) than they ever were in nukes. Most citizens don't personally care if their leaders have nukes, but they care if they can afford meat and electricity. And of course, for this to work, we would need those strong countries to ALSO give up their CO2e, something no world power has done and which the US and China are actively headed in the OPPOSITE direction of. The ban on whaling is also a good example of a few bad actors ignoring the consensus and making the whole thing much less efficient. And that's (again) only for "whale meat", hardly as interesting a product as <almost everything that causes climate change>...
      - runarberg 3y ago
        As the international whaling ban has demonstrated, it doesn’t matter if one or two bad actors (even large and powerful ones like Japan and Norway) don’t comply, as long as the majority and the most powerful nations do. Many whale species became critically endangered and it looked for a moment like they all would and we would simply loose whales from our oceans. That didn’t happen because the world came together and made the decision to kill the whaling industry instead of the whales. With regards to global warming the responsibility of inaction lies solely on one bad actor, the USA, and only [initially] one political sub-faction in the USA. In 1997 all the world (including USA and China) came together and approved the Kyoto protocol, and made this painful discussion that would deeply affect our fossil fuel industry but save our climate. It was on its way to be ratified everywhere, public support was in its favor, so was the Clinton Administration, all European powers, and the Communist Party of China. Everybody agreed that the cost of climate change was greater than the benefits of cheap energy. However at some point the oil industry in the USA fought against it, it got stalled in the USA senate and finally killed by the George Bush administration, in order to save their fossil fuel industry. If the USA hadn’t killed it, and even if they would have only half-assed the implementation, and even though China would come to ignore it, we would still be much further along the way of reducing our emissions. You see, the world can come together and make painful decisions that affects all of us. It has done so multiple times in the past (even with respects to climate change) and it will in the future. It is really only because a certain industry has a disproportional hold over a certain country’s discourse that despite these agreements we have failed to act.
dylan604 3y ago
after the ultimate changes in climate, will there still be 7bn people?
- jacquesm 3y ago
  The better question would be whether they would still be alive.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    in what other manner did you interpret that?
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      That having a few hundred million corpses lying around would put a bit of a strain on funeral services... Mass die offs have happened historically but nothing short of the black plague is in line with the range of possibilities before us.
      - qwytw 3y ago
        > but nothing short of the black plague is in line with the range of possibilities before us. What do you mean? Now I'm scared... Why would people just suddenly start dropping dead?
        jacquesm 3y ago
        I really don't want to spoil your dinner but the chances of millions of dead per year are fairly high, and that's up to 2100, not many models look beyond that (the uncertainty is too large). The extremes of those models (things that could happen but with a much smaller likelihood) are enough to make you miserable. The good news is that there are similar possible outcomes that things won't be that dire. 250K dead / year by 2050, 5 million / year or so by 2100. The tough part is that such models have a lot of uncertainty and that it is very well possible to be alive but to be utterly miserable. I'm normally fairly optimistic about our ability to influence our lives but on this one I'm not, this will happen and we're along for the ride, it's a rearguard action at this point where we can try hard to minimize the damage but not avoid it completely.

pstuart 3y ago

[flagged]

runarberg 3y ago
US doesn’t even need to lead by example. Not killing world saving international agreements such as the Kyoto protocol, would be a good start.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
  Did any country live up to their Kyoto commitments?
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    'Just asking questions'...
    - mistermann 3y ago
      'Just using thought terminating means to terminate thinking and maximize persuasion'... I mean, it could work, but what if it doesn't? Is there some point that we start thinking about a Plan B?
- pstuart 3y ago
  Yes it does. It had made itself "the world's police" and has a long and sordid history in interfering with the affairs of other nations. But for the sacrifices and investments required, it's ludicrous to say "this needs to be done" and not actually do it.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    You are right, I was overemphasizing the role the USA had in destroying an agreement the world signed onto (and watering down all subsequent agreements), and in doing so I undervalued the role of the largest historic polluter has in actually lowering emissions.
    - pstuart 3y ago
      Thanks for the follow up -- it's frustrating to not reach consensus when you think you're right (and yes, I'm prepared to be wrong if the argument is persuasive enough).

regularfry 3y ago

I find hope in surprising places. For instance: have you ever considered how unlikely it is that the lounge suit, in the specific form it takes, should be quite as pervasive as it is? That's massive, global, collective, directed, and specific choice. Now if we could just get the exact same class of people who wear lounge suits by default to consider acting on climate change as the same sort of default...

mistermann 3y ago
This is the way.

DirectorKrennic 3y ago

What you're saying is that mankind needs a benevolent dictator to solve the problem. An empowered and effective benevolent dictator.

lolive 3y ago
Thanos was right ;) [Sorry, couldn't resist, please downvote]
LatteLazy 3y ago
Unless they were some sort of Superman, they'd just be overthrown. It would be a big effort to convince people to go for actually cutting CO2e. And that is without people (republicans, conspiracy theorists and 1001 other groups) poisoning the well...

melling 3y ago

You don’t need to convince 8 billion people. You simply need to convince the handful of people in charge. Unfortunately, this climate change thing really throws some of those people: https://youtu.be/3E0a_60PMR8 https://youtu.be/3E0a_60PMR8 “Here’s a snowball, it’s very cold out…” We send some pretty low IQ people to DC.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
explorer83 3y ago
Republicans don't all not support climate change just because they don't believe it. Sure some don't believe it. But there's also those that believe it's not going to work out well to adopt aggressive climate saving measures if industrial and military rival nations don't also adopt the same measures.
- melling 3y ago
  Yes, the “what about China excuse comes up a lot”. Another worthless excuse for doing absolutely nothing. Ranks up there with “we don’t want to destroy the economy” “adopt aggressive climate saving measures” They could have adopted “non-aggressive” measures and not feed the climate deniers. By doing nothing sooner, requires more pain later. We have been discussing the problem for almost 5 decades.
  - explorer83 3y ago
    How would you address nations such as China then? A lot of finger pointing here without addressing the point
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      There are probably more than a billion up and coming people in China, India, and other developing countries that would love to take advantage of lower flight and hotel prices in tropical destinations.

anamexis 3y ago

I think you're agreeing. The adaptation won't be based on collective action, but individual necessity.

miroljub 3y ago
Isn't this how humans work since the beginning of their existence?
- anamexis 3y ago
  Are you asking if all humans take individual actions based on needs? I was clarifying that the OP was not suggesting grand collective action will take place to adapt to climate change.

runarberg 3y ago

Has been done before, and can be done again.

LatteLazy 3y ago
When have we ever gotten 8bn people to agree to painful, expensive changes simultaneously over a long term?
- runarberg 3y ago
  * Ban on leaded gazoline * Ban on non-indigenous whaling * Ban on ozone depleting gasses * Several human rights treaties * Nuclear non-proliferation * Ban on mineral extraction and military activities on Antractica * etc.
  - LatteLazy 3y ago
    None of those are painful or expensive though? Leaded petroleum was such an easy, local problem that solving it just happened at the national level, no need for binding international agreements. I actually think the smart approach to serious action to prevent global warming would be similar to that taken for Nuclear non-proliferation: The big, strong countries force the others to accept they cannot have emissions and anyone who doesn't agree gets (at least) sanctioned into poverty or maybe "liberated"... But most countries are much more interested in cheap energy (and meat and construction and other CO2e sources) than they ever were in nukes. Most citizens don't personally care if their leaders have nukes, but they care if they can afford meat and electricity. And of course, for this to work, we would need those strong countries to ALSO give up their CO2e, something no world power has done and which the US and China are actively headed in the OPPOSITE direction of. The ban on whaling is also a good example of a few bad actors ignoring the consensus and making the whole thing much less efficient. And that's (again) only for "whale meat", hardly as interesting a product as <almost everything that causes climate change>...
    - runarberg 3y ago
      As the international whaling ban has demonstrated, it doesn’t matter if one or two bad actors (even large and powerful ones like Japan and Norway) don’t comply, as long as the majority and the most powerful nations do. Many whale species became critically endangered and it looked for a moment like they all would and we would simply loose whales from our oceans. That didn’t happen because the world came together and made the decision to kill the whaling industry instead of the whales. With regards to global warming the responsibility of inaction lies solely on one bad actor, the USA, and only [initially] one political sub-faction in the USA. In 1997 all the world (including USA and China) came together and approved the Kyoto protocol, and made this painful discussion that would deeply affect our fossil fuel industry but save our climate. It was on its way to be ratified everywhere, public support was in its favor, so was the Clinton Administration, all European powers, and the Communist Party of China. Everybody agreed that the cost of climate change was greater than the benefits of cheap energy. However at some point the oil industry in the USA fought against it, it got stalled in the USA senate and finally killed by the George Bush administration, in order to save their fossil fuel industry. If the USA hadn’t killed it, and even if they would have only half-assed the implementation, and even though China would come to ignore it, we would still be much further along the way of reducing our emissions. You see, the world can come together and make painful decisions that affects all of us. It has done so multiple times in the past (even with respects to climate change) and it will in the future. It is really only because a certain industry has a disproportional hold over a certain country’s discourse that despite these agreements we have failed to act.

dylan604 3y ago

after the ultimate changes in climate, will there still be 7bn people?

jacquesm 3y ago
The better question would be whether they would still be alive.
- dylan604 3y ago
  in what other manner did you interpret that?
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    That having a few hundred million corpses lying around would put a bit of a strain on funeral services... Mass die offs have happened historically but nothing short of the black plague is in line with the range of possibilities before us.
    - qwytw 3y ago
      > but nothing short of the black plague is in line with the range of possibilities before us. What do you mean? Now I'm scared... Why would people just suddenly start dropping dead?
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        I really don't want to spoil your dinner but the chances of millions of dead per year are fairly high, and that's up to 2100, not many models look beyond that (the uncertainty is too large). The extremes of those models (things that could happen but with a much smaller likelihood) are enough to make you miserable. The good news is that there are similar possible outcomes that things won't be that dire. 250K dead / year by 2050, 5 million / year or so by 2100. The tough part is that such models have a lot of uncertainty and that it is very well possible to be alive but to be utterly miserable. I'm normally fairly optimistic about our ability to influence our lives but on this one I'm not, this will happen and we're along for the ride, it's a rearguard action at this point where we can try hard to minimize the damage but not avoid it completely.