4 ms·

I’d love to see unions start agitating for climate change initiatives to counteract investor demands for profit at all cost. Union members as low and medium inc

by voisin 3y ago

I’d love to see unions start agitating for climate change initiatives to counteract investor demands for profit at all cost. Union members as low and medium income individuals will be disproportionately impacted by climate change.

10u152 3y ago
In this case, people making $21 an hour are not worried about climate change. They're worried about putting food on the table, making rent etc. Climate change is a problem for the elites/big corps/government. The idea of making it a problem for the lowest in society - who are also generally the lowest co2 emitters - is unfair.
- voisin 3y ago
  > The idea of making it a problem for the lowest in society - who are also generally the lowest co2 emitters - is unfair. It is a problem for the lowest in society even if they are the lowest emitters. They are the ones sweltering in the heat or freezing in the winters because of insufficient insulation, getting flooded out of their homes built too close to waterways, etc etc. In this specific article they mention the lack of A/C in the vehicles as a major bargaining win. Whether they are responsible for the emissions or not (and you and I agree on this point that they largely are not), the lowest in society, by virtue of being most impacted, need to use their large numbers to hold elites accountable and make change.
  - __del__ 3y ago
    uh huh, they need to hop to it
  - danaris 3y ago
    "The problem is mostly caused by the very wealthy and large corporations, but because the poor are and will be disproportionately victims of it, they need to be the ones spending their time and money to fix the problem, thereby leaving them even poorer and more exhausted than they already are!" ...Yeah, I don't think you've entirely thought this one through?
    - voisin 3y ago
      I don’t think this quote is a fair interpretation of what I was saying. I don’t think the poor should fix it. I think they should force the hands of the wealthy to fix it. The wealthy aren’t and won’t do it on their own because they aren’t impacted the same way or to the same extent.
gruez 3y ago
This won't work because climate change mitigation is a prisoners dilemma. You could negotiate for $x to be spent on climate change mitigation, or for $x to be spent on your ingroup (ie. union). In the former case, the benefits are spread across all 8 billion people on earth, whereas in the latter case the benefits will only be spread among your ingroup (tens of thousands of people?). Sure, a ounce of prevention might be worth more than a pound of cure, but at these scales (ie. 8 billion vs tens of thousands), it's basically guaranteed that the numbers won't work out. They can certainly try to negotiate for climate change mitigation, but doing so will be economically irrational and will basically be an act of altruism.
costanzaDynasty 3y ago
That’s how unions work at blogs. In the real world, in Teamster type jobs it’s usually about how can they move jobs and pay around to look like they gave you more than scraps. How do I know? I was a Teamsters through many contracts.

by voisin 3y ago

10u152 3y ago

In this case, people making $21 an hour are not worried about climate change. They're worried about putting food on the table, making rent etc. Climate change is a problem for the elites/big corps/government. The idea of making it a problem for the lowest in society - who are also generally the lowest co2 emitters - is unfair.

voisin 3y ago
> The idea of making it a problem for the lowest in society - who are also generally the lowest co2 emitters - is unfair. It is a problem for the lowest in society even if they are the lowest emitters. They are the ones sweltering in the heat or freezing in the winters because of insufficient insulation, getting flooded out of their homes built too close to waterways, etc etc. In this specific article they mention the lack of A/C in the vehicles as a major bargaining win. Whether they are responsible for the emissions or not (and you and I agree on this point that they largely are not), the lowest in society, by virtue of being most impacted, need to use their large numbers to hold elites accountable and make change.
- __del__ 3y ago
  uh huh, they need to hop to it
- danaris 3y ago
  "The problem is mostly caused by the very wealthy and large corporations, but because the poor are and will be disproportionately victims of it, they need to be the ones spending their time and money to fix the problem, thereby leaving them even poorer and more exhausted than they already are!" ...Yeah, I don't think you've entirely thought this one through?
  - voisin 3y ago
    I don’t think this quote is a fair interpretation of what I was saying. I don’t think the poor should fix it. I think they should force the hands of the wealthy to fix it. The wealthy aren’t and won’t do it on their own because they aren’t impacted the same way or to the same extent.

gruez 3y ago

This won't work because climate change mitigation is a prisoners dilemma. You could negotiate for $x to be spent on climate change mitigation, or for $x to be spent on your ingroup (ie. union). In the former case, the benefits are spread across all 8 billion people on earth, whereas in the latter case the benefits will only be spread among your ingroup (tens of thousands of people?). Sure, a ounce of prevention might be worth more than a pound of cure, but at these scales (ie. 8 billion vs tens of thousands), it's basically guaranteed that the numbers won't work out. They can certainly try to negotiate for climate change mitigation, but doing so will be economically irrational and will basically be an act of altruism.

costanzaDynasty 3y ago

That’s how unions work at blogs. In the real world, in Teamster type jobs it’s usually about how can they move jobs and pay around to look like they gave you more than scraps. How do I know? I was a Teamsters through many contracts.