5 ms·
Strawmen notwithstanding, the main controversy today is about governments as well as non-elected organizations (like the WEF) calling for increased central cont
by slily 3y ago
Strawmen notwithstanding, the main controversy today is about governments as well as non-elected organizations (like the WEF) calling for increased central control over ordinary citizens and adopting tyrannical measures to reduce the standard of living and increase the cost of energy, food, travel and so on, using "climate crisis" as a vague excuse to invoke some sense of urgency in the hopes that people are stupid enough to say yes to policies that widen the wealth gap and further impoverish the working class.
If you're already well off (like most HN posters, probably) then you might not care if the leader of your country tells you that you will have to reduce your standard of living for the sake of the environment (and keep in mind that they rarely make those claims based on realistic analyses). If you are barely making ends meet and don't know if you will be able to retire after toiling your whole life like many people it is a harder sell. For example, where I live my electricity provider is harassing me to switch to "clean" energy sources, coyly admitting that the price will be higher in fine print. Turns out they entice people to join only to increase their prices later (see https://www.thedailybeast.com/cleanchoice-energy-is-the-sneaky-green-energy-company-that-pisses-off-climate-do-gooders https://www.thedailybeast.com/cleanchoice-energy-is-the-snea...). Can you afford to pay double or triple the price for energy? What if you had to? Some of us cannot afford to run air conditioning at a certain price.
Some still think that this is a mere "conspiracy theory", but the messaging is slowly becoming more explicit about this power grab. I'm talking about some national government figures talking about lowering your standards out loud. Less obvious tells are organizations connected to governments setting lofty "sustainability" goals which involve reducing energy footprints to a level that is impossible to achieve without significantly impoverishing nations. Farmers forced to reduce their use of nitrogen fertilizer are the appetizer.
- wombat-man 3y agoI'll just say that I agree that most people are not ready/willing to pay the price of real climate action in dollars today. We'll probably just have to pay down the line. I guess we'll see how bad it gets.
- valval 3y agoI’m surprised that so many highly analytical minds (such as HN posters I’d assume are) mistakenly believe that whatever crisis may or may not be at hand would be solved by individual action as instructed by some vague institutions or organisations. It’s like asking people to drive slowly without introducing and enforcing speed limits, or more tangibly whatever the farce with recycling has been for the past decades. Come on, as an engineer you know these problems are solved by removing the human error from the equation, not by desperately trying to adjust the weight of the human error.
- wombat-man 3y agoI don't know where you're getting that from my comment. Personally I don't think we can meaningfully change the trajectory without a worldwide, coordinated government effort. I do think that won't happen unless people push for it, and I don't think people are going to push for it because it's going to mean higher energy prices, lifestyle changes and it's going to make it harder for economic growth, especially in developing regions. Sure, I'll still recycle and try to not waste food and whatnot. But I know it's a drop in the bucket.
- t0bia_s 3y agoPoor people and new world order should be solution for making planet more cool?
- t0bia_s 3y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental,_social,_and_corporate_governance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental,_social,_and_c...