8 ms·
We bailed out the banks but we’re not prepared to bail out the planet
- gardenfelder 3y ago>US and UK must use financial firepower of the state to put economies on a saner course
- smnrg 3y ago“We.”
- jmclnx 3y agoBeing crude, the politicians need to grow a pair and put their jobs at risk to fix this issue. But these days that will not happen, so off to mad max I guess.
- vouaobrasil 3y agoI doubt it will ever happen with our system of electing new people every 4ish years, with no consequences after office. That system might work on a small scale for a small time, but not in a global economy like ours. What we need is a system to tie the direct effects of the actions of politicians to the personal lives of politicians. For example, like doctors, they should be held liable for political malpractice. We also need to find a way to get people into office who aren't as hungry for wealth and power like most politicians are. Seems like from the start we are setting ourselves up for failure if we elect people who are good at being elected. Perhaps politics should be like jury duty: it should be more distributed and citizens should have to serve in it.
- withinboredom 3y agoI had a friend attempt to run for congress ~10 years ago. It eventually got to the point where he had to take ... um, not bribes? investments, yeah, that's the word, in order to continue. There was no other way to afford the marketing required to pull it off. If you really want 'free' elections, you need to make it so that literally anyone can run instead of only rich people.
- charliea0 3y agoReally, the issue is the people who vote for the politicians? If voters supported radical climate policy then elected officials would implement it.
- jmclnx 3y ago> If voters supported radical climate policy That is the issue, no one whats to change their life style and people do not like change. MAGA people will not change, even the many environmental left wing people will not change their life styles all that much. Never mind changing your life style is difficult in many places due to Infrastructure in the US. So, unless politicians make the hard choices, nothing will be done to address Climate Change in time to even keep under 2C.
- ttonkytonk 3y agoMy opinion is speculative and not well-informed, but if I had to guess I would say 1) our governments are more or less defacto oligarchies (or at least the politicians are generally on the upper end of the economic spectrum), and 2) because of many social factors this seems to be a real uphill climb, so I can actually sympathize with politicians who on one hand have maybe a vague sense that they won't suffer the worst effects of climate change and on the other don't necessarily have a clear or great path to produce the needed changes.
- ttonkytonk 3y ago*sympathize somewhat The (crude) analogy that comes to mind is something akin to the "checks and balances" of U.S. government, with the head of one checking the ass of the other, but instead everybody's head is under everybody else's ass.
- lumb63 3y ago> As the rapid responses to the global financial crisis of 2007-09 and the Covid pandemic proved, governments can act speedily, collectively and decisively if the crisis is deemed big enough. We have been, currently are, and will be feeling the negative repercussions of the government’s “speedy” and “decisive” actions for several decades. This is not a very good comparison.
- user6723 3y agoYou are the carbon they want to reduce.
- bluescrn 3y agoIt's a meme, but not really true. Those in power rely on economic growth, and economic growth relies on population growth. To keep this going, you need ever more people but for this to be sustainable, they now need to be confined to tiny boxes in megacities, fueling the economy mostly by producing and consuming virtual items, and keeping their physical consumption to a bare minimum. Meanwhile, the billionaire class has the rest of the world as their playground, and can happily get around by supercar or private jet.
- rightontarget 3y ago[flagged]
- k_ 3y ago_We_ are in danger of ending up living on a planet that is much less human friendly
- myshpa 3y agoWow ... you're in for a rough ride, my friend.
- distortionfield 3y agoDo you think the planet is _not_ in danger? Like literally last week the AMOC overturning papers were front page of this website for a day.
- myshpa 3y agoThe biggest problem of all is that the whole system is the problem.
- vouaobrasil 3y agoThe inertia of 7 billion people and their systems that were created on a much smaller scale is huge. How the devil can we effect change with such inertia? We have extreme wealth concentration effected by advanced technology, a hugely complex global economy with immense inequality, and a failing biosphere... I agree with you that the whole system is the problem but is there any hope beyond a massive reform caused by devastating ecological disasters? Personally, I am not too worried for myself. I am sure I can live out the rest of my life in relative comfort, but what about a couple generations down the line?
- myshpa 3y agoThe only chance we have is to fix everything at once, as soon as possible. The big rewrite or the really hard crash. The more complex the system you have (and our civilization is pretty complex), the less is enough to take it out of balance, and to cause complete collapse. Those 'devastating ecological disasters' might not give us any time to fix anything then (large scale crop failures, for example). The data shows that the changes in the environment are starting to speed up. The changes will be faster and faster, and nobody knows how fast it will deteriorate. Cascading tipping points make predicting the future extremely hard. I'm also scared for future generations. But I think that those who'll be there when the shit hits the fan were already born. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNYp6oc37ds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNYp6oc37ds ;)
- deepakin 3y agoReads like a UK propaganda piece, doom and gloom until we choke off civilians.
- caesil 3y agoIt's fascinating that it's the left that has stepped into the role of standing athwart history yelling stop. I think it's a matter of refusing to believe that the disease and the cure can be the same. The realization that the industrial revolution was the root cause of climate change creates an aversion to believing that we can solve it scientifically, and a push toward demanding we slam the brakes on industrial society and move in reverse. It's a fundamentally conservative stance. And one that's clearly wrong. The only way out is through. We're only going to solve the problem by accelerating toward a future of clean energy. The old adage that people become more conservative as they age, I think, has a fundamental truth to it, but every generation finds a new and unique way of expressing that conservatism. With degrowth, we're seeing a blossoming of one of these odd paths in real time.
- operatingthetan 3y ago>and a push toward demanding we slam the brakes on industrial society and move in reverse. Where does the article suggest this?
- aCoreyJ 3y agoAs a Reddit refugee my disappointment is immeasurable that people are actually worse (or less quickly buried) at reading the article here
- operatingthetan 3y agoThe comment appears to be a sort of strawman intent on blaming the left without sourcing any thoughts from the article, so was just trying to make sure.
- Ericson2314 3y agoThe article is entirely about reduction of consumption, and the strings like "electri" "invest" "density" do not appear anywhere within it. It is self-flagellating for self-flagellating's sake without understand there actual material basis of modern society. This is extremely common in the environmental movement and for decades has been a massive political failure except for empowering perl-clutching NIMBYs. I would be a lot more sympathetic if consumption reduction was the only way to go. But it is not. Abundant apartments without parking, abundant e-bikes, abundant transit are feasible, get the job done, and way more popular. (People love to romanticize low density, but rents reveal different preferences.)
- anonzzzies 3y agoAs long as people vote right/conservative this is all going to tank. Right will never care about anything but themselves (and thus, money and power). You see it everywhere they are and where in power. Which means we have huge issue as the underbelly votes right and the right vote right. Even another Hn post saying the US needs more/better defence is just priming the public for republican propaganda to get votes and move the spending to ‘real things’ instead of the pesky planet; ‘it’s been here for 6000 years, why worry?’.
- throwaway2990 3y ago[flagged]
- pixelatedindex 3y agoPerhaps not, but at least they aren’t actively working to take rights away. In the world where you have to vote in favor of lesser of two evils, it’s sadly the best option. That is, until they too start taking rights away…
- anonzzzies 3y agoMore than the right/conservative. But yeah it’s a good one: does anyone care? And where does that end? Still would not vote people that are openly and actively against most of humanity.
- operatingthetan 3y agoDoes it matter if they "care about you" if their politics and incentives align? This doesn't seem like a very productive way to spark a conversation.
- lesuorac 3y agoDidn't "The Left" have a super-majority during Obama's initial term and all they could achieve then was a watered-down plan for healthcare? I'll be real, if you want things to get better you gotta get rid of first-past-the-post voting.
- zeroCalories 3y agoI don't think the article addressed one of the most important points: the U.S and EU are only a portion of global emissions. If they're the only ones to seriously contribute to climate change they will essentially be subsidizing the developing world. That's why Trump pulled out of the Paris climate agreement. Should they do it anyway? Maybe, but it seems more likely that the self-interested choice is to give up and focus on making the U.S and EU resilient to climate change. Either way this is fundamentally different from a bank bailout.
- Teever 3y ago> If they're the only ones to seriously contribute to climate change they will essentially be subsidizing the developing world. Or they're finally doing the right thing and fixing the negative externalities of industrialization that they've been passing off to everyone for about a century?
- zeroCalories 3y agoNo one cares to "do the right thing", but that's not even the problem. The developing world is producing their own externalities now. People won't accept that the developing world is allowed to pollute, while the developed world is not.
- staunton 3y agoEven if you were OK morally with "just ignore the problem and let most of humanity die so long we can keep burning oil", it's not an option in the first place. You just don't get to keep burning oil, one way or another. As long as the pollution isn't stopped, environmental conditions will never stop getting worse and do so at an accelerating pace. You cannot "just become resilient and deal with it" indefinitely. People in the US and Europe also need food and water, for which it's great to be able to work outside without dying and also great to not have never ending droughts, floods and hurricanes.
- vorpalhex 3y agoWhat's actually your proposed solution? Nuclear genocide anyone who won't take the same steps as you on climate change? What do you do when China just outright declines to swap all the way to renewables? And when you go down this rabbithole and you go back to pandemic level people-never-traveling and emissions are STILL only down 6%.. what then? Rolling blackouts? No meat ever again? At some point the angry mob will simply correct the situation back to the mean.
- Ericson2314 3y agoArticles like this that obsess over consumption curtailment and ignore everything else are beyond foolish. Please at least mention the Inflation Reduction Act in passing. Also the irony is that the "bank bailout" was a failure too! The 2010s were a lost decade because the politicians were afraid to adequate stimulus, the Europeans are still afraid! So the idea that the politicians are afraid of doing unpopular things is also dis-proven --- avoiding recessions would also be popular. There was a fear of doing anything at all, and now there is less of that. The IRA is very much a political theory that: - Green male jobs in red states will stave off fascism - Green suburbia is necessary because we can't get our shit together on density/transit fast enough. These environmental types need to becomes aware of the massive era-demarking shifts we've seen in policy in politics in recent years. And they better also support way more multi-story housing because giving people cheap apartments without parking spots is far more popular than directly curtailing driving / ICEs. Also do nuclear power but the brits already have some decent plans there.
- bluescrn 3y agoEliminating 'suburbia' is even more distasteful to voters than forcibly taking away meat. While city life can be attractive to young and single people, people don't want to be forced to live in Mega-City One, especially as they grow older and have families.
- failuser 3y agoIf people don’t want to live there why are big cities so damn expensive?
- bluescrn 3y agoJob insecurity encourages people to live where there's a high density of jobs
- Teever 3y agoWhy is your perception of this so black and white? Why can't we have environments that are somewhere between dystopian 'mega-city one' and unsustainable Las Vegas suburbs?
- EgregiousCube 3y agohttps://web.archive.org/web/20230730164330/https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/30/we-bailed-out-the-banks-prepared-planet-state-economy-sustainable https://web.archive.org/web/20230730164330/https://www.thegu...
- tptacek 3y agoIf we managed to enact the most dramatic proposed climate austerity policies in the US and UK, what kind of dent would we be talking about in the global climate change timeline? The developing world will continue to develop, as they should.
- virtualritz 3y ago“We will go down in history as the first society that wouldn’t save itself because it wasn’t cost-effective.” —Kurt Vonnegut
- user_7832 3y ago> It is a similar picture in the UK, where the Conservative party’s surprise victory in the Uxbridge and South Ruislip byelection was in large part due to the plans by London’s Labour mayor, Sadiq Khan, to expand the ultra-low emission zone (Ulez) to the capital’s outer boroughs. > Put simply, the Ulez seeks to improve London’s air quality by placing a charge on the use of older petrol and diesel vehicles, which tend to be not just the most polluting but also the most likely to be owned by poorer households already struggling with Britain’s cost of living crisis. Tangentially but still related, but taxing anything with negative externalities without compensating is absolutely stupid, and regressive - hurting the poor the most. A bachelors economic student will tell you that, and I know it because that was the level that I learnt at. For the mayor('s party) to plan such a thing, that's on them. But, carbon taxes themselves needn't be bad if you also provide say a per capita dividend.
- AuthorizedCust 3y ago> if you also provide say a per capita dividend Or offset by reducing other taxes, like sales tax. This would be more of a tax-shifting strategy.
- user_7832 3y agoI'm not entirely sure I understand you. Are you saying that sales taxes can be reduced to compensate for carbon taxes? If so that may also have side effects as sales tax can be distortionary and may be more difficult to control (as you'd need to change sales taxes whenever you change carbon taxes.) Not saying it's necessarily bad, it'll just be important to take care of side effects to make it a good idea.
- AuthorizedCust 3y agoYes, reduce sales tax enough to offset new revenues from a carbon tax. This may start a philosophical shift from the type of tax to the total revenue needed, which I think would be helpful. That would give increased room for flexibility in the form of taxation, which might give easier paths to address legitimate concerns with tax types.
- K0balt 3y agoThe real problem is that banks, the 0.01%, and megacorporations have effective rights and representation in government, but the people, as in the Spanish word “pueblo” do not. Short of eliminating FPP voting and overhauling campaign finance and government-industry revolving doors, (which we should do but will not because the current issues are a feature, not a bug, for the people in control) we need some kind of a people’s mega-PAC to wield effective power in the government and restore some sense of actual democratic control.
- pmulard 3y agoI keep thinking about what a people’s mega-PAC could look like, but I get stumped every time. The US is designed for corporations to easily be the best way of organizing people together, due to the incentives (make profit). We need to figure out a way to organize people together in different ways, so they can get a seat at the table. The closest I can come up with are unions, but they struggle enough just to exist. Non profits and charities work (they make money), but they are corporation adjacent. Hopefully technology can make this possible. Imagine a people’s PAC, where participants pool $10 a month to fund it.
- panick21_ 3y agoAnd yet it was the broad people in Germany who successfully destroyed nuclear power.
- K0balt 3y agoYeah, governance is a fickle thing. No easy answers afaik.
- woodpanel 3y agoWell he has a point: at least the fallout of the financial crisis was somewhat quantifiable, whereas the fallout of the climate crisis is not because it is wholly dependent on theological exegesis of the fear du jour; if there is one thing solved there’ll be the next thing at hand to continue the program. If there was even a quantum of honesty from the climate fear mongerers they would first and foremost insist on significant tariffs against the polluting nations. But all they insist upon is lowering the living standards, purchasing power and upward mobility of the masses within their countries. Gee, who would have thought that upper class kids could have something against the plebs surpassing them on the social ladder?!
- myshpa 3y ago> But all they insist upon is lowering the living standards https://i.imgur.com/LaEFQmV.png https://i.imgur.com/LaEFQmV.png > if there is one thing solved there’ll be the next thing at hand to continue the program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot_(population) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot_(population) Climate change, resource depletion, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, pollution, overpopulation, soil erosion, and overfishing are all symptoms of ecological overshoot. > who would have thought that upper class kids could have something against the plebs surpassing them on the social ladder :)