8 ms·

I wonder at what point humans go "enough is enough" and actual change happens. Or maybe it's one of those things that won't go out with a bang. It'll just be a

by dottjt 3y ago

I wonder at what point humans go "enough is enough" and actual change happens. Or maybe it's one of those things that won't go out with a bang. It'll just be a slow whimper, as life degrades and there is no emergency "declared". Ultimately this is a failure of collective action. The mechanism simply isn't there. It certainly isn't democracy.

atleastoptimal 3y ago
Humans have gone "enough is enough", but not the ones with the power to change things, as they're all wealthy/connected enough that neither they or any of their children will suffer negative effects. Imagine telling them they'll have to cut their 4 European vacations a year down to 2.
- wslack 3y ago
  I don't think climate action controls majorities in many countries.
- dottjt 3y ago
  Hence why democracy in it's current form (assuming democracy is the answer) doesn't work.
- caskstrength 3y ago
  > Humans have gone "enough is enough", but not the ones with the power to change things, as they're all wealthy/connected enough that neither they or any of their children will suffer negative effects. Which "humans" exactly? First they elect politicians for feel-good green promises, but then when time comes to actually pay the price of becoming "greener" they lose their shit like "I meant all _other_ people to make sacrifices for green future, not _me_!!!". For good examples see Gilets jaunes or recent German walkback from fossil fuel heating systems ban that was supposed to start from 2024.
cebert 3y ago
I listened to part of the US Republican Debate last night and some of the candidates, such as Vivek wouldn’t even acknowledge that climate change is real. We have a long way to go.
- musha68k 3y ago
  I distinctly recall the shock waves when the Bush administration sidestepped the Kyoto climate agreement [1]. In 2001, US stance on the Kyoto Protocol held sway, and its ratification might have supercharged global climate efforts / green technological advancements. It's ironic that some skeptics label what amounts to broad scientific consensus as being part of a "death cult"; classic projection. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2001/mar/29/globalwarming.usnews https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2001/mar/29/globalwa...
totetsu 3y ago
There is lag built into warming and sea ice reduction. Even if we collectively cried enough tomorrow the penguins might still not make it.
grecy 3y ago
We've become so obsessed with the acquisition of ever more money that it is simply more important than anything else. Until that isn't the driving force in our society, I can't see much changing sadly.
- prawn 3y ago
  Also, fashion (clothing, homewares, home interiors, vehicles, etc) is such a driver of sales that it's hard to neuter. Meaning that people are constantly striving to earn and replace things that are unfashionable but completely usable in a practical sense.
samstave 3y ago
When vanguard and blackrock are drawn and quartered for their defacto-legal-global monopolies... It's absolutely insane the % of global resources are controlled by so few.
- klipt 3y ago
  You know Vanguard manages millions of people's retirement accounts and pensions right? It's not all controlled by a single trillionaire.
  - samstave 3y ago
    Yes I'm very familiar with their holdings, it's super well documented all over the place.. in fact, you'd be ignorant to not know much about them
    - klipt 3y ago
      So why you want people's retirement funds to be "drawn and quartered"? Do you want all retirees to die in poverty, or just the ones who opened a Vanguard IRA account for their retirement savings instead of a Fidelity IRA account?
      - samstave 3y ago
        Why are you only focused on "old peoples retirement" as an aspect of what these companies have controlling % in. Just because these are the biggest funds on earth, does not make them some beautiful steward of your retirement.
        klipt 3y ago
        Vanguard is a co-op that's owned by its funds which in turn are owned by present and future retirees. Instead of investing in individual stocks like Microsoft, Vanguard's index funds make it easy to invest in e.g. an index of all US stocks, which is less volatile. What exactly is it you find so sinister about index funds? And why do you think Vanguard (a co-op) is worse than Fidelity (a publicly traded company which also provides similar retirement index funds)? Is it just because Vanguard's funds are more popular and therefore bigger?
rhaway84773 3y ago
The good thing is that change is happening. There is a lot of improvement and we’ve cut the correlation between growth and emissions. The bad part is that it’s happening way too slow because of a lack of collective action as you suggest. I don’t believe the problem is fundamentally democracy. Democratic countries have taken action in the past famously with CFCs that was probably unthinkable. But clearly Democracy is insufficient. We’ve tried several mechanisms but none of them have worked so far.
- dottjt 3y ago
  You're not serious about this, are you? You realise there's almost a 1:1 correlation between energy use and GDP? We're not fundamentally reducing the amount of energy we're using, and there's nothing to suggest that we can seriously replace oil with other means. Think plastic etc.
  - BaseballPhysics 3y ago
    Did you really cite turning oil into plastic as evidence that we can't move away from fossil fuels for large scale energy production?
    - dottjt 3y ago
      No. I was making 2 separate points, I would re-read the last sentence again.
      - BaseballPhysics 3y ago
        How is that point relevant? The goal is to eliminate CO2 emissions, not eliminate the use of oil generally. For plastics production, that goal could be achieved by migrating extraction, refining, manufacturing, and transport to carbon neutral energy sources. Of course, moving away from non-biodegradable plastics, in general, is also a good idea for a host of other reasons. But given oil is also used in, for example, the production of fertilizer, we're probably gonna need to be able to extract it and use it sustainably for a while yet.
px43 3y ago
The Ministry for the Future is a very cathartic book along these lines. Basically, there is a weather event that causes mass fatalities, and then eco terrorism gets super trendy.
King-Aaron 3y ago
> I wonder at what point humans go "enough is enough" and actual change happens. Probably the last day that we're still around as a species.
nine_k 3y ago
What humans specifically? Well-off Californians or Londoners may say so and switch to an electric car and a powerwall at home. People in rural China, in India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, central Asia, central Africa care much more about putting some food on the table, and about having electricity, and about going around in absence of great public transport infrastructure. So they run thermal power stations, they burn coal, they drive gasoline-powered motorbikes, old Western cars and trucks, because they don't have a serious affordable alternative. They have more salient stuff to care about than penguins. And they are, in total, literally half the world population.
- Gustomaximus 3y ago
  Did you see this talk by Konstantin Krisin https://youtu.be/zJdqJu-6ZPo?si=KG_etuletTl4SKgZ https://youtu.be/zJdqJu-6ZPo?si=KG_etuletTl4SKgZ To your point who will make what sacrifice, as that is what is needed but is it reasonable or realistic to expect this? Seem the best approach is we need some serious tech development and fast. The vast majority of climate impact fits within 1) population, 2) power generation and 3) transportation. No.2 gets a bunch of focus, but 1) and 3) seem far less and sub issues that have little relative impact get far more attention. People drop simple "we must do something" but it's so complex and I feel ultimately few humans want to make either the real sacrifice needed or investment in change so we're stuck in the middle and along for the ride.
- YeBanKo 3y ago
  Personal electric cars is a horrible solution for transportation. We have had electric trains, trolleys, underground for decades. It does not look like Californians are actually going to build anything new like that. India and China most likely will improve their transportation system significantly.
  - nine_k 3y ago
    I live in NYC, don't own a car, and agree. But cars are still needed in many areas, and even in dense cities with excellent public transport. In this role, electric cars are strictly better than gasoline cars, because they can be powered by solar or hydro or wind or nuclear energy right now. Also, I know a number of people who despise dense cities and want suburbia or countryside. Again, if they could fuel their cars from solar panels on their roofs (or shopping center roofs, parking lot roofs, etc), it would be strictly better than burning more oil.
throwawaysleep 3y ago
Mechanism is capitalism, as long as government doesn’t press too hard on the scales against clean energy. Displace oil with something better and you can win. Unfortunately people become climate activists instead of engineers. Demand someone else fix things.
juanani 3y ago
[dead]
MajimasEyepatch 3y ago
What would you consider "actual change"? Just last year, the US passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which is by far the largest investment in addressing climate change in US history. I'm sure there's a million other things that could and should be done, but it's not like people are just completely ignoring the issue. This is a problem centuries in the making; it will not be cleaned up overnight.
- jfengel 3y ago
  I suppose part of what would count as "actual change" would be the reliance that the Inflation Reduction Act won't be revoked almost immediately in 2025. It's not the people ignoring the issue. It's the people actively working against a solution.
tbrownaw 3y ago
> I wonder at what point humans go "enough is enough" and actual change happens. I imagine folks might get going if they ever manage to set a river on fire?
- marcus0x62 3y ago
  https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/is-the-cuyahoga-river-the-only-river-to-ever-catch-on-fire.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/is-the-cuyahoga-river-th...

by dottjt 3y ago

atleastoptimal 3y ago

Humans have gone "enough is enough", but not the ones with the power to change things, as they're all wealthy/connected enough that neither they or any of their children will suffer negative effects. Imagine telling them they'll have to cut their 4 European vacations a year down to 2.

wslack 3y ago
I don't think climate action controls majorities in many countries.
dottjt 3y ago
Hence why democracy in it's current form (assuming democracy is the answer) doesn't work.
caskstrength 3y ago
> Humans have gone "enough is enough", but not the ones with the power to change things, as they're all wealthy/connected enough that neither they or any of their children will suffer negative effects. Which "humans" exactly? First they elect politicians for feel-good green promises, but then when time comes to actually pay the price of becoming "greener" they lose their shit like "I meant all _other_ people to make sacrifices for green future, not _me_!!!". For good examples see Gilets jaunes or recent German walkback from fossil fuel heating systems ban that was supposed to start from 2024.

cebert 3y ago

I listened to part of the US Republican Debate last night and some of the candidates, such as Vivek wouldn’t even acknowledge that climate change is real. We have a long way to go.

musha68k 3y ago
I distinctly recall the shock waves when the Bush administration sidestepped the Kyoto climate agreement [1]. In 2001, US stance on the Kyoto Protocol held sway, and its ratification might have supercharged global climate efforts / green technological advancements. It's ironic that some skeptics label what amounts to broad scientific consensus as being part of a "death cult"; classic projection. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2001/mar/29/globalwarming.usnews https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2001/mar/29/globalwa...

totetsu 3y ago

There is lag built into warming and sea ice reduction. Even if we collectively cried enough tomorrow the penguins might still not make it.

grecy 3y ago

We've become so obsessed with the acquisition of ever more money that it is simply more important than anything else. Until that isn't the driving force in our society, I can't see much changing sadly.

prawn 3y ago
Also, fashion (clothing, homewares, home interiors, vehicles, etc) is such a driver of sales that it's hard to neuter. Meaning that people are constantly striving to earn and replace things that are unfashionable but completely usable in a practical sense.

samstave 3y ago

When vanguard and blackrock are drawn and quartered for their defacto-legal-global monopolies... It's absolutely insane the % of global resources are controlled by so few.

klipt 3y ago
You know Vanguard manages millions of people's retirement accounts and pensions right? It's not all controlled by a single trillionaire.
- samstave 3y ago
  Yes I'm very familiar with their holdings, it's super well documented all over the place.. in fact, you'd be ignorant to not know much about them
  - klipt 3y ago
    So why you want people's retirement funds to be "drawn and quartered"? Do you want all retirees to die in poverty, or just the ones who opened a Vanguard IRA account for their retirement savings instead of a Fidelity IRA account?
    - samstave 3y ago
      Why are you only focused on "old peoples retirement" as an aspect of what these companies have controlling % in. Just because these are the biggest funds on earth, does not make them some beautiful steward of your retirement.
      - klipt 3y ago
        Vanguard is a co-op that's owned by its funds which in turn are owned by present and future retirees. Instead of investing in individual stocks like Microsoft, Vanguard's index funds make it easy to invest in e.g. an index of all US stocks, which is less volatile. What exactly is it you find so sinister about index funds? And why do you think Vanguard (a co-op) is worse than Fidelity (a publicly traded company which also provides similar retirement index funds)? Is it just because Vanguard's funds are more popular and therefore bigger?

rhaway84773 3y ago

The good thing is that change is happening. There is a lot of improvement and we’ve cut the correlation between growth and emissions. The bad part is that it’s happening way too slow because of a lack of collective action as you suggest. I don’t believe the problem is fundamentally democracy. Democratic countries have taken action in the past famously with CFCs that was probably unthinkable. But clearly Democracy is insufficient. We’ve tried several mechanisms but none of them have worked so far.

dottjt 3y ago
You're not serious about this, are you? You realise there's almost a 1:1 correlation between energy use and GDP? We're not fundamentally reducing the amount of energy we're using, and there's nothing to suggest that we can seriously replace oil with other means. Think plastic etc.
- BaseballPhysics 3y ago
  Did you really cite turning oil into plastic as evidence that we can't move away from fossil fuels for large scale energy production?
  - dottjt 3y ago
    No. I was making 2 separate points, I would re-read the last sentence again.
    - BaseballPhysics 3y ago
      How is that point relevant? The goal is to eliminate CO2 emissions, not eliminate the use of oil generally. For plastics production, that goal could be achieved by migrating extraction, refining, manufacturing, and transport to carbon neutral energy sources. Of course, moving away from non-biodegradable plastics, in general, is also a good idea for a host of other reasons. But given oil is also used in, for example, the production of fertilizer, we're probably gonna need to be able to extract it and use it sustainably for a while yet.

px43 3y ago

The Ministry for the Future is a very cathartic book along these lines. Basically, there is a weather event that causes mass fatalities, and then eco terrorism gets super trendy.

King-Aaron 3y ago

> I wonder at what point humans go "enough is enough" and actual change happens. Probably the last day that we're still around as a species.

nine_k 3y ago

What humans specifically? Well-off Californians or Londoners may say so and switch to an electric car and a powerwall at home. People in rural China, in India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, central Asia, central Africa care much more about putting some food on the table, and about having electricity, and about going around in absence of great public transport infrastructure. So they run thermal power stations, they burn coal, they drive gasoline-powered motorbikes, old Western cars and trucks, because they don't have a serious affordable alternative. They have more salient stuff to care about than penguins. And they are, in total, literally half the world population.

Gustomaximus 3y ago
Did you see this talk by Konstantin Krisin https://youtu.be/zJdqJu-6ZPo?si=KG_etuletTl4SKgZ https://youtu.be/zJdqJu-6ZPo?si=KG_etuletTl4SKgZ To your point who will make what sacrifice, as that is what is needed but is it reasonable or realistic to expect this? Seem the best approach is we need some serious tech development and fast. The vast majority of climate impact fits within 1) population, 2) power generation and 3) transportation. No.2 gets a bunch of focus, but 1) and 3) seem far less and sub issues that have little relative impact get far more attention. People drop simple "we must do something" but it's so complex and I feel ultimately few humans want to make either the real sacrifice needed or investment in change so we're stuck in the middle and along for the ride.
YeBanKo 3y ago
Personal electric cars is a horrible solution for transportation. We have had electric trains, trolleys, underground for decades. It does not look like Californians are actually going to build anything new like that. India and China most likely will improve their transportation system significantly.
- nine_k 3y ago
  I live in NYC, don't own a car, and agree. But cars are still needed in many areas, and even in dense cities with excellent public transport. In this role, electric cars are strictly better than gasoline cars, because they can be powered by solar or hydro or wind or nuclear energy right now. Also, I know a number of people who despise dense cities and want suburbia or countryside. Again, if they could fuel their cars from solar panels on their roofs (or shopping center roofs, parking lot roofs, etc), it would be strictly better than burning more oil.

throwawaysleep 3y ago

Mechanism is capitalism, as long as government doesn’t press too hard on the scales against clean energy. Displace oil with something better and you can win. Unfortunately people become climate activists instead of engineers. Demand someone else fix things.

juanani 3y ago

[dead]

MajimasEyepatch 3y ago

What would you consider "actual change"? Just last year, the US passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which is by far the largest investment in addressing climate change in US history. I'm sure there's a million other things that could and should be done, but it's not like people are just completely ignoring the issue. This is a problem centuries in the making; it will not be cleaned up overnight.

jfengel 3y ago
I suppose part of what would count as "actual change" would be the reliance that the Inflation Reduction Act won't be revoked almost immediately in 2025. It's not the people ignoring the issue. It's the people actively working against a solution.

tbrownaw 3y ago

> I wonder at what point humans go "enough is enough" and actual change happens. I imagine folks might get going if they ever manage to set a river on fire?

marcus0x62 3y ago
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/is-the-cuyahoga-river-the-only-river-to-ever-catch-on-fire.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/is-the-cuyahoga-river-th...