3 ms·

What does this even matter? Seriously. Consumers aren't the architects of consumer capitalism. They aren't the ones who decided that economic growth must contin

What does this even matter? Seriously. Consumers aren't the architects of consumer capitalism. They aren't the ones who decided that economic growth must continue forever, in part by the middle class “consumers” who have to spend most of their money on commodities that ideally last so short that they will eventually have to buy the same thing again. Imagine if most people could buy all their appliances and get their needs met within a few years by things that are of good quality (which means more second-hand resale). Imagine if society was built for mass transit instead of (especially in America) urban sprawl, which would mean that far fewer families would need 1–2 cars. (And the US road network was designed top-down: you don't build a car-dependent society based on consumer actions.) But that would be bad for the economy: less money in circulation, less growth. If consumers (as citizens) got mad because “people's home insurance suddenly jumped up 1000%“. Then they would do protests... so what? Protests can change things but it's a very low form of power.

myrmidon 3y ago
This matters because consumers are the ones that vote. Sure, we could tax Co2 right now, but the main problem is that people don't want to sacrifice their vacation travel or pay a premium for non-regional goods/personal travel/energy, just to "save the climate". This applies even more strongly to older voters. If you implemented actually effective Co2 mitigation policies (i.e. policies aiming to reduce Co2/capita/year to under 4 tons within a decade) in pretty much ANY western industrialized democracy, you would get thrown out of office even before your term was over. PS: This is not my position-- I believe that drastic action is very urgently required, but I don't think it is some "corporate interests" or "lobbyism conspiracy" that prevents it-- simply democracy in action.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  > This matters because consumers are the ones that vote. Show me evidence that this matters in the slightest. The policy preferences of 90% of Americans are irrelevant, i.e have no correlation with implemented policy.[1][2] Sure. Let's say that every green-eyed person gets to vote on what everyone has to eat: a pear or an apple. To the naive onlooker it looks like the green-eyed people have the ultimate power. But they neglect to notice that the two choices are filtered down from thousands of options by the brown-eyed people. > PS: This is not my position-- I believe that drastic action is very urgently required, but I don't think it is some "corporate interests" or "lobbyism conspiracy" that prevents it-- simply democracy in action. Of course. It's just a coincidence that implemented policy tracks better with “corporate interests”—dismissive quotation marks or not—than with the policy preferences of citizens. [1] Media discussion: https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-... [2] Paper: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
  - myrmidon 3y ago
    > Show me evidence that this matters in the slightest. Say Biden actually took drastic steps-- complete ICE vehicle ban within 2030, extensive green electricity investments/grid improvements, high taxes on jet fuel, etc. That might get you below 5 tons Co2/capita/year within 2030 or so, which is still insufficient globally... Do you honestly believe Democrats would win the next election after doing something like that?
    - avgcorrection 3y ago
      I asked for evidence that what consumers (I mean citizens) vote for matter in practice. Not rhetorical honestly questions. It's telling that this is all hypotheticals. This particular duopoly is not exactly leading by example on climate change. And if the Biden platform took these supposedly drastic steps then the Democrats might lose badly to the Republicans among the donors which is what actually keeps these parties alive (a party can't pay the bills with votes). So far I have one study about the actual policy outcomes compared to policy preferences. You have a hypothetical.

myrmidon 3y ago

This matters because consumers are the ones that vote. Sure, we could tax Co2 right now, but the main problem is that people don't want to sacrifice their vacation travel or pay a premium for non-regional goods/personal travel/energy, just to "save the climate". This applies even more strongly to older voters. If you implemented actually effective Co2 mitigation policies (i.e. policies aiming to reduce Co2/capita/year to under 4 tons within a decade) in pretty much ANY western industrialized democracy, you would get thrown out of office even before your term was over. PS: This is not my position-- I believe that drastic action is very urgently required, but I don't think it is some "corporate interests" or "lobbyism conspiracy" that prevents it-- simply democracy in action.

avgcorrection 3y ago
> This matters because consumers are the ones that vote. Show me evidence that this matters in the slightest. The policy preferences of 90% of Americans are irrelevant, i.e have no correlation with implemented policy.[1][2] Sure. Let's say that every green-eyed person gets to vote on what everyone has to eat: a pear or an apple. To the naive onlooker it looks like the green-eyed people have the ultimate power. But they neglect to notice that the two choices are filtered down from thousands of options by the brown-eyed people. > PS: This is not my position-- I believe that drastic action is very urgently required, but I don't think it is some "corporate interests" or "lobbyism conspiracy" that prevents it-- simply democracy in action. Of course. It's just a coincidence that implemented policy tracks better with “corporate interests”—dismissive quotation marks or not—than with the policy preferences of citizens. [1] Media discussion: https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-... [2] Paper: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
- myrmidon 3y ago
  > Show me evidence that this matters in the slightest. Say Biden actually took drastic steps-- complete ICE vehicle ban within 2030, extensive green electricity investments/grid improvements, high taxes on jet fuel, etc. That might get you below 5 tons Co2/capita/year within 2030 or so, which is still insufficient globally... Do you honestly believe Democrats would win the next election after doing something like that?
  - avgcorrection 3y ago
    I asked for evidence that what consumers (I mean citizens) vote for matter in practice. Not rhetorical honestly questions. It's telling that this is all hypotheticals. This particular duopoly is not exactly leading by example on climate change. And if the Biden platform took these supposedly drastic steps then the Democrats might lose badly to the Republicans among the donors which is what actually keeps these parties alive (a party can't pay the bills with votes). So far I have one study about the actual policy outcomes compared to policy preferences. You have a hypothetical.