13 ms·

There is just no democratic support for fixing global warming since it's too expensive. See the riots in France when they tried to tax gas more heavily. I like

There is just no democratic support for fixing global warming since it's too expensive. See the riots in France when they tried to tax gas more heavily. I like Bill Gate's book on the topic. We need technological progress in several areas -> lower the premium on solving climate change -> enable political solutions. (Don't get me wrong, I wish a political solution was possible. Climate change is a major threat. But in a democracy leaders can't do deeply unpopular things. Lots of people want to fix climate change. The challenge is it currently requires increasing the price of construction, electricity, food, and gas)

JoshGG 3y ago
Just watch how expensive not fixing it will be.
- erikpukinskis 3y ago
  How is that relevant? The voting public will typically delay expensive cost-saving measures. Because the majority of individuals will do the same. Also forced public expenditures are a huge money making opportunity for the capital class, so they will tend to encourage delay as well.
- quonn 3y ago
  We know that, but it doesn't change a thing. Your or my opinion has little influence. Therefore baby steps should be taken which will reduce that cost.
  - hayd 3y ago
    Why baby steps vs radical technological innovation? We waste our time with virtual signalling nonsense, that hurt the least affluent here, whilst China/India/Africa are going to be outputting vastly more CO2 to make any of our efforts net-irrelevant to climate change. We need to fix it for the world. That'll require big-impact innovation.
- 12345hn6789 3y ago
  Expensive for folks in the future* That is what is running through people's heads. And apparently they are not a part of this future either.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- echelon 3y ago
  If you tell people they have to stop all travel and electricity use and plastics purchases, they won't do a thing. There are no levers to pull besides technological ones.
  - poulsbohemian 3y ago
    The plastics one needs to be done through legislation and collaboration with industry… there are so many products where consumers don’t have a choice - the manufacturers need to take the responsibility for eliminating single-use packaging that doesn’t biodegrade or recycle. Yes it may be painful, but there’s no other way to do it
- cmdli 3y ago
  I feel like this take is dismissive and unhelpful. Expecting people to sacrifice their current wellbeing for the sake of a nebulous, far off reckoning is simply unrealistic and a bit of a dead end in terms of climate progress. We would be better served finding lower impact solutions that are more easily adopted than high impact ones that are never going to be accepted.
  - kccqzy 3y ago
    We aren't exactly asking people to sacrifice their wellbeing and convenience completely. That's why for example we aren't asking the population to ditch their cars and switch to trains and bikes, but we are offering them electric cars, which are exactly the kind of lower impact solutions you are speaking of.
    - methodical 3y ago
      An electric car isn't really a lower impact solution for a large amount of the US population. From what I'm able to find, the lowest priced EV (Chevy Bolt) starts around $27k currently[0], whereas the cheapest gas car (Nissan Versa) starts at $17k[1]. This is without even accounting for the larger difference in the used car market, cost of installing a level 2 EV charger (which is another $1k-$2.5k[2], which is necessary for anybody who does any significant amount of traveling in a single day), or the 25% higher insurance premiums for EVs[3]. All said the difference between the two options is a pretty significant difference for most of the population who are already struggling because of the significant inflation rates experienced in recent years[4]. [0] https://www.chevrolet.com/electric/bolt-ev https://www.chevrolet.com/electric/bolt-ev [1] https://www.nissanusa.com/vehicles/cars/versa-sedan.html https://www.nissanusa.com/vehicles/cars/versa-sedan.html [2] https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/how-much-does-it-cost-to-install-an-ev-charger https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/how-much-does-i... [3] https://www.valuepenguin.com/how-having-electric-car-affects-your-auto-insurance-rates#electric https://www.valuepenguin.com/how-having-electric-car-affects... [4] https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/ https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-infl...
    - kagakuninja 3y ago
- irrational 3y ago
  Those in power are counting on the cost having to be paid by future generations. I assume they either don't have children/grand-children, don't like their children/grand-children, or are so narcissistic that it never occurs to them to think about their children/grand-children.
  - nullindividual 3y ago
    Their children will have enough money to carve out their own missile silo. The poors need not apply.
- paganel 3y ago
  As expensive as “not staying in our homes for two weeks turned out to be”. Mind you, I was in the camp demanding just that at the beginning of the pandemic. Which is to say that the technocratic powers that be should tone it down a little when it comes to imposing their top-down decisions, after all they’re just a minority compared to us, the common people, we (the common people) can always bring to power some of our leaders in order to fight (ideologically and not only) said technocrats.
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  the reality is that the costs will mostly be borne by future generations. the cost we need to confront climate change is likely larger than the cost in this generation if we let it rip.
  - bcrosby95 3y ago
    How do you define "future generations" anyways? People that aren't born yet? Because that sounds way more optimistic than I am.
    - whimsicalism 3y ago
      If the notion of future generations sounds way too optimistic, you are likely far too pessimistic (if this is about climate change). There is no realistic scenario for lack of future gens due to climate change in the next 100 years even with absolutely terrible undiscovered positive feedbacks.
      - bcrosby95 3y ago
        I'm not saying there won't be future generations. This is what I was replying to: > the cost we need to confront climate change is likely larger than the cost in this generation if we let it rip. I'm saying the cost to confront it will be less than the cost to "let it rip" before some current generations die off from old age.
        whimsicalism 3y ago
        I think that you are wrong, I am well versed in climate science. The costs to avert now are significant, even more significant than the changes needed for sea level adaptation in our lifetime. Most of the costs will be borne out by subsequent generations.
- collyw 3y ago
  Prove that it actually a problem. In the 70's it was global cooling and a new ice age that we were to live on fear of. Do we really expect the climate to remain stable? Something that has never actually happened? That was all your fault as well. "The Climate Change Saga unfolds as we visit 1978 and Leonard Nimoy explains how the human population is causing The Earth to Freeze". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-ZDnSbNIYs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-ZDnSbNIYs
  - acuozzo 3y ago
    What's your plan for when the boy cries "Wolf!" and he's actually there?
    - collyw 3y ago
      Check that it is actually there. I have heard doom monger predictions for over 3 decades and none of them have come true to date. I live by the sea and the level hasn't risen by any perceivable amount. 30 years ago I was told that major cities would be underwater by now.
      - acuozzo 3y ago
        Sure, but isn't the argument that the current situation is akin to a frog in a pot? There's no hard threshold under this line of thinking and, I imagine, if something terrible were to happen to a vulnerable population abroad, then the west would react in a way which would enable its population to treat the issue as if it were "far away". Rising authoritarianism would just seem like something related to politics in this hypothetical future. From there, any attempts at top-down mitigation would just seem like "bad guys with power doing things bad guys do".
Throw73747 3y ago
Perhaps we should have a referendum, so people can show their support in a democratic way... Nobody is stopping people doing unpopular things to solve climate change. You just have no right to coerce others into that!
advael 3y ago
It'd be great to see how democratic support might be different were it not for the concerted, expensive effort to deny and downplay the problem by multiple enormous industries that have repeatedly captured governmental institutions in this effort, as well as changing public perception considerably Concentration of power underlies a staggering amount of the problems of the current age, and if our species is to survive, insane propositions like "limited liability" need to die
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  I was initially partial to this explanation, but I no longer think that ‘in the absence of interference’ people would vote for the price increases needed.
  - kccqzy 3y ago
    People would vote for these price increases once they see that the increases are paltry compared to the opportunity cost, or to the externalities.
    - fnimick 3y ago
      I disagree. Lots of people are perfectly happy to ignore externalities that happen to others. Just try to get a bike lane put in and you'll see it for yourself. Or as a lovely neighbor put it: "if you die, why is that my problem?"
      - kccqzy 3y ago
        I agree. However the key point in climate change messaging is informing people that this affects themselves, their kids, and their grandkids.
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        Which is often a lie, or at least situational simplification . The costs of climat change and mitigation are not evenly distributed.
hotpotamus 3y ago
I've heard the talking point regarding innovation for awhile now. To me it sounds a bit like an alcoholic with a failing liver hoping that medicine will come up with some miracle cure so they can keep drinking as much as they want.
- tschellenbach 3y ago
  I think it's the opposite. The push for politics to do something is having an impact, we are making progress in lowering emissions. But it's not enough, and there are constraints on democratically elected leaders. Eventually, public sentiment will change, but not soon enough.
ericd 3y ago
We don’t need to wait for technical solutions to make things cheaper. We need a revenue neutral carbon tax with dividend. For most people, especially the poor, they’d come out ahead, and it would allow the market price signals to gently steer everyone toward a lower carbon life.
- lfuller 3y ago
  That was tried in Ontario (cap and trade), but there was enough misinformation going around that the general populace thought it was just a standard tax on individuals.
  - ericd 3y ago
    Did the people there start getting money every month into their bank account (the “dividend” part)? If not, I imagine that that would’ve cleared that misinformation up rather quickly.
  - nullindividual 3y ago
    Washington State does cap and trade on industry. And yes, it has just become a 'standard tax' on individuals passed from industry to the pump to the tune of 40-50 cents/gal. While I agree that it is important to reduce consumption of fossil fuels, the infrastructure isn't there to enable people to commute from lower-cost areas of living to higher-cost areas of working. This will likely be repealed by voters via initiative[0] this fall. [0] https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/initiative-2117-to-repeal-wa-climate-act-takes-key-step-toward-ballot/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/initia... More fun reading on our defacto gas tax: https://www.king5.com/article/news/investigations/former-wsdot-economist-accuses-state-retaliation-for-refusing-lie-gas-prices/281-09151707-2976-48e2-bdd5-c65e36a52aac https://www.king5.com/article/news/investigations/former-wsd...
- tschellenbach 3y ago
  How do you get people to vote for this given that it will increase prices/lower their standard of living today?
hedora 3y ago
There's strong popular support to fix climate change. We know this from polls. We also know that there are well-organized foreign propaganda teams attacking democracies around the world. The fact that some ill-informed right-wing radicals in France rioted doesn't mean there is no popular support for having a habitable planet in twenty years.
- fnimick 3y ago
  And yet every single proposed policy to fix climate change is deeply unpopular. People support "fixing climate change", but when they are asked to deal with a rising gas tax, or traveling less, etc, suddenly climate change isn't worth fixing.
- graemep 3y ago
  There is strong democratic support so long as someone else pays for it. > The fact that some ill-informed right-wing radicals in France rioted doesn't mean there is no popular support for having a habitable planet in twenty years. and alarmism does not help the cause.
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  You cannot poll on things without tradeoffs if you want a real answer. Most Americans have been polled as unwilling to pay $10/mo more in electrical bills if it meant that climate change were completely averted. I think comments about 20 years uninhabitibility are unproductive as most people see it for the lie that it is.
- t0bia_s 3y ago
  What car do you have?
tw04 3y ago
It isn’t a political problem, it’s a messaging problem. The fact we allow a large group of folks to outright lie about the problem on public airwaves results in the “division”. I’m all for freedom of speech, but when public figures are knowingly telling lies, whoever is broadcasting it should be FORCED to follow it up with the facts of the situation. In other words, at least in the US, the fairness doctrine needs to be re-instated. The number of things this country has killed off “because it worked so well we don’t need it any more” is mind numbing.
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  Many of the countries we are discussing have much less significant influence of money on media and still - raising prices is very unpopular. The left needs to come to terms with the fact that sometimes the things they are proposing are unpopular independent of some “dark money influence scheme.”
  - Timon3 3y ago
    > Many of the countries we are discussing have much less significant influence of money on media In absolute terms you are correct, but in relative? Is there really a country where the media isn't strongly influenced by the rich and powerful of said country and the world?
    - whimsicalism 3y ago
      This is a theory of the world that seems pretty non-falsifiable. "The real, uninfluenced people agree with my policy priorities and the only reason they don't is due to money at play." Any example of people disagreeing just proves that there is monetary influence that we haven't yet identified. But I actually think it is somewhat falsifiable. Most people, when polled, are in favor of solving climate change - especially in nordic countries. But when you poll people with imposed costs, ie. $10/mo extra to completely solve climate change - the vast majority are opposed. [0] This seems like people organically responding negatively to costs, not being brainwashed by media - otherwise they wouldn't support solving it in the first place. [0]: https://www.cato.org/blog/68-americans-wouldnt-pay-10-month-higher-electric-bills-combat-climate-change https://www.cato.org/blog/68-americans-wouldnt-pay-10-month-...
matthewdgreen 3y ago
The good news: the renewables explosion is going to make a big difference. Thanks to the plummeting cost (and rapid deployment, particularly in China) of solar and wind, we are almost certainly going to see better emissions pathways than the bad ones we're currently projecting. None of this happened by accident: it was engineered. The bad news is that we seem to be much closer to some really bad climate outcomes than scientists realized. Sensitivity may be higher, warming seems to be further advanced than we thought, and there are many scary tipping points that we could easily trigger. My guess is that we're going to need some sort of (relatively near-term) geoengineering solution to keep things from spiraling, which means we really have no room left for climate denial. (And to be clear, this isn't going to be an alternative to decarbonizing, it's going to be in addition.)
- lagt_t 3y ago
  The lithium bubble burst is an indicator that the renewables push is losing strength. The pandemic and later the yemen-gaza-ukraine combo shifted priorities. Meanwhile Europe is no longer inching but running towards an ecological disaster with the ever increasing drought-deluge cycles.
  - matthewdgreen 3y ago
    I don't think so. Right now the renewables push is 90% about China: they're the biggest global emitter and also (previously) had the biggest rate of emissions growth. They're now expected to plateau this year and enter a structural decline. And China is still deploying renewables at an unbelievable rate [1] as of last month. [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-wind-solar-capacity-overtake-coal-2024-industry-body-2024-01-30/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-wind-solar-ca...
    - lagt_t 3y ago
      We are lucky that the real estate bubble finally burst in China, that was one of the key drivers of pollution there.
- 3y ago
atoav 3y ago
> There is just no democratic support for fixing global warming since it's too expensive. There is no democratic support for fixing global warming in a capitalist system geared towards extracting value. If you ask people if they think global warming should be tackled in principle you will find many in support. The problem is that most people know that the way in which a fix for global warming would be implemented today would result in them bearing the costs while some shareholders somewhere get just a little richer. If we want to stop humanity from extinction we have to step off the gas pedal and disincentivize those who keep wanting to step on it.
hnthrowaway0328 3y ago
It is understandable if the riches and powerful people are flying around the world in private jets. Maybe they don't generate the most as a whole but a lot as individuals. It is very difficult to convince anyone to lower their standards of life (eating other food / shower less / drive a smaller car) which will make a big impact while the riches just do lip services. I don't see a future for that. Humans only turn around when they hit a wall multiple times -- we are not the exceptions.
- ejb999 3y ago
  not a popular opinion, but I agree completely - if you are trying to sell a message of sacrifice to the common person, being preached to, by people who own and travel in private jets , while they return to one of their many 20 bedroom mansions located just feet above the sea that is supposed to have a devastating rise any day now - it is very, very easy to see why people just shrug it all off as scare tactics when they are asked to give up their tiny little gas lawn mover or gas stove. May not be fair, and may not be scientific - but the message delivery matters - ignore it at your own peril.
Clubber 3y ago
>There is just no democratic support for fixing global warming since it's too expensive. There's plenty of support, the US has lowered its carbon emissions quite a bit. There's one big problem though: what do we do about China and India? Are you prepared to get drafted and go to war to get China to stop burning coal?
- exitb 3y ago
  Which country should go convince China, the one that has twice the CO2 emissions per capita?
  - Clubber 3y ago
    If 3 people are releasing chlorine gas in a large room and only one of them slows down, it doesn't make a huge difference what the per capita emissions rate is, does it?
- davis 3y ago
  2023 made it very clear that China knows the stakes and also sees an opportunity with owning the clean tech future. They built more renewable energy just last year than has been installed in all of the United States in its history. BYD just passed Tesla as the biggest producer of EVs. The opportunity is there and with China's faltering economy that was propped up by housing, I expect Xi to do all he can to be the provider of the world with renewables.
  - Clubber 3y ago
    >2023 made it very clear that China knows the stakes What happened in 2023? https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/carbon-co2-emissions https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/carbon-co2-e...
    - davis 3y ago
      You have to burn carbon to build renewable energy components if you don't have enough energy from existing solar + wind; I don't know what you expect. But now they have ~500GW of energy to build next year's >>500GW [1]. It's an investment and every year it pays off. China's emissions peak wasn't supposed to happen this decade but that has been revised [2] 1: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-solar-capacity-expected-hit-1000-gw-by-2026-rystad-energy-2023-09-12/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-solar-capacity-ex... 2: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-carbon-emissions-set-peak-before-2030-expert-poll-2023-11-21/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-carbon-emissions-...
mytailorisrich 3y ago
What happened in France was not just "because they tried to tax gas more heavily". What the government did was textbook "let them eat cake". They suddenly decided to significantly increase taxes on diesel "for the environment" when people, especially trades people and people outside big cities, had no choice. Therefore, predictably, the people rebelled. As long as governments refuse to understand that, we won't get anywhere, indeed.
- mr_toad 3y ago
  As long as people refuse to understand that reducing carbon emissions will mean substantial reductions in their standard of living then we wont get anywhere either.
  - mytailorisrich 3y ago
    Are you volunteering to lose your livelihood?
davis 3y ago
You haven't been following the recent developments in renewable energy and the deployment of clean tech then. We don't need new technological advancements. We just need to continue to produce more solar, batteries, wind and keeping existing nuclear plants afloat. We have all we need. It is just a matter of upgrading the grid and building enough to transition.
arrowsmith 3y ago
> in a democracy leaders can't do deeply unpopular things. Oh, you sweet summer child.
Levitz 3y ago
>There is just no democratic support for fixing global warming since it's too expensive. See the riots in France when they tried to tax gas more heavily. It's not that simple. Gas is used primarily to work. People can't afford to live close to their jobs, so they pay money and take their time to get to their work, making them pay even more for gas with the absolute shitfest the housing market is means kicking someone while they are down. Not to mention, if anyone is actually serious about reducing carbon emissions from commute? Penalize every single work that can be done remotely if it's not done so. It's an evident solution and there are A LOT of office workers, but some people don't like that idea, so instead of that poor people get screwed. Again. The idea that it's about democratic support itself is something corporations have lobbied for, it's really not, the most evident example was covid, where consumption dropped like a rock, what was the first thing any government did to bounce back? Promote consumerism as much as possible, essentially throwing money at people. Our economic system is not equipped to deal with climate change, it's that simple. Not only are we on a train with no brakes, we are in that train, rocky terrain made us slow down and we shoved as much coal into the engine as possible to get back to speed because we can't have it any other way. For Christ's sake, democratic support is the only reason there is any consideration for the environment at all. No corporation would ever give one single solitary shit about climate if it wasn't for "democratic support".
- fransje26 3y ago
  > For Christ's sake, democratic support is the only reason there is any consideration for the environment at all. No corporation would ever give one single solitary shit about climate if it wasn't for "democratic support". Let's give this little gem the highlight it deserves.
freetime2 3y ago
I’ve always thought a carbon tax where the revenue is distributed directly to citizens in the form of a monthly check or bank deposit could be popular, or at least accepted by the public. Especially if it starts small and then ramps up over time.
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  Yes, I wish more things were paired like that. Another one: land/property tax increases paired with income tax decreases.
brightball 3y ago
There are a lot of factors at work here at the same time. It's far off (or perceived that way) and people naturally seek relief of immediate pain. It's human nature. You tell somebody that they'll save $X over the next 10 years by spending a fraction of it now, most won't bother. On the other hand, if you're currently spending $X on something and you need to invest in something to get that cost down, they'll do it almost immediately. Because it's far off, there's not a sense of urgency to it. Additionally, there are some fairly strong factors that call a lot of climate change activism into question, like wide spread opposition to nuclear power by many of the same activists. Examples like Germany shuttering nuclear facilities only to turn around and turn to coal power certainly doesn't help. Other factors such as the need for change across the entire world complicate matters when numerous businesses will just send their pollution to countries that don't impose the same requirements. Separating hyperbole from practical application in pursuit of pre-existing goals is another huge factor. We've heard about methane emissions from cattle ranches for years. It seems like we have a great solution for this by adding an ingredient to the feed: https://www.dcceew.gov.au/climate-change/publications/from-beaches-to-burps-native-australian-seaweed-key-to-reducing-methane-emissions-from-cows https://www.dcceew.gov.au/climate-change/publications/from-b... But rather than pursuing this, activists are more interested in continuing to attack the industry and pushing vegan diets when a potential solution seems readily available. Factor that in with alarmism over temperature increases as if every potential increase is man made while other factors are ignored by most outlets... https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3204/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3204/tonga-eruption-blasted-un... https://eos.org/articles/tonga-eruption-may-temporarily-push-earth-closer-to-1-5c-of-warming https://eos.org/articles/tonga-eruption-may-temporarily-push... There's just a great deal of inconsistency and alarmism that undermines credibility when ignored.
collyw 3y ago
Why does it need to be fixed? What's wrong with it getting a little warmer?
aniftythrifrty 3y ago
All that is required to solve climate change is the elimination of the Military Industrial Complex, the largest polluter on earth by far and the most useless thing on earth by far.
- nojvek 3y ago
  Got any sources on that? I'd like to learn more.
marbartolome 3y ago
> I like Bill Gate's book on the topic. So what's the book?
tim333 3y ago
I think if the deal presented to voters was warming is a big problem because of evidence... If you vote to spend an extra 3k a year we can fix it then people would maybe be ok. The current deal we have in the UK say is we'll do stuff that costs thousands, is not very effective, will reduce CO2 output far less than the amount Russia, China and India will raise theirs. You will suffer while CO2 output keeps going up as always. Which is sort of a hard sell. I mean we are doing that in the UK with hardship and no global results. Not sure it's the answer. Personally I'd favour a global solution like a carbon tax and counties that don't play ball can have their trade sanctioned. Also money into research into solar etc which I think is the real answer.

JoshGG 3y ago

Just watch how expensive not fixing it will be.

erikpukinskis 3y ago
How is that relevant? The voting public will typically delay expensive cost-saving measures. Because the majority of individuals will do the same. Also forced public expenditures are a huge money making opportunity for the capital class, so they will tend to encourage delay as well.
quonn 3y ago
We know that, but it doesn't change a thing. Your or my opinion has little influence. Therefore baby steps should be taken which will reduce that cost.
- hayd 3y ago
  Why baby steps vs radical technological innovation? We waste our time with virtual signalling nonsense, that hurt the least affluent here, whilst China/India/Africa are going to be outputting vastly more CO2 to make any of our efforts net-irrelevant to climate change. We need to fix it for the world. That'll require big-impact innovation.
12345hn6789 3y ago
Expensive for folks in the future* That is what is running through people's heads. And apparently they are not a part of this future either.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
echelon 3y ago
If you tell people they have to stop all travel and electricity use and plastics purchases, they won't do a thing. There are no levers to pull besides technological ones.
- poulsbohemian 3y ago
  The plastics one needs to be done through legislation and collaboration with industry… there are so many products where consumers don’t have a choice - the manufacturers need to take the responsibility for eliminating single-use packaging that doesn’t biodegrade or recycle. Yes it may be painful, but there’s no other way to do it
cmdli 3y ago
I feel like this take is dismissive and unhelpful. Expecting people to sacrifice their current wellbeing for the sake of a nebulous, far off reckoning is simply unrealistic and a bit of a dead end in terms of climate progress. We would be better served finding lower impact solutions that are more easily adopted than high impact ones that are never going to be accepted.
- kccqzy 3y ago
  We aren't exactly asking people to sacrifice their wellbeing and convenience completely. That's why for example we aren't asking the population to ditch their cars and switch to trains and bikes, but we are offering them electric cars, which are exactly the kind of lower impact solutions you are speaking of.
  - methodical 3y ago
    An electric car isn't really a lower impact solution for a large amount of the US population. From what I'm able to find, the lowest priced EV (Chevy Bolt) starts around $27k currently[0], whereas the cheapest gas car (Nissan Versa) starts at $17k[1]. This is without even accounting for the larger difference in the used car market, cost of installing a level 2 EV charger (which is another $1k-$2.5k[2], which is necessary for anybody who does any significant amount of traveling in a single day), or the 25% higher insurance premiums for EVs[3]. All said the difference between the two options is a pretty significant difference for most of the population who are already struggling because of the significant inflation rates experienced in recent years[4]. [0] https://www.chevrolet.com/electric/bolt-ev https://www.chevrolet.com/electric/bolt-ev [1] https://www.nissanusa.com/vehicles/cars/versa-sedan.html https://www.nissanusa.com/vehicles/cars/versa-sedan.html [2] https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/how-much-does-it-cost-to-install-an-ev-charger https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/how-much-does-i... [3] https://www.valuepenguin.com/how-having-electric-car-affects-your-auto-insurance-rates#electric https://www.valuepenguin.com/how-having-electric-car-affects... [4] https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/ https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-infl...
  - kagakuninja 3y ago
irrational 3y ago
Those in power are counting on the cost having to be paid by future generations. I assume they either don't have children/grand-children, don't like their children/grand-children, or are so narcissistic that it never occurs to them to think about their children/grand-children.
- nullindividual 3y ago
  Their children will have enough money to carve out their own missile silo. The poors need not apply.
paganel 3y ago
As expensive as “not staying in our homes for two weeks turned out to be”. Mind you, I was in the camp demanding just that at the beginning of the pandemic. Which is to say that the technocratic powers that be should tone it down a little when it comes to imposing their top-down decisions, after all they’re just a minority compared to us, the common people, we (the common people) can always bring to power some of our leaders in order to fight (ideologically and not only) said technocrats.
whimsicalism 3y ago
the reality is that the costs will mostly be borne by future generations. the cost we need to confront climate change is likely larger than the cost in this generation if we let it rip.
- bcrosby95 3y ago
  How do you define "future generations" anyways? People that aren't born yet? Because that sounds way more optimistic than I am.
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    If the notion of future generations sounds way too optimistic, you are likely far too pessimistic (if this is about climate change). There is no realistic scenario for lack of future gens due to climate change in the next 100 years even with absolutely terrible undiscovered positive feedbacks.
    - bcrosby95 3y ago
      I'm not saying there won't be future generations. This is what I was replying to: > the cost we need to confront climate change is likely larger than the cost in this generation if we let it rip. I'm saying the cost to confront it will be less than the cost to "let it rip" before some current generations die off from old age.
      - whimsicalism 3y ago
        I think that you are wrong, I am well versed in climate science. The costs to avert now are significant, even more significant than the changes needed for sea level adaptation in our lifetime. Most of the costs will be borne out by subsequent generations.
collyw 3y ago
Prove that it actually a problem. In the 70's it was global cooling and a new ice age that we were to live on fear of. Do we really expect the climate to remain stable? Something that has never actually happened? That was all your fault as well. "The Climate Change Saga unfolds as we visit 1978 and Leonard Nimoy explains how the human population is causing The Earth to Freeze". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-ZDnSbNIYs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-ZDnSbNIYs
- acuozzo 3y ago
  What's your plan for when the boy cries "Wolf!" and he's actually there?
  - collyw 3y ago
    Check that it is actually there. I have heard doom monger predictions for over 3 decades and none of them have come true to date. I live by the sea and the level hasn't risen by any perceivable amount. 30 years ago I was told that major cities would be underwater by now.
    - acuozzo 3y ago
      Sure, but isn't the argument that the current situation is akin to a frog in a pot? There's no hard threshold under this line of thinking and, I imagine, if something terrible were to happen to a vulnerable population abroad, then the west would react in a way which would enable its population to treat the issue as if it were "far away". Rising authoritarianism would just seem like something related to politics in this hypothetical future. From there, any attempts at top-down mitigation would just seem like "bad guys with power doing things bad guys do".

Throw73747 3y ago

Perhaps we should have a referendum, so people can show their support in a democratic way... Nobody is stopping people doing unpopular things to solve climate change. You just have no right to coerce others into that!

advael 3y ago

It'd be great to see how democratic support might be different were it not for the concerted, expensive effort to deny and downplay the problem by multiple enormous industries that have repeatedly captured governmental institutions in this effort, as well as changing public perception considerably Concentration of power underlies a staggering amount of the problems of the current age, and if our species is to survive, insane propositions like "limited liability" need to die

whimsicalism 3y ago
I was initially partial to this explanation, but I no longer think that ‘in the absence of interference’ people would vote for the price increases needed.
- kccqzy 3y ago
  People would vote for these price increases once they see that the increases are paltry compared to the opportunity cost, or to the externalities.
  - fnimick 3y ago
    I disagree. Lots of people are perfectly happy to ignore externalities that happen to others. Just try to get a bike lane put in and you'll see it for yourself. Or as a lovely neighbor put it: "if you die, why is that my problem?"
    - kccqzy 3y ago
      I agree. However the key point in climate change messaging is informing people that this affects themselves, their kids, and their grandkids.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        Which is often a lie, or at least situational simplification . The costs of climat change and mitigation are not evenly distributed.

hotpotamus 3y ago

I've heard the talking point regarding innovation for awhile now. To me it sounds a bit like an alcoholic with a failing liver hoping that medicine will come up with some miracle cure so they can keep drinking as much as they want.

tschellenbach 3y ago
I think it's the opposite. The push for politics to do something is having an impact, we are making progress in lowering emissions. But it's not enough, and there are constraints on democratically elected leaders. Eventually, public sentiment will change, but not soon enough.

ericd 3y ago

We don’t need to wait for technical solutions to make things cheaper. We need a revenue neutral carbon tax with dividend. For most people, especially the poor, they’d come out ahead, and it would allow the market price signals to gently steer everyone toward a lower carbon life.

lfuller 3y ago
That was tried in Ontario (cap and trade), but there was enough misinformation going around that the general populace thought it was just a standard tax on individuals.
- ericd 3y ago
  Did the people there start getting money every month into their bank account (the “dividend” part)? If not, I imagine that that would’ve cleared that misinformation up rather quickly.
- nullindividual 3y ago
  Washington State does cap and trade on industry. And yes, it has just become a 'standard tax' on individuals passed from industry to the pump to the tune of 40-50 cents/gal. While I agree that it is important to reduce consumption of fossil fuels, the infrastructure isn't there to enable people to commute from lower-cost areas of living to higher-cost areas of working. This will likely be repealed by voters via initiative[0] this fall. [0] https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/initiative-2117-to-repeal-wa-climate-act-takes-key-step-toward-ballot/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/initia... More fun reading on our defacto gas tax: https://www.king5.com/article/news/investigations/former-wsdot-economist-accuses-state-retaliation-for-refusing-lie-gas-prices/281-09151707-2976-48e2-bdd5-c65e36a52aac https://www.king5.com/article/news/investigations/former-wsd...
tschellenbach 3y ago
How do you get people to vote for this given that it will increase prices/lower their standard of living today?

hedora 3y ago

There's strong popular support to fix climate change. We know this from polls. We also know that there are well-organized foreign propaganda teams attacking democracies around the world. The fact that some ill-informed right-wing radicals in France rioted doesn't mean there is no popular support for having a habitable planet in twenty years.

fnimick 3y ago
And yet every single proposed policy to fix climate change is deeply unpopular. People support "fixing climate change", but when they are asked to deal with a rising gas tax, or traveling less, etc, suddenly climate change isn't worth fixing.
graemep 3y ago
There is strong democratic support so long as someone else pays for it. > The fact that some ill-informed right-wing radicals in France rioted doesn't mean there is no popular support for having a habitable planet in twenty years. and alarmism does not help the cause.
whimsicalism 3y ago
You cannot poll on things without tradeoffs if you want a real answer. Most Americans have been polled as unwilling to pay $10/mo more in electrical bills if it meant that climate change were completely averted. I think comments about 20 years uninhabitibility are unproductive as most people see it for the lie that it is.
t0bia_s 3y ago
What car do you have?

tw04 3y ago

It isn’t a political problem, it’s a messaging problem. The fact we allow a large group of folks to outright lie about the problem on public airwaves results in the “division”. I’m all for freedom of speech, but when public figures are knowingly telling lies, whoever is broadcasting it should be FORCED to follow it up with the facts of the situation. In other words, at least in the US, the fairness doctrine needs to be re-instated. The number of things this country has killed off “because it worked so well we don’t need it any more” is mind numbing.

whimsicalism 3y ago
Many of the countries we are discussing have much less significant influence of money on media and still - raising prices is very unpopular. The left needs to come to terms with the fact that sometimes the things they are proposing are unpopular independent of some “dark money influence scheme.”
- Timon3 3y ago
  > Many of the countries we are discussing have much less significant influence of money on media In absolute terms you are correct, but in relative? Is there really a country where the media isn't strongly influenced by the rich and powerful of said country and the world?
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    This is a theory of the world that seems pretty non-falsifiable. "The real, uninfluenced people agree with my policy priorities and the only reason they don't is due to money at play." Any example of people disagreeing just proves that there is monetary influence that we haven't yet identified. But I actually think it is somewhat falsifiable. Most people, when polled, are in favor of solving climate change - especially in nordic countries. But when you poll people with imposed costs, ie. $10/mo extra to completely solve climate change - the vast majority are opposed. [0] This seems like people organically responding negatively to costs, not being brainwashed by media - otherwise they wouldn't support solving it in the first place. [0]: https://www.cato.org/blog/68-americans-wouldnt-pay-10-month-higher-electric-bills-combat-climate-change https://www.cato.org/blog/68-americans-wouldnt-pay-10-month-...

matthewdgreen 3y ago

The good news: the renewables explosion is going to make a big difference. Thanks to the plummeting cost (and rapid deployment, particularly in China) of solar and wind, we are almost certainly going to see better emissions pathways than the bad ones we're currently projecting. None of this happened by accident: it was engineered. The bad news is that we seem to be much closer to some really bad climate outcomes than scientists realized. Sensitivity may be higher, warming seems to be further advanced than we thought, and there are many scary tipping points that we could easily trigger. My guess is that we're going to need some sort of (relatively near-term) geoengineering solution to keep things from spiraling, which means we really have no room left for climate denial. (And to be clear, this isn't going to be an alternative to decarbonizing, it's going to be in addition.)

lagt_t 3y ago
The lithium bubble burst is an indicator that the renewables push is losing strength. The pandemic and later the yemen-gaza-ukraine combo shifted priorities. Meanwhile Europe is no longer inching but running towards an ecological disaster with the ever increasing drought-deluge cycles.
- matthewdgreen 3y ago
  I don't think so. Right now the renewables push is 90% about China: they're the biggest global emitter and also (previously) had the biggest rate of emissions growth. They're now expected to plateau this year and enter a structural decline. And China is still deploying renewables at an unbelievable rate [1] as of last month. [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-wind-solar-capacity-overtake-coal-2024-industry-body-2024-01-30/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-wind-solar-ca...
  - lagt_t 3y ago
    We are lucky that the real estate bubble finally burst in China, that was one of the key drivers of pollution there.
3y ago

atoav 3y ago

> There is just no democratic support for fixing global warming since it's too expensive. There is no democratic support for fixing global warming in a capitalist system geared towards extracting value. If you ask people if they think global warming should be tackled in principle you will find many in support. The problem is that most people know that the way in which a fix for global warming would be implemented today would result in them bearing the costs while some shareholders somewhere get just a little richer. If we want to stop humanity from extinction we have to step off the gas pedal and disincentivize those who keep wanting to step on it.

hnthrowaway0328 3y ago

It is understandable if the riches and powerful people are flying around the world in private jets. Maybe they don't generate the most as a whole but a lot as individuals. It is very difficult to convince anyone to lower their standards of life (eating other food / shower less / drive a smaller car) which will make a big impact while the riches just do lip services. I don't see a future for that. Humans only turn around when they hit a wall multiple times -- we are not the exceptions.

ejb999 3y ago
not a popular opinion, but I agree completely - if you are trying to sell a message of sacrifice to the common person, being preached to, by people who own and travel in private jets , while they return to one of their many 20 bedroom mansions located just feet above the sea that is supposed to have a devastating rise any day now - it is very, very easy to see why people just shrug it all off as scare tactics when they are asked to give up their tiny little gas lawn mover or gas stove. May not be fair, and may not be scientific - but the message delivery matters - ignore it at your own peril.

Clubber 3y ago

>There is just no democratic support for fixing global warming since it's too expensive. There's plenty of support, the US has lowered its carbon emissions quite a bit. There's one big problem though: what do we do about China and India? Are you prepared to get drafted and go to war to get China to stop burning coal?

exitb 3y ago
Which country should go convince China, the one that has twice the CO2 emissions per capita?
- Clubber 3y ago
  If 3 people are releasing chlorine gas in a large room and only one of them slows down, it doesn't make a huge difference what the per capita emissions rate is, does it?
davis 3y ago
2023 made it very clear that China knows the stakes and also sees an opportunity with owning the clean tech future. They built more renewable energy just last year than has been installed in all of the United States in its history. BYD just passed Tesla as the biggest producer of EVs. The opportunity is there and with China's faltering economy that was propped up by housing, I expect Xi to do all he can to be the provider of the world with renewables.
- Clubber 3y ago
  >2023 made it very clear that China knows the stakes What happened in 2023? https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/carbon-co2-emissions https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/carbon-co2-e...
  - davis 3y ago
    You have to burn carbon to build renewable energy components if you don't have enough energy from existing solar + wind; I don't know what you expect. But now they have ~500GW of energy to build next year's >>500GW [1]. It's an investment and every year it pays off. China's emissions peak wasn't supposed to happen this decade but that has been revised [2] 1: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-solar-capacity-expected-hit-1000-gw-by-2026-rystad-energy-2023-09-12/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-solar-capacity-ex... 2: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-carbon-emissions-set-peak-before-2030-expert-poll-2023-11-21/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-carbon-emissions-...

mytailorisrich 3y ago

What happened in France was not just "because they tried to tax gas more heavily". What the government did was textbook "let them eat cake". They suddenly decided to significantly increase taxes on diesel "for the environment" when people, especially trades people and people outside big cities, had no choice. Therefore, predictably, the people rebelled. As long as governments refuse to understand that, we won't get anywhere, indeed.

mr_toad 3y ago
As long as people refuse to understand that reducing carbon emissions will mean substantial reductions in their standard of living then we wont get anywhere either.
- mytailorisrich 3y ago
  Are you volunteering to lose your livelihood?

davis 3y ago

You haven't been following the recent developments in renewable energy and the deployment of clean tech then. We don't need new technological advancements. We just need to continue to produce more solar, batteries, wind and keeping existing nuclear plants afloat. We have all we need. It is just a matter of upgrading the grid and building enough to transition.

arrowsmith 3y ago

> in a democracy leaders can't do deeply unpopular things. Oh, you sweet summer child.

Levitz 3y ago

>There is just no democratic support for fixing global warming since it's too expensive. See the riots in France when they tried to tax gas more heavily. It's not that simple. Gas is used primarily to work. People can't afford to live close to their jobs, so they pay money and take their time to get to their work, making them pay even more for gas with the absolute shitfest the housing market is means kicking someone while they are down. Not to mention, if anyone is actually serious about reducing carbon emissions from commute? Penalize every single work that can be done remotely if it's not done so. It's an evident solution and there are A LOT of office workers, but some people don't like that idea, so instead of that poor people get screwed. Again. The idea that it's about democratic support itself is something corporations have lobbied for, it's really not, the most evident example was covid, where consumption dropped like a rock, what was the first thing any government did to bounce back? Promote consumerism as much as possible, essentially throwing money at people. Our economic system is not equipped to deal with climate change, it's that simple. Not only are we on a train with no brakes, we are in that train, rocky terrain made us slow down and we shoved as much coal into the engine as possible to get back to speed because we can't have it any other way. For Christ's sake, democratic support is the only reason there is any consideration for the environment at all. No corporation would ever give one single solitary shit about climate if it wasn't for "democratic support".

fransje26 3y ago
> For Christ's sake, democratic support is the only reason there is any consideration for the environment at all. No corporation would ever give one single solitary shit about climate if it wasn't for "democratic support". Let's give this little gem the highlight it deserves.

freetime2 3y ago

I’ve always thought a carbon tax where the revenue is distributed directly to citizens in the form of a monthly check or bank deposit could be popular, or at least accepted by the public. Especially if it starts small and then ramps up over time.

whimsicalism 3y ago
Yes, I wish more things were paired like that. Another one: land/property tax increases paired with income tax decreases.

brightball 3y ago

There are a lot of factors at work here at the same time. It's far off (or perceived that way) and people naturally seek relief of immediate pain. It's human nature. You tell somebody that they'll save $X over the next 10 years by spending a fraction of it now, most won't bother. On the other hand, if you're currently spending $X on something and you need to invest in something to get that cost down, they'll do it almost immediately. Because it's far off, there's not a sense of urgency to it. Additionally, there are some fairly strong factors that call a lot of climate change activism into question, like wide spread opposition to nuclear power by many of the same activists. Examples like Germany shuttering nuclear facilities only to turn around and turn to coal power certainly doesn't help. Other factors such as the need for change across the entire world complicate matters when numerous businesses will just send their pollution to countries that don't impose the same requirements. Separating hyperbole from practical application in pursuit of pre-existing goals is another huge factor. We've heard about methane emissions from cattle ranches for years. It seems like we have a great solution for this by adding an ingredient to the feed: https://www.dcceew.gov.au/climate-change/publications/from-beaches-to-burps-native-australian-seaweed-key-to-reducing-methane-emissions-from-cows https://www.dcceew.gov.au/climate-change/publications/from-b... But rather than pursuing this, activists are more interested in continuing to attack the industry and pushing vegan diets when a potential solution seems readily available. Factor that in with alarmism over temperature increases as if every potential increase is man made while other factors are ignored by most outlets... https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3204/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3204/tonga-eruption-blasted-un... https://eos.org/articles/tonga-eruption-may-temporarily-push-earth-closer-to-1-5c-of-warming https://eos.org/articles/tonga-eruption-may-temporarily-push... There's just a great deal of inconsistency and alarmism that undermines credibility when ignored.

collyw 3y ago

Why does it need to be fixed? What's wrong with it getting a little warmer?

aniftythrifrty 3y ago

All that is required to solve climate change is the elimination of the Military Industrial Complex, the largest polluter on earth by far and the most useless thing on earth by far.

nojvek 3y ago
Got any sources on that? I'd like to learn more.

marbartolome 3y ago

> I like Bill Gate's book on the topic. So what's the book?

tim333 3y ago

I think if the deal presented to voters was warming is a big problem because of evidence... If you vote to spend an extra 3k a year we can fix it then people would maybe be ok. The current deal we have in the UK say is we'll do stuff that costs thousands, is not very effective, will reduce CO2 output far less than the amount Russia, China and India will raise theirs. You will suffer while CO2 output keeps going up as always. Which is sort of a hard sell. I mean we are doing that in the UK with hardship and no global results. Not sure it's the answer. Personally I'd favour a global solution like a carbon tax and counties that don't play ball can have their trade sanctioned. Also money into research into solar etc which I think is the real answer.