4 ms·

Your framing is designed to make that outcome inevitable. Of course if the proposal is keeping everything else the same but raising prices people would vote aga

by advael 3y ago

Your framing is designed to make that outcome inevitable. Of course if the proposal is keeping everything else the same but raising prices people would vote against it. Mitigating the catastrophic biome collapse we are already experiencing requires infrastructural changes, not just tweaking the economy a little

whimsicalism 3y ago
In the absence of interference in the media by rich people. Not the absence of interference in climate change. > requires infrastructural changes, not just tweaking the economy a little 'Infrastructural changes' -> Seems like it can be subsumed in 'tweaking the economy', did you mean 'structural changes'? And if so, do you think people who are unwilling to pay $10/mo to avert climate change are going to support structural changes to the economy to do so?
WithinReason 3y ago
what do you mean by infrastructural changes?
- advael 3y ago
  An often-cited example is the considerable investment we've made into spread-out living spaces that require that people are doing long, daily car-based commutes. This kind of planning creates a situation where an increase in the price of gas is devastating to people's livelihoods and ability to move through the world, which is a lot of why gas prices going up can be a make-or-break political issue for so many people. The flight to suburbs is a relatively recent phenomenon that could be reversed with different infrastructure choices. We could invest into mass-transit and, probably more importantly, better colocation of the resources people need to live, especially in an era where a lot of job functions can be done remotely (and a considerable segment of the economy clearly want to work remotely if they're allowed to) Obviously this isn't going to just naturally occur, but we are already pretty artificially supporting the situation as it is: Part of the reason gas prices can stay low is that we already dump considerable subsidies into the already-profitable oil and gas industry
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    Your solution would involve massively raising the cost of suburban and rural living. If it doesn't involve that, then people won't move. I'm generally in favor of that - but the people who won't even support $10/mo in electrical bills are not going to support tearing up suburbia. Restructuring our infrastructure/society is not an easier ask than higher gas prices.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by advael 3y ago

whimsicalism 3y ago

In the absence of interference in the media by rich people. Not the absence of interference in climate change. > requires infrastructural changes, not just tweaking the economy a little 'Infrastructural changes' -> Seems like it can be subsumed in 'tweaking the economy', did you mean 'structural changes'? And if so, do you think people who are unwilling to pay $10/mo to avert climate change are going to support structural changes to the economy to do so?

WithinReason 3y ago

what do you mean by infrastructural changes?

advael 3y ago
An often-cited example is the considerable investment we've made into spread-out living spaces that require that people are doing long, daily car-based commutes. This kind of planning creates a situation where an increase in the price of gas is devastating to people's livelihoods and ability to move through the world, which is a lot of why gas prices going up can be a make-or-break political issue for so many people. The flight to suburbs is a relatively recent phenomenon that could be reversed with different infrastructure choices. We could invest into mass-transit and, probably more importantly, better colocation of the resources people need to live, especially in an era where a lot of job functions can be done remotely (and a considerable segment of the economy clearly want to work remotely if they're allowed to) Obviously this isn't going to just naturally occur, but we are already pretty artificially supporting the situation as it is: Part of the reason gas prices can stay low is that we already dump considerable subsidies into the already-profitable oil and gas industry
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  Your solution would involve massively raising the cost of suburban and rural living. If it doesn't involve that, then people won't move. I'm generally in favor of that - but the people who won't even support $10/mo in electrical bills are not going to support tearing up suburbia. Restructuring our infrastructure/society is not an easier ask than higher gas prices.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]