3 ms·
Essentially: We will only accept climate change action if it’s not degrading our standard of living which is predicated on consuming unsustainably. The end.
by gmerc 3y ago
Essentially: We will only accept climate change action if it’s not degrading our standard of living which is predicated on consuming unsustainably.
The end.
- horns4lyfe 3y agoWell good luck trying to get people to lower their standard of living in pursuit of an abstract solution to a problem that can only be represented with predictive modeling.
- gmerc 3y agoNah, failure to act on climate change will also reduce their standard of living unless they are rich enough to buy their way to a bunker in NZ.
- sokoloff 3y agoThat's a large part of the issue: it probably won't. It will reduce the standard of living of future generations, but for people in the prime earning and consuming phase of their life (say 40-65 years old), climate change isn't going to have anywhere near as detectable, let alone large, effect on their life as spending $20K on heat pumps, giving up a car and taking more public transit, taking fewer tropical vacations, or even setting the heating thermostat to 69°F rather than 71°F.
- bongodongobob 3y agoYeah, people should freeze or die of heat stroke. Tell me more about your frictionless spherical world.
- malfist 3y agoMaybe I missed the point, but I don't see anything in GPs post that indicates they want people to freeze or die of heat stroke. Or suggest anything that would lead to folks freezing or dying from heat stroke.
- CatWChainsaw 3y agoStop huffing copium.
- scrozart 3y ago[flagged]
- Arn_Thor 3y agoYou're barking up the wrong tree. (i) systemic change on a global scale is needed, individual actions don't "matter". (ii) corporations and governments are the only entities large enough to make changes. Governments need to force companies and incentivize individuals to make better choices, and help those that would be financially disadvantaged by those choices. (iii) paradoxically, while individual actions don't "matter", they add up of course. Both in energy usuage, and in voting. The latter is more important if we want governments to force and incentivize companies and individuals to make positive changes. So giving the environmental cause a bad name by yelling at individuals for making sensible financial choices is going to cost the green cause voters, which we sorely need. Stop it.
- gmerc 3y agoI like how this comment spawned anger from both extremes.