4 ms·

but to me, its not about the actual emissions (which you are correct about in absolute terms) - its about selling the message to the average Joe who is being as

by ejb999 3y ago

but to me, its not about the actual emissions (which you are correct about in absolute terms) - its about selling the message to the average Joe who is being asked to make a sacrifice that the people who are pushing the message, are not being asked to do. Side story: during Covid, teachers at a local school wanted mandates for all the students (the people least at risk of actually getting very sick), but they pushed very hard not to have to get it themselves - i.e. they wanted all the benefits of having a vaccinated population around them, but they were unwilling to take the risk on themselves (they lost this battle btw) Not to conflate the issues, but its the same principle - don't make me(the public) do something that you (the ones in charge) are not willing to do yourself.

coldpie 3y ago
> its about selling the message to the average Joe who is being asked to make a sacrifice I think selling fixing the climate as a sacrifice is a non-starter. If you're framing it that way, you've already lost. We should align incentives such that fixing the climate is also an improvement for people. That means subsidizing green solutions (EVs should be cheaper than gas cars), replacing polluting power plants with renewables improves the surrounding community (less immediate air pollution, noise) and users of the power (renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuel plants). No one needs to make sacrifices to fix this. In other words, instead of worrying about what some rich jag-offs are doing, focus on how we can turn fixing climate change into a win for everybody. (And make those rich jag-offs pay for it ;) )
- sokoloff 3y ago
  > No one needs to make sacrifices to fix this. If no one needs to make sacrifices, then this should happen by default basically and we'd have to actively work to prevent it from happening.
  - coldpie 3y ago
    No, I don't think that's the case. Governments can influence what the market does using incentives and funding, without anyone making sacrifices. Fund climate-friendly research, fund deployment of renewable energy, subsidize EV cars and charger deployment. This work creates a ton of jobs, advances our tech and research capabilities, and puts us in a good position to help transition other economies around the world. None of that is a sacrifice: cars get cheaper, energy gets cheaper, jobs are created, tech improves, and we don't have to pay trillions of dollars in environmental damage every year.
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      “Fund, fund, subsidize, and subsidize” contain embedded sacrifices for someone*. (If they didn’t, we’d fund and subsidize even more than we currently do, by an enormous margin.) * In this case, the sacrifices come from competitors/substitutes to the things being funded or subsidized, consumers who are ineligible for a particular subsidy program (but for which the demand is increased for the product by those eligible), and of course, often from net taxpayers.
      - 7thaccount 3y ago
        Also from inflation.

by ejb999 3y ago

coldpie 3y ago

> its about selling the message to the average Joe who is being asked to make a sacrifice I think selling fixing the climate as a sacrifice is a non-starter. If you're framing it that way, you've already lost. We should align incentives such that fixing the climate is also an improvement for people. That means subsidizing green solutions (EVs should be cheaper than gas cars), replacing polluting power plants with renewables improves the surrounding community (less immediate air pollution, noise) and users of the power (renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuel plants). No one needs to make sacrifices to fix this. In other words, instead of worrying about what some rich jag-offs are doing, focus on how we can turn fixing climate change into a win for everybody. (And make those rich jag-offs pay for it ;) )

sokoloff 3y ago
> No one needs to make sacrifices to fix this. If no one needs to make sacrifices, then this should happen by default basically and we'd have to actively work to prevent it from happening.
- coldpie 3y ago
  No, I don't think that's the case. Governments can influence what the market does using incentives and funding, without anyone making sacrifices. Fund climate-friendly research, fund deployment of renewable energy, subsidize EV cars and charger deployment. This work creates a ton of jobs, advances our tech and research capabilities, and puts us in a good position to help transition other economies around the world. None of that is a sacrifice: cars get cheaper, energy gets cheaper, jobs are created, tech improves, and we don't have to pay trillions of dollars in environmental damage every year.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    “Fund, fund, subsidize, and subsidize” contain embedded sacrifices for someone*. (If they didn’t, we’d fund and subsidize even more than we currently do, by an enormous margin.) * In this case, the sacrifices come from competitors/substitutes to the things being funded or subsidized, consumers who are ineligible for a particular subsidy program (but for which the demand is increased for the product by those eligible), and of course, often from net taxpayers.
    - 7thaccount 3y ago
      Also from inflation.