3 ms·

I never understood why the entire population needed to be involved. It's not a referendum. A handful of smart people just needed to get together and come up wi

I never understood why the entire population needed to be involved. It's not a referendum. A handful of smart people just needed to get together and come up with a solution. Then the governments of the world implement it. I understand that the second part is difficult. But did the first part ever happen?

alganet 1y ago
> A handful of smart people just needed to get together Things don't work this way, unfortunatelly. This kind of thinking just pushes the problem to someone else do deal with, which only serves to shift up blame. Small groups are vulnerable to corruption, or distractions, or silly power plays. We needed _lots_ of people with good education and reasonable awareness of the risks, it was the only way to have a chance to develop a more solid plan. However, you got your way. There are small groups of smart people working on these issues. But many, many of us know that their chances are slim (due to the shortcomings mentioned earlier). Unfortunatelly, not that many to form a critical mass.
- yupitsme123 1y ago
  Things do in fact work that way. Here's a list of things that a small number of people changed without the consent of the public, all before we got a single workable plan for climate change: The internet, cell phones, social media, fracking, AI, the fall of the Soviet Union, war in Iraq, changes in attitudes towards family, sexuality. Just to name a few. All of these things just kind of happened without the public having asking for them. Why then has a slight, gradual reduction in greenhouse gases been so hard?
  - alganet 1y ago
    Because climate change is more similar to erradicating polio than selling cellphones or toppling leaders. In the whole human history, only one disease was erradicated: smallpox. It took centuries, countless smart people, reasonable awareness of many counter-intuitive ideas, and we almost failed. Going to the moon was easier.
  - queenkjuul 1y ago
    What small number of people influenced societal shifts in views towards family and sexuality?
Tadpole9181 1y ago
"Just" does so much work in these comments. I mean... Why do the smart people not "just" develop a perfect economic plan? Or "just" end world hunger? Or "just" stop global conflicts? Anyway, there have been multitudes of plans and strategies and actions to chip away at the problem. All of them require sacrificing political capital, raising taxes and the costs of products, and effort. And you get nothing substantial in return. So while the entire scientific community tried pushing education and solutions galore, the political and corporate establishment fought tooth and nail against any aspect that did not immediately profit them. To the point that now an entire party in the richest country on Earth that holds all three branches of government uses opposition to solving the problem as one of the core tenants of their platform.
- yupitsme123 1y ago
  Smart people are doing those things. Just in a way that benefits them and not necessarily you or I. Anyway, what is the solution that the scientific community proposed and that was killed by the political and corporate establishment? What is the plan that the non-US countries have implemented to eliminate the problem?
  - jochem9 1y ago
    Solution: reduce CO2 emissions to carbon neutrality. This has been agreed multiple times, most notably the Paris agreement of 2015, which set deadlines for countries to achieve carbon neutrality. The plan failed in e.g. the US because politicians didn't follow through. Trump literally withdrew from the Paris agreement. All but 3 countries in the world participate in the Paris agreement. This includes all big CO2 emitters, like China, US (now withdrawn), India and EU countries.
    - yupitsme123 1y ago
      That's a goal more so than a plan.
      - alganet 1y ago
xboxnolifes 1y ago
Lots of smart people came together in different solutions. The missing piece is that there is opposition. The opposition won.
- yupitsme123 1y ago
  Who were these people and what were the solutions? Who was the opposition and when was the battle decided? If you're going to tell me it was the Democrats vs the Republicans, then please explain why countries outside the US haven't made it happen yet. China is a country full of scientists and engineers and the opposition there is non existent.
  - xboxnolifes 1y ago
    Most of the opposition is the industries that renewable energy threatens and those who have vested interests in it.
queenkjuul 1y ago
Any solution involves less money for oil shareholders and thus would be opposed tooth and nail

alganet 1y ago

> A handful of smart people just needed to get together Things don't work this way, unfortunatelly. This kind of thinking just pushes the problem to someone else do deal with, which only serves to shift up blame. Small groups are vulnerable to corruption, or distractions, or silly power plays. We needed _lots_ of people with good education and reasonable awareness of the risks, it was the only way to have a chance to develop a more solid plan. However, you got your way. There are small groups of smart people working on these issues. But many, many of us know that their chances are slim (due to the shortcomings mentioned earlier). Unfortunatelly, not that many to form a critical mass.

yupitsme123 1y ago
Things do in fact work that way. Here's a list of things that a small number of people changed without the consent of the public, all before we got a single workable plan for climate change: The internet, cell phones, social media, fracking, AI, the fall of the Soviet Union, war in Iraq, changes in attitudes towards family, sexuality. Just to name a few. All of these things just kind of happened without the public having asking for them. Why then has a slight, gradual reduction in greenhouse gases been so hard?
- alganet 1y ago
  Because climate change is more similar to erradicating polio than selling cellphones or toppling leaders. In the whole human history, only one disease was erradicated: smallpox. It took centuries, countless smart people, reasonable awareness of many counter-intuitive ideas, and we almost failed. Going to the moon was easier.
- queenkjuul 1y ago
  What small number of people influenced societal shifts in views towards family and sexuality?

Tadpole9181 1y ago

"Just" does so much work in these comments. I mean... Why do the smart people not "just" develop a perfect economic plan? Or "just" end world hunger? Or "just" stop global conflicts? Anyway, there have been multitudes of plans and strategies and actions to chip away at the problem. All of them require sacrificing political capital, raising taxes and the costs of products, and effort. And you get nothing substantial in return. So while the entire scientific community tried pushing education and solutions galore, the political and corporate establishment fought tooth and nail against any aspect that did not immediately profit them. To the point that now an entire party in the richest country on Earth that holds all three branches of government uses opposition to solving the problem as one of the core tenants of their platform.

yupitsme123 1y ago
Smart people are doing those things. Just in a way that benefits them and not necessarily you or I. Anyway, what is the solution that the scientific community proposed and that was killed by the political and corporate establishment? What is the plan that the non-US countries have implemented to eliminate the problem?
- jochem9 1y ago
  Solution: reduce CO2 emissions to carbon neutrality. This has been agreed multiple times, most notably the Paris agreement of 2015, which set deadlines for countries to achieve carbon neutrality. The plan failed in e.g. the US because politicians didn't follow through. Trump literally withdrew from the Paris agreement. All but 3 countries in the world participate in the Paris agreement. This includes all big CO2 emitters, like China, US (now withdrawn), India and EU countries.
  - yupitsme123 1y ago
    That's a goal more so than a plan.
    - alganet 1y ago

xboxnolifes 1y ago

Lots of smart people came together in different solutions. The missing piece is that there is opposition. The opposition won.

yupitsme123 1y ago
Who were these people and what were the solutions? Who was the opposition and when was the battle decided? If you're going to tell me it was the Democrats vs the Republicans, then please explain why countries outside the US haven't made it happen yet. China is a country full of scientists and engineers and the opposition there is non existent.
- xboxnolifes 1y ago
  Most of the opposition is the industries that renewable energy threatens and those who have vested interests in it.

queenkjuul 1y ago

Any solution involves less money for oil shareholders and thus would be opposed tooth and nail