5 ms·

Actually, things are exactly that simple. Look at how the WWII generation responded to the need for behavior change in order to supply raw materials and labor

• Sir_Substance 12y ago
  >then we could make similar sacrifices, pay a little extra for fuel, pay a little extra for solar infrastructure, change our diets to be more sustainable I haven't done the study, but I'd wager that those small price hikes would push the five most marginal percent currently able to afford rent into homelessness. Things are never that simple. A person who presents anything as black and white either hasn't thought about it or is lying to you.
  • AlisdairO 12y ago
    In fairness, he talked in terms of societal choices - and having the five most marginal percent be that close to the edge is also very much a choice.
  • squeeze 12y ago
    I think it's really a long, grueling process of dialogue, explanation of practicals, co-operation of all possible interests, and work. It's a systemic change kind of thing, I think. That kind of stuff isn't easy, and if one is aiming for easiness and some approximation of perfection, it requires a lot of friction between global and local changes.
  • TaylorAlexander 12y ago
    So... design your policy such that they don't affect the most poor (fund things by raising taxes on the wealthy, etc). It in fact is that simple, yet we lack the political will to make policy that disproportionately affects the wealthy. That isn't because we can't, it's because our ideology ensures we won't.
    • aragot 12y ago
      Why should global warming taxes be also an instrument to rebalance wealth? That's exactly what discredits them when I push for them as a debate: The middle class feel very insecure about "redistribution".
      • lotsofmangos 12y ago
        Anything that moves money around, moves money around. Asking for a tax that doesn't rebalance wealth one way or another, is to ask for no taxes.
      • littletimmy 12y ago
        Then let them feel secure. Let's tax only the super-rich. Perhaps a wealth tax on billionaires.
      • quonn 12y ago
        The OP has responded to the problem of "push[ing] the five most marginal percent [..] into homelessness". Your blowing his modest proposal out of proportion when talking about rebalancing wealth. He only suggested to design the policy in a way that prevents the poorest to become homeless.
      • meric 12y ago
        Yes that's right. IMO a climate change tax on fossil fuels should distribute the proceeds evenly amongst everyone in the country.
• karmacondon 12y ago
  It is in fact not that simple. To make a noticeable difference in terms of global climate change, americans would have to do much more than "pay a little extra". The entire commercial shipping network relies on carbon fuels. That's land, sea and air. The power grid and utility structure in most communities is destructive to the environment in some way. Changing all of that would require an investment in R&D and social re-organization equivalent to entirety of ten WWIIs. It's understandable that the majority of citizens wouldn't want to pay that cost. There's sacrifice, and then there's masochism. Not to mention that China and India aren't going to give up their chance at a western energy guzzling quality of life just because we do. The idealism of children is great and all, but there's a reason that we don't let 10 year olds make major policy decisions. The naivete of youth is a very powerful thing that is responsible for some of our greatest innovations and new ideas. But it just doesn't play well with political decisions. Children don't understand the issues around encryption any more than they understand how to fix the environment. All we can do is invest in education and culture in the hope that they'll be prepared to tackle these issues when they grow up.
  • jakobegger 12y ago
    Children understand the issue of avoiding climate change very well. They just don't understand yet that grown ups don't care about climate change, despite what they say. Fixing climate change really is easy; it's just that almost every single person in the world cares more about their personal comfort right now than about their future. People say things like "Climate change is terrible", but then they choose not to do anything about it. Most people could probably halve their energy costs with little effort (and enjoy immediate cost savings), but they choose not to. It's not the children who are stupid, it's the grown ups who are.
    • collyw 12y ago
      I would be happy to avoid flying if I felt it would make a difference. At the moment though, I will inconvenience myself, while our politicians decide to build another airport. My inconvenience will have had zero effect.
• deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
• philwelch 12y ago
  Either you don't really grasp just how much the WWII generation had to change their behavior or you have far too much faith in how much people care about the environment. Nobody is going to sign up for peacetime rationing.