Climate Action and the Elephant in the Room

[rousseau]

One interesting thing I've noticed about daily conversation and media coverage about climate change, is that we're rarely talking about how a large number of every day citizens don't support major action. Many people seem self-satisfied to point fingers at the oil industry and politicians (who are no doubt also complicit), but not even consider the elephant in the room: politics.

My rough calculus about the political stalemate is basically this:

1) A very large number of people either don't care about climate change at all, or if they do, wouldn't support an extreme overhaul of their lifestyle
2) In a perfect world where a country is governed by a good-faith government, if climate action is too heavy handed they get voted out, and replaced by a bad-faith government
3) Bad faith government is voted in and the situation gets no response at all, or even worse

So we're in a situation where there doesn't seem to be a viable political solution to act as fast as we need to. Many people just don't care, so we're stuck with a lot of talking and nobody brave enough to point the finger back at electorates.

Does that sound about right?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah. The world leaders are doing nothing because people don't want to incur the costs. When it's just pointing fingers at things the the oil industry they're happy to do so, but when it's building the nuke plant instead of the coal plant it's quite another matter.

There's also the problem that people are legitimately distrusting of supposed environmental spending--it's often not actually green at all, just a way to get the consumer to not object to the cost.

There's also little point to it unless the system is set up to avoid simply exporting the CO2.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It is pretty obvious there is no collective will nationally and globally. And why should there be? Humanity has never faced a global threat. We've faced lesser threats that were regional but never anything on a global scale that required collective action. We are incapable of such behavior.

The alternative is to have change and likely catastrophic change forced upon us, change from without, not within. Maybe the fact that our individual lifetimes are so short it renders many of us incapable of appreciating the magnitude of the situation. And not all of us will suffer. How many and for how long is the unknown. Humanity will certainly survive but I seriously doubt even those survivors will care or be able to appreciate what has been lost. The danger is just not so obvious. Maybe technology will allow us to fix things but much of the damage is already upon us.

My parents lived through WW2 and were proud of winning the war. Once I remarked to Mom about all the lost lives and resources that could have been spent productively but were instead expended on killing and destruction. She was indignant at my thought and offended, as if I was disrespecting her friends who had died and the efforts made to win the war. She just could not conceive of any other path but war.

And that's how people still are today.

 

[Jayjay]

My parents lived through WW2 and were proud of winning the war. Once I remarked to Mom about all the lost lives and resources that could have been spent productively but were instead expended on killing and destruction. She was indignant at my thought and offended, as if I was disrespecting her friends who had died and the efforts made to win the war. She just could not conceive of any other path but war.

And that's how people still are today.

Maybe environmentalism needs to be framed as "war on the environment" instead for it to get traction.

Climate change? Johnny get your gun, we're going to force that fucker to unchange.

 

[dimaru]

The Global North will benefit from global warming

 

[Elixir]

All of y’all who expect to live more than another quarter century, need to start getting ready with your “I told you so”s.
Because there is no collective will to do what would have needed to be done.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Had we started thirty to forty years ago when the scientists knew what was coming we may have been able to create a transition away from fossil fuels that could have been less costly. Now that we are waiting to the last possible minute the change will her more and more expensive and les and less likely to be desired. We will just have to adapt to the coming change and the political turmoil it is likely to inflict.

It’s kind of like how most people don’t change their diet until *after* they have their heart attack and realize that their doctor was right about the cholesterol build up in their arteries.

 

[bilby]

My parents lived through WW2 and were proud of winning the war. Once I remarked to Mom about all the lost lives and resources that could have been spent productively but were instead expended on killing and destruction. She was indignant at my thought and offended, as if I was disrespecting her friends who had died and the efforts made to win the war. She just could not conceive of any other path but war.

And that's how people still are today.

Maybe environmentalism needs to be framed as "war on the environment" instead for it to get traction.

Climate change? Johnny get your gun, we're going to force that fucker to unchange.

Let's nuke climate change.

 

[TomC]

The Global North will benefit from global warming

Welcome to IIDB.

Feel free to start an introduction in the Lounge.

I don't believe anyone will benefit from climate change. Wealthy northerners might put off the personal effects of the coming disaster. But, as a group, they won't benefit.
Tom

 

[TV and credit cards]

They're dong wonderful things with limestone. Making CO2 sponges out of it. They suck it up pretty fast too. I guess as long as they can fire the ovens with renewable energy and scale up to bring the cost down to the breakout point where we're willing to continue human existence on this planet, we'll all be okay.
There's a lot of limestone. And we make a lot of concrete. So this could be part of the bigger picture.

 

[steve_bank]

One interesting thing I've noticed about daily conversation and media coverage about climate change, is that we're rarely talking about how a large number of every day citizens don't support major action. Many people seem self-satisfied to point fingers at the oil industry and politicians (who are no doubt also complicit), but not even consider the elephant in the room: politics.

My rough calculus about the political stalemate is basically this:

1) A very large number of people either don't care about climate change at all, or if they do, wouldn't support an extreme overhaul of their lifestyle
2) In a perfect world where a country is governed by a good-faith government, if climate action is too heavy handed they get voted out, and replaced by a bad-faith government
3) Bad faith government is voted in and the situation gets no response at all, or even worse

So we're in a situation where there doesn't seem to be a viable political solution to act as fast as we need to. Many people just don't care, so we're stuck with a lot of talking and nobody brave enough to point the finger back at electorates.

Does that sound about right?

I think you hit it.

Pop[ele have a hard time getting their heads around the what is devloping.

We see the effects of climate change in the news, but as far as I can for the majority it is business as usual. Pizza, beer, ice cream, and streaming video. Near complete escapism.

Drastc measures will cause chaos and economic problems.

I think it comes down to there being too many humans on the planet with expectations of 24/7 material satisfaction.

Something I heard about recently.

A trend towards low usage clothes. Clothes that may only last a few dozen washings. People get caught up in perpetual buying new clothes, an endorphin high as a psychologist put it.

We are stuck in a system that requires constant economic groth which requires an increasing population along with increasing energy usage and consumption of resources.

 

[Oleg]

We are stuck in a system that requires constant economic groth which requires an increasing population along with increasing energy usage and consumption of resources.

Not quite. The more advanced a country gets economically, the fewer kids people have. East Asian is currently in a fertility bust.

 

[steve_bank]

We are stuck in a system that requires constant economic groth which requires an increasing population along with increasing energy usage and consumption of resources.

Not quite. The more advanced a country gets economically, the fewer kids people have. East Asian is currently in a fertility bust.

Exactly the systemic problem.

Our unemployment rate is low and our immigration program is dysfunctional. We do not have enough people to keep the economy growing.

An aging population without enough young workers to support it.

Japan is in the same boat. Low immigration and an aging population. They are trying to ;rmote immigration from Asia.

Th economic paradigm itself is not sustainable. The system will attempt to grow without bounds until it starts to fall apart.

EVs are seen in popular views as part of a cure. Yet in the background the reporting is the batteries depend on rare earths.

Starting with accelerating Industrial Revolution climate change accelerated. Some saw it coming in the late 19th century. Smog and air pollution from large scale burning of coal in cities.

The only real solution is to live within sustainable limits of energy, consumption, and resources. Which will never happen.

How many energy hungry gadgets do have in the kitchen and around the house? Video games? TVs and computers?

We are all part of the problem as consumers.

As things progress we will try and adapt while maintaing the economic growth..

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The only real solution is to live within sustainable limits of energy, consumption, and resources. Which will never happen.

It will never happen voluntarily but it will happen.

 

[Ford]

We are all part of the problem as consumers.

We're part of the problem, but we are far, far from the whole thing.

As a consumer, I can choose to use paper straws, put my soda can in the blue bin instead of the trash, and drive in "eco" mode on the way to work, but as a consumer my efforts are nothing compared to what Exxon could do.

Yet somehow...I'm the problem? Sorry, no. Individuals recycling and being slightly more efficient isn't going to change much until Chevron, BP, and other multi-billion dollar multinationals change their ways. And eventually go away entirely.

It mirrors the tobacco industry in a lot of ways. They knew their product was deadly long before the rest of us did, but the message was "hey, why don't YOU try quitting smoking? If you want to avoid lung cancer, it's your responsibility. We're just here selling a harmless product." Tobacco companies had to be dragged kicking and screaming to stop slow down selling a toxic product, and they're still like "hey, this is up to you" and they keep making cancer sticks by the billions.

We need to treat the fossil fuel industry more like the asbestos industry.

 

[rousseau]

We are all part of the problem as consumers.

We're part of the problem, but we are far, far from the whole thing.

As a consumer, I can choose to use paper straws, put my soda can in the blue bin instead of the trash, and drive in "eco" mode on the way to work, but as a consumer my efforts are nothing compared to what Exxon could do.

Yet somehow...I'm the problem? Sorry, no. Individuals recycling and being slightly more efficient isn't going to change much until Chevron, BP, and other multi-billion dollar multinationals change their ways. And eventually go away entirely.

It mirrors the tobacco industry in a lot of ways. They knew their product was deadly long before the rest of us did, but the message was "hey, why don't YOU try quitting smoking? If you want to avoid lung cancer, it's your responsibility. We're just here selling a harmless product." Tobacco companies had to be dragged kicking and screaming to stop slow down selling a toxic product, and they're still like "hey, this is up to you" and they keep making cancer sticks by the billions.

We need to treat the fossil fuel industry more like the asbestos industry.

I don't think you can reasonably expect the oil industry to destroy itself, that's just not how organizational dynamics work.

People who work for these businesses rely on the paycheque to feed their families. They're not going to use their roles within the org to push for .. destroying the company. That's just not how organizations work, literally any of them, at any point in history. I've worked for a Fortune 500 and have been in these awkward conversations. You wouldn't be surprised which way it usually goes. That's setting aside how much global infrastructure relies on these companies existing.

I think what it really boils down to is that the majority of people don't want their lifestyle to be impacted. People, us, don't care, and we're going to get burnt. Politicians can barely implement a carbon tax without pissing people off.

 

[Ford]

We are all part of the problem as consumers.

We're part of the problem, but we are far, far from the whole thing.

As a consumer, I can choose to use paper straws, put my soda can in the blue bin instead of the trash, and drive in "eco" mode on the way to work, but as a consumer my efforts are nothing compared to what Exxon could do.

Yet somehow...I'm the problem? Sorry, no. Individuals recycling and being slightly more efficient isn't going to change much until Chevron, BP, and other multi-billion dollar multinationals change their ways. And eventually go away entirely.

It mirrors the tobacco industry in a lot of ways. They knew their product was deadly long before the rest of us did, but the message was "hey, why don't YOU try quitting smoking? If you want to avoid lung cancer, it's your responsibility. We're just here selling a harmless product." Tobacco companies had to be dragged kicking and screaming to stop slow down selling a toxic product, and they're still like "hey, this is up to you" and they keep making cancer sticks by the billions.

We need to treat the fossil fuel industry more like the asbestos industry.

I don't think you can reasonably expect the oil industry to destroy itself, that's just not how organizational dynamics work.

Oh I don't expect it to destroy itself.

 

[rousseau]

One interesting thing I've noticed about daily conversation and media coverage about climate change, is that we're rarely talking about how a large number of every day citizens don't support major action. Many people seem self-satisfied to point fingers at the oil industry and politicians (who are no doubt also complicit), but not even consider the elephant in the room: politics.

My rough calculus about the political stalemate is basically this:

1) A very large number of people either don't care about climate change at all, or if they do, wouldn't support an extreme overhaul of their lifestyle
2) In a perfect world where a country is governed by a good-faith government, if climate action is too heavy handed they get voted out, and replaced by a bad-faith government
3) Bad faith government is voted in and the situation gets no response at all, or even worse

So we're in a situation where there doesn't seem to be a viable political solution to act as fast as we need to. Many people just don't care, so we're stuck with a lot of talking and nobody brave enough to point the finger back at electorates.

Does that sound about right?

I think you hit it.

Pop[ele have a hard time getting their heads around the what is devloping.

We see the effects of climate change in the news, but as far as I can for the majority it is business as usual. Pizza, beer, ice cream, and streaming video. Near complete escapism.

Drastc measures will cause chaos and economic problems.

I think it comes down to there being too many humans on the planet with expectations of 24/7 material satisfaction.

Something I heard about recently.

A trend towards low usage clothes. Clothes that may only last a few dozen washings. People get caught up in perpetual buying new clothes, an endorphin high as a psychologist put it.

We are stuck in a system that requires constant economic groth which requires an increasing population along with increasing energy usage and consumption of resources.

To me this begs the question of what any individual person can reasonably do, even people with high levels of power. We all live in a behemoth and there is no central locus of control. The only reasonable solution is regulation and policy, but electorates don't support that policy.

 

[Oleg]

The only reasonable solution is regulation and policy, but electorates don't support that policy.

I'd think the electorate would be just fine with nuclear power. But the activist class clearly prefers reorganzing society to their prefered eutopia.

 

[rousseau]

We are all part of the problem as consumers.

We're part of the problem, but we are far, far from the whole thing.

As a consumer, I can choose to use paper straws, put my soda can in the blue bin instead of the trash, and drive in "eco" mode on the way to work, but as a consumer my efforts are nothing compared to what Exxon could do.

Yet somehow...I'm the problem? Sorry, no. Individuals recycling and being slightly more efficient isn't going to change much until Chevron, BP, and other multi-billion dollar multinationals change their ways. And eventually go away entirely.

It mirrors the tobacco industry in a lot of ways. They knew their product was deadly long before the rest of us did, but the message was "hey, why don't YOU try quitting smoking? If you want to avoid lung cancer, it's your responsibility. We're just here selling a harmless product." Tobacco companies had to be dragged kicking and screaming to stop slow down selling a toxic product, and they're still like "hey, this is up to you" and they keep making cancer sticks by the billions.

We need to treat the fossil fuel industry more like the asbestos industry.

I don't think you can reasonably expect the oil industry to destroy itself, that's just not how organizational dynamics work.

Oh I don't expect it to destroy itself.

Fair. Even then I don't think you can draw a like to like analogy with the tobacco industry. Maybe to update Steve's statement we could say: most of the world is helplessly reliant on fossil fuels, and there doesn't seem to be much we can do about it.