We have been warned repeatedly that the consequences of climate change (say, an increase of 2-3 degrees in Celsius) will be utterly catastrophic, and yet the vast majority of climate-change activists do little more than tweet, post on social media, do some half-hearted lobbying of politicians and maybe film some documentaries. This seems to be a “war effort” that is completely disproportionate in relation to the actual stake of the war - it would be like going into World War II with a few placards, demonstration rallies, and a few thousand troops. It doesn’t seem to reach even 5% of the effort needed to make a meaningful change in the climate trend.
Not to make this an abortion thread (really, not) but this seems akin to many pro-lifers. Many pro-lifers will claim that abortion is akin to the Holocaust (and perhaps even intellectually believe it,) but their actions taken to stop abortion are disproportionately tiny in relation to the magnitude of the abortion situation (as they describe it.) Likewise, it appears that many climate-change activists intellectually believe that global warming, if left largely unchecked, will lead to calamitous damage to the planet and humanity, yet their actions are also…sleepwalking towards the fate that awaits.
So, if this is so…why? Is it a case of “the mind believes it but the heart does not feel it?” And what kind of intensity should the climate-change activists actually be exhibiting, in order to truly stop and reverse the global warming?
Extreme actions are likely illegal and will probably turn more people against the cause. Imagine if a small group of people blew up a power plant that runs on coal or natural gas. All they would accomplish is pissing a lot of people off, probably turning many against their cause. I think the only thing the extreme environmentalists could do that would be productive and that they aren’t already doing would be to embrace nuclear power in addition to wind and solar. On a more individual level I suppose people could get degrees in fields like chemistry, engineering, and physics to help the solar and wind industry progress a little more quickly. I’m not sure what else could be done that wouldn’t be counter productive.
Because that is how humans interact with each other. Even when championing important causes, we balance breaking the rules with upholding a functioning society.
Why didn’t abolitionists assassinate slave holders if slavery is so bad?
Because climate change can only be solved through public policy and technological innovation.
If my hippie neighbor decides to lower his carbon footprint, I say, “sweet, more for me.”
If I were an anti-abortionist, and I committed an act that drove an abortion provider out of town, even temporarily, then that is “babies saved”. Schindler didn’t prevent the holocaust, he just saved a handful (big handful, but small in context), but he is lauded as a hero.
If I were an environmentalist, and I commit an act that shuts down the coal plant, then that just means that the coal plant down the way has to pollute more to keep up with it, not to mention the environmental damage that would be caused by the damaged coal plant. What act could an environmentalist do to do save an equivalent “handful” of the environment?
If I choose to use less gas, that will not have any discernible effect on the amount of gas used.
If gas goes to $8 a gallon, then less gas will be used.
I think this guy has the right idea and wish to subscribe to his newsletter.
What would you suggest they do that they aren’t doing already? At this stage, a large percentage of the population…the majority I’d speculate…don’t see or really understand the threat. Humans aren’t really good at these sorts of nebulous, longer term threats that they can’t really see directly. To really understand climate change you have to understand the data and the models…and, actually, it’s not that easy or intuitive. Oh, I think a lot of people accept that climate change is happening, but they don’t really grasp it or all the implications.
Then you have the fact that our entire civilization is built around fossil fuels. It’s what has allowed said civilization. At this point, it’s not possible, using just the tools we have available today, to just stop using the stuff. Certainly not in the current political climate, and not without stuff like nuclear, which is another issue itself. Wind and solar, along with hydro, geothermal and the other renewable or green energy options can’t do it, and won’t be able to tomorrow regardless of how fervent the faithful are or how radical they want to get. People, when push comes to shove, don’t want to give up their cars, or AC in their houses, or all the other things that fossil fuels make possible. So, say you advocate your radical climate change warriors blowing up coal plants. Aside from the fact that this would paint them as basically terrorists (of the eco variety), they wouldn’t exactly engender sympathy OR a positive response from the public. So, it would hurt the cause more than it helped.
I’ve thought about this from the perspective of nuclear energy quite a lot. In a rational world, environmentalists should be pushing, hell screaming for nuclear. And some are. But not enough to make a difference in shifting the publics view such that we are pushing not to build maybe one in a half decade, but to build 60 in a decade, with another 60 to follow those up. Or, on perhaps a less controversial topic, making realistic plans to upgrade our grid which, admittedly, is going to cost a fuck ton of money. But these things are politically hard to accomplish when half the population, roughly, is being told by their political leadership that climate change isn’t real. And at least part of the other are pretty obviously using climate change to push through their socialist type pet projects that have nothing to do with climate change. It’s easier to sop the public with solar and wind projects or give rebates and tax breaks to people putting those in than to tackle the really hard political tasks. So, the smart environmentalists are doing what they actually can…a campaign to shift public opinion over time and to lay the groundwork to do the big things that will be needed down the road. Sadly, it’s taking longer than they thought…
The argument is valid for abortion, because the goal of dissuading people from becoming abortionists could be accomplished in a relatively small number of targeted violent acts. I don’t think it’s valid for climate change because the problem is so large, and we all contribute to climate change in one way or another.
There have already been “a relatively small number of targeted violent acts”. Those don’t seem to have made much of a dent in the problem. Why do you think a few more would succeed where the previous ones have not?
Hmm, maybe I shouldn’t have brought it up. We’re edging into hijack territory. I might address it in the Georgia thread if that’s ok.
That’d be fine with me.
One individual can try to do something for the environment. But every time you try, those damn Avengers show up and ruin everything.
Okay, a serious answer. The environment is a big problem and the only way it will be addressed is through significant changes by the majority of people. No small group would be able to make the necessary changes and even if they did, those changes would be overturned unless the majority agreed with them.
So the solutions to environmental problems lie in educating people and changing the way we live. Trying to take extremist actions ahead of public support is just going to alienate people and push the real solution further away.
After many years of looking at the issue I have to say what I realized in previous discussions, the everlasting propaganda against solutions and the pressure to researchers to report the problem in the most conservative way has led to what amounts to a huge error, as in not sounding as worried as the situation warrants it.
Threats and other kinds of pressure (Scientist X is an alarmist!) have led many researchers to concentrate on more optimistic scenarios, and I do think that most researchers also counted on the past understanding seen by governments that did the proper thing when CFCs, acid rain, phosphates from detergents, etc, were singled out as a problem. Just a few years back one could see many regulations and things like cap and trade used successfully to deal with issues like that.
The big mistake there is that these are not the past Republicans that still appreciate science, and powerful industriesfinanced the demonization of tools like cap-and-trade in American politics.In the past most researchers expected industry and government to follow the advise of science. And I do think that most do still expect that to be the case among many scientists, but I’m not as optimist as them in regards to thinking that the current government could be reason with.
We really need to understand that the weakest link is the current leadership in the Republican party and we should remove those rascals out with the ballot box.
Yes. Individual action might have a small effect at the margins, but the effect would be to marginally lower the price of carbon fuels and marginally increase the consumption of others. Chinese coal consumption has fallen slightly in recent years; will that trend continue? I don’t know, but the U.S. needs to get its own house in order before putting pressure on China.
As, XT points out, rally around nuclear power might be the best way to break our dependence on carbon fuels. But in fact the anti-carbon activists are often also anti-nuclear.
Solution must be political. Let’s hope Jay Inslee has a big effect on the upcoming debates.
Agreed. Though many will complain about China and say that they are the reason that we don’t have to do anything.
I’ve never quite understood that logic. Especially as China is working on the problem more seriously than we are right now.
Absolutely. Nukes do need to be regulated carefully. They can pose quite the problem if people aren’t doing them right.
But I do have confidence in our ability to do so.
Personally I agree with the sentiment that many environmentalists don’t want nukes because then that would mean more power which would mean more people, and they see people as the enemy of the environment. Or something, I’ve never quite grokked the zero population growth argument.
Fusion is just 50 years away, but until then, rolling out nuclear power is the only way for us to keep our standard of living without messing things up worse.
There are two ways to address climate change. The first is to reduce the number of people and/or their standard of living, this is something that society in general will never do voluntarily. Introducing carbon taxes will reduce standard of living, as would a GHG tax on cow burps. We can impose them, we have done similar things in the past, but they will be fought against by those who do not want to lower their standard of living.
The second is with technology. I don’t want to give up driving, but switching to a more fuel efficient or electric car is not going to negatively impact my standard of living. I don’t want to give up having my lights on, and my AC blasting in the summer, but getting my power from the splitting (or combining) of an atom shouldn’t bother me.
We need a bit of both, to be honest, but I’d rather concentrate on the latter than the former.
Sure. But carbon tax is the perfect way to achieve your desired result!! Just the right impetus for the free market to trail-blaze to low-carbon solutions. The revenue from the carbon tax can be returned to the same people it (regressively) taxes, e.g. by capped reimbursements for SocSec taxes. But big incentives are imposed.
I’m not opposed to mid-sized government investment in friendly energy technology. But a large carbon tax is the perfect way to set the free market in motion. The goal, after all, is to afford the full disposal price of CO2.
Note that trading partners which did NOT apply a carbon tax would suffer tariffs, priced to compensate for the failure to collect carbon tax.
I am all for a carbon tax, or a cap and trade, or whatever form of GHG emissions reduction policies are necessary. I just want to see the latter part, the innovation part to be more heavily focused upon.
This will decrease the standard of living, and therefore, be a harder sell. I am not against it, but I don’t know if we can get a majority to be for it.
I’ve always been for tariffs that made sense. If a country can produce widgets more cheaply due to inherent factors, then great. If a country can produce them cheaper by ignoring labor rights or the environment, then a tariff to reduce the competitive advantage of those abuses is prudent.
Carbon taxes are dying as a policy prescription, because governments that implement them keep getting kicked out of office.
Carbon taxes also aren’t working very well. Energy demand is highly inelastic, and it takes a long time to replace fossil fuels. In the meantime, we’re just taxing people.
If you’re saying voters tend to be stupid, we’re in agreement.
As for inelastic energy demand, we’re trying to move that, at least at the margins, toward conservation and toward energy with lower total cost (when “externals” are afforded). Thus the carbon tax is no bugaboo state planning — to the contrary,* it exploits free market economics, by making the carbon price more correct*. If the tax policy causes citizens to insulate their homes and install solar panels on the roof — good.
And did you miss the part where the carbon tax revenues are returned to the same people we took it from, e.g. via SocSec rebates?
Obviously this would work well for those driving their bicycles to work, and horribly for those using gas guzzlers on long commutes. That’s the whole point: to change incentives.* If you won’t instate a smallish carbon tax you’re completely unserious about addressing climate change.
-
- The change could be phased in over several years.
Pretty sure that based upon the evidence presented by current scientists, genocide or some other marked drastic reduction in the human population, is the only way to preserve the existence of the human race beyond 500 years from now.
What evidence would that be?