# Matt Walsh: Climate alarmists, I can’t take you seriously until you start living like the Amish **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 2, 2017, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matt-walsh-climate-alarmists-i-can-t-take-you-seriously-until-you-start-living-like-the-amish/785702 "2017-05-02T08:30:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matt-walsh-climate-alarmists-i-can-t-take-you-seriously-until-you-start-living-like-the-amish/785702/161 "2017-05-04T16:46:14Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Second: I do use light rail and carpool. Turned my garden to a very low water use. Support nuclear power that is one of our power sources in Phoenix. Adding solar power this year to the house Why are you doing these things? I have it on good authority that: > [@Gyrate](#): > > None of those things will have more than the tiniest fraction of an impact on the environment compared to the effect of government action on climate change ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matt-walsh-climate-alarmists-i-can-t-take-you-seriously-until-you-start-living-like-the-amish/785702/162 "2017-05-04T16:48:09Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Think about the example of old England and the contamination of the Thames. The early adopters of flushing toilets and pipes in their homes had less costs and less issues dealing with the changes once the big waterworks and sewage systems were completed. So I should start doing those things mentioned, not as a way to minimize the dangers of Climate Change, but to better position myself for when the government regulations come out? ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matt-walsh-climate-alarmists-i-can-t-take-you-seriously-until-you-start-living-like-the-amish/785702/163 "2017-05-04T16:50:37Z")
> [@Not\_Carlson](#): > > Or will you now tell me that I’m misinterpreting what the OP is saying? I don’t think you are misinterpreting what the OP is saying, no. > [@](#): > > You claim to accept that climate change is obviously a real problem. (_“You know it, I know it, 97% of scientists know it.”_) > And yet you act as if you can’t believe that there really are [climate change denialists](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20176833&postcount=1) I believe there are climate change denialists. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matt-walsh-climate-alarmists-i-can-t-take-you-seriously-until-you-start-living-like-the-amish/785702/164 "2017-05-04T16:53:34Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Why are you doing these things? I have it on good authority that: Explained on post #160. But I will notice here the typical misguided opinion of followers of FOX news and conservative social media friends. > [@Slash1972](#): > > So I should start doing those things mentioned, not as a way to minimize the dangers of Climate Change, but to better position myself for when the government regulations come out? That one part of it, another reason that is very important is that consumer power then does guide a lot of changes that the government can make. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matt-walsh-climate-alarmists-i-can-t-take-you-seriously-until-you-start-living-like-the-amish/785702/165 "2017-05-04T17:21:22Z")
This is exactly the same argument as “If you think tax rate should be higher, go ahead and make an extra payment to the IRS!” There are lots of people who feel strongly about the issue, but resent taking the initiative themselves when others continue to behave irresponsibly and _benefit_ from it. Why would I spend $40,000 on an electric car when my neighbor is free to (and can afford to) drive his 20-year old SUV that only gets 15 mpg? The only way to make a large change is to even the playing field for everyone, and force ourselves to share the burden. There just aren’t enough people who will voluntarily take the burden. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matt-walsh-climate-alarmists-i-can-t-take-you-seriously-until-you-start-living-like-the-amish/785702/166 "2017-05-04T19:09:32Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That one part of it, another reason that is very important is that consumer power then does guide a lot of changes that the government can make. I don’t know what you mean by this. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matt-walsh-climate-alarmists-i-can-t-take-you-seriously-until-you-start-living-like-the-amish/785702/167 "2017-05-04T19:10:37Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > There are lots of people who feel strongly about the issue, but resent taking the initiative themselves when others continue to behave irresponsibly and _benefit_ from it. Why would I spend $40,000 on an electric car when my neighbor is free to (and can afford to) drive his 20-year old SUV that only gets 15 mpg? Why would you base your actions on what OTHER people are doing? ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matt-walsh-climate-alarmists-i-can-t-take-you-seriously-until-you-start-living-like-the-amish/785702/168 "2017-05-04T19:26:29Z")
There’s a level of “preaching to the choir” here … I think the average SDMB poster is _already_ living an environmentally conscience lifestyle > [@GIGObuster](#): > > {snip} … That one part of it, another reason that is very important is that consumer power then does guide a lot of changes that the government can make. This is important … We the People AND the government need to make these changes together … the individual has a part to play, the government has a part to play and the international community has their part … together we can solve the problem … ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matt-walsh-climate-alarmists-i-can-t-take-you-seriously-until-you-start-living-like-the-amish/785702/169 "2017-05-04T19:34:57Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Why would you base your actions on what OTHER people are doing? Because what is rational to do when acting individually is not always the same as what is rational to want everyone to be forced to do. This is Economics 101. Prisoner’s Dilemma stuff. The classic example is the smoking paradox. Suppose you work in an office with 40 people and all of them, including you, smoke. You really love smoking. You write fan letters to Phillip Morris and sing smoking songs. Why, you like smoking so much that you figure the value, to you, of smoking a cigarette is a buck. The thing is, you DON’T like smoke being in your eyes, that hurts. You don’t even like the smoke from your own smoke being in your eyes. To you, the irritation of that is worth about a negative 25 cents. Everyone in your office feels the same way, with the same values. If there is no rule against smoking in your office, the rational thing for you to do is always to smoke. No matter how much smoke is in the air, smoking will increase your utility by 75 cents - a buck up for the joy of smoking, and 25 cents down for the smoke in your eyes. The problem you face, of course, is that it’s also rational for everyone else in the office to smoke. In fact, smoking is ALWAYS the rational choice, no matter how many other people are smoking. (Do the math.) You’re always ahead by smoking. Of course, this inevitably means all 40 people will smoke, and so everyone will suffer a negative utility of -9 bucks - plus $1 for the joy of their own cigarette, minus $10 for the smoke of 40 cigarettes. If you individually choose not to smoke, you are worse off; you’re down $9.75, since you save 25 cents of irritation but lose a buck’s worth of delicious nicotine. It is always in your best interests to smoke. Okay, let’s now change the game; it’s put to a vote; should smoking be banned in the office? Note that it is an open concept office, there will be smoke detectors, and the penalty for smoking far exceeds your utility (you get fired.) Now what do you do? Rationally, you will vote to ban smoking. Even though the rational decision when you were acting on your own was to smoke, the rational decision if you know everyone will act in concert is to vote to make it impossible for anyone, including yourself, to smoke. You will increase your utility from -9 to 0. This is, basically, the logical issue behind this entire thread. Acting individually to reduce carbon emissions does very, very little. It’s often not rational. However, it is, at the same time, perfectly rational for the same person to want political action to take place whereby EVERYONE has to do something. This applies to a great deal of public policy. Back in the day, if you were walking a dog and it had to take a dump, you just left the shit behind on the sidewalk. This isn’t that long ago - when I was a kid in the 70s and 80s dog shit was everywhere. It was irritating as hell but for any one individual dog owner leaving your dog’s shit behind was the rational choice, since it’s super convenient and it is very unlikely you will personally step in your own dog’s shit. But collectively we decided to prohibit such things, through fines wayyy higher than people are willing to pay. Now you almost never see dog shit on the sidewalk. What did not make sense individually made perfect sense collectively. People are better off now. (If you want to step back in time, go to France, where laws against leaving dog crap around are very recent and are almost never enforced; there is dog shit absolutely everywhere in major cities.) Taxes? Same thing. I, personally, would be much better off individually if I paid no tax. But if there was no rule about paying taxes there’s be no government and I’d be a slave to some marauding warlord. I heartily approve of the law that forces me and everyone else to pay tax because I am better off for it, even though if it was an individual choice I would clearly be better off NOT paying tax. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matt-walsh-climate-alarmists-i-can-t-take-you-seriously-until-you-start-living-like-the-amish/785702/170 "2017-05-04T19:40:37Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Why would you base your actions on what OTHER people are doing? I base my actions on the consequences of my actions. Why would ANYONE take an action that has an economic cost to them, and by itself provides negligible benefit to himself/herself or to the world? That’s the root cause of the Tragedy of the Commons. That’s why it takes an agreement between a lot of people to make a change. Though of course, I already live as “green” as I can, but not to the point where it incurs a lot of cost to me. So I bike most places, but not to the extent that I’m spending all my free time going places. I have a Honda Fit, not a Tesla. We use the air conditioning as little as possible (still haven’t used it this year), but not paid a fortune on ultra-efficient cooling systems. etc. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matt-walsh-climate-alarmists-i-can-t-take-you-seriously-until-you-start-living-like-the-amish/785702/171 "2017-05-04T19:51:09Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > The classic example is the smoking paradox. Suppose you work in an office with 40 people and all of them, including you, smoke. You really love smoking. You write fan letters to Phillip Morris and sing smoking songs. Why, you like smoking so much that you figure the value, to you, of smoking a cigarette is a buck. > > The thing is, you DON’T like smoke being in your eyes, that hurts. You don’t even like the smoke from your own smoke being in your eyes. To you, the irritation of that is worth about a negative 25 cents. > > Everyone in your office feels the same way, with the same values. > > If there is no rule against smoking in your office, the rational thing for you to do is always to smoke. No matter how much smoke is in the air, smoking will increase your utility by 75 cents - a buck up for the joy of smoking, and 25 cents down for the smoke in your eyes Thank you for typing this. But I disagree with this here. You are not factoring in the costs of the cigarette nor the health costs of smoking that cigarette. So this premise that you’ve constructed is already flawed. > [@](#): > > Okay, let’s now change the game; it’s put to a vote; should smoking be banned in the office? Note that it is an open concept office, there will be smoke detectors, and the penalty for smoking far exceeds your utility (you get fired.) Now what do you do? Rationally, you will vote to ban smoking I dispute this. If I like to smoke, and it’s easier to smoke in the office instead of going outside, why would I vote to ban smoking in the office? That makes no sense. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matt-walsh-climate-alarmists-i-can-t-take-you-seriously-until-you-start-living-like-the-amish/785702/172 "2017-05-04T19:53:03Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > Why would ANYONE take an action that has an economic cost to them, and by itself provides negligible benefit to himself/herself or to the world? Who knows? Ask the people who buy electric cars. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matt-walsh-climate-alarmists-i-can-t-take-you-seriously-until-you-start-living-like-the-amish/785702/173 "2017-05-04T20:05:19Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > I base my actions on the consequences of my actions. Why would ANYONE take an action that has an economic cost to them, and by itself provides negligible benefit to himself/herself or to the world? That’s the root cause of the Tragedy of the Commons. That’s why it takes an agreement between a lot of people to make a change. > > Though of course, I already live as “green” as I can, but not to the point where it incurs a lot of cost to me. So I bike most places, but not to the extent that I’m spending all my free time going places. I have a Honda Fit, not a Tesla. We use the air conditioning as little as possible (still haven’t used it this year), but not paid a fortune on ultra-efficient cooling systems. etc. But, there are economic incentives to being conservative with such things. Gas costs money, so a gas guzzler is hard on your wallet as well as the earth. AC costs money to run. > [@Slash1972](#): > > Thank you for typing this. But I disagree with this here. You are not factoring in the costs of the cigarette nor the health costs of smoking that cigarette. So this premise that you’ve constructed is already flawed. I think you missed the point of the analogy. Tell you what, change the analogy to eating beans at lunch, and farting in the office. > [@](#): > > I dispute this. If I like to smoke, and it’s easier to smoke in the office instead of going outside, why would I vote to ban smoking in the office? That makes no sense. Because you would rather smoke outside than to deal with the smoke inside, but, even if you are not smoking inside, unless it is banned, you are still dealing with the smoke. > [@Slash1972](#): > > Who knows? Ask the people who buy electric cars. There are people with more resources than the bare resources needed for survival, and people make decisions with those resources. They may not use them to maximize their personal utility, instead deciding to gain a personal fulfillment utility out of spending their resources in a socially conscious way. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matt-walsh-climate-alarmists-i-can-t-take-you-seriously-until-you-start-living-like-the-amish/785702/174 "2017-05-04T20:09:42Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I think you missed the point of the analogy. Tell you what, change the analogy to eating beans at lunch, and farting in the office Why would I want to fart in the office? That makes even LESS sense. > [@](#): > > Because you would rather smoke outside than to deal with the smoke inside That’s an assumption made that I disagree with. I wouldn’t rather smoke outside than deal with smoke inside. In terms of the flawed analogy, I assign a value of $50 to not having to walk outside and smoke. Therefore, I come out ahead by staying in the office and smoking. The analogy is flawed because it is using made up numbers and unfounded assumptions. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matt-walsh-climate-alarmists-i-can-t-take-you-seriously-until-you-start-living-like-the-amish/785702/175 "2017-05-04T20:11:52Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > They may not use them to maximize their personal utility, instead deciding to gain a personal fulfillment utility out of spending their resources in a socially conscious way. While I agree with this, I want to ask a question in the spirit of the current conversation: How is it socially conscious when it has little to no impact on the environment? What is socially conscious about it? ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matt-walsh-climate-alarmists-i-can-t-take-you-seriously-until-you-start-living-like-the-amish/785702/176 "2017-05-04T20:12:20Z")
It really reeks of desperation when someone focuses on nit-picking an _analogy_. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matt-walsh-climate-alarmists-i-can-t-take-you-seriously-until-you-start-living-like-the-amish/785702/177 "2017-05-04T20:13:42Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > It really reeks of desperation when someone focuses on nit-picking an _analogy_. Yes, because this is the first thread in the history of the message board where someone had their flawed analogy pointed out to them :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matt-walsh-climate-alarmists-i-can-t-take-you-seriously-until-you-start-living-like-the-amish/785702/178 "2017-05-04T20:17:22Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Yes, because this is the first thread in the history of the message board where someone had their flawed analogy pointed out to them :rolleyes: And you focus on the one that you can find fault in, and not the other two (taxes and the [Tragedy of the Commons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons), which is not just a concept but comes from an actual example). And it’s such a basic concept in economics that I’m surprised anyone needs an analogy to understand it. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matt-walsh-climate-alarmists-i-can-t-take-you-seriously-until-you-start-living-like-the-amish/785702/179 "2017-05-04T20:20:52Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > And you focus on the one that you can find fault in, and not the other two (taxes and the [Tragedy of the Commons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons), which is not just a concept but comes from an actual example). And it’s such a basic concept in economics that I’m surprised anyone needs an analogy to understand it. I focused on the one that he detailed in the post. If there are some other flawed analogies that you’d like to submit, feel free. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matt-walsh-climate-alarmists-i-can-t-take-you-seriously-until-you-start-living-like-the-amish/785702/180 "2017-05-04T20:30:29Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Thank you for typing this. But I disagree with this here. You are not factoring in the costs of the cigarette nor the health costs of smoking that cigarette. So this premise that you’ve constructed is already flawed. Your points here are completely irrelevant. Try reading it again. If it makes you feel better, assume the cost of the cigarette and health costs are worked into the utility valuations (because they are.) Or, you know, take Economics 101. Or look up the wikipedia entry on “Prisoner’s Dillemma” and go from there. If you just don’t want to learn, well, I can’t force you to. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matt-walsh-climate-alarmists-i-can-t-take-you-seriously-until-you-start-living-like-the-amish/785702.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matt-walsh-climate-alarmists-i-can-t-take-you-seriously-until-you-start-living-like-the-amish/785702.md?page=10)