The next few decades will be a laugh, seeing all the world leaders try to solve climate change without actually affecting consumption.
Greta is right, it cannot be denied. First worlders are exceptionally wasteful and the easiest way to cut emissions is to simply stop consuming and wasting so frivolously. But who actually wants to do that? Practically nobody.
Climate change is not a problem caused by individual-level decisions or virtues. It's not solved by them either. Climate change is a coordination problem. It must be solved without relying on human virtues. Change the game (regulation, taxation) so that individual cost matches the harm.
Carbon tax should be so high that nobody asks if they should fly but if they can afford to fly.
We need more people to be working on solving climate change, not less. We would have viable nuclear power by now if it weren't for all of the leftists in the 70s-90s protesting its existence and making it a liability for many companies to even consider it.
The unintended consequences of this would be stunning. But I suspect if the people that enacted these proposals were ever around to see the results, they would shift the blame.
"Carbon tax should be so high that nobody asks if they should fly but if they can afford to fly."
Just like all of these types of proposals, they only help the rich and powerful. Propose gun control? But hire private guards with guns to protect you. Propose Universal health care? But have the best private care in the world that the rest of us will no longer be able to afford.
We also aren't focusing on the actual source of the problem. The US only accounts for around 25% of total carbon emission. India and China make up a much larger percentage, yet can can continue to pollute and destroy the environment with impunity while gaining power in the process. While economies shrink in places that have strict carbon emission rules, China doesn't follow those same rules and grows. It's sort of like playing baseball when the other team is allowed to take steroids.
..and before you tell me about per/capita and 'fairness', this doesn't really matter in the end when humanity is destroyed.
I think that individual-level decisions have a lot of impact from how and what we consume to whom we decide to vote for.
For example, even your suggestion to change the game through regulation and taxation boils down to individual-level decisions to demand this from governments (which in general we elect).
Repeating that the problems are not caused by individual-level decisions only passes the buck and make people think that it is not their fault and that it is not for them to do something whereas I think that, on the contrary everything starts at individual-level.
And what do she need to be really happy? is she happy today? My concept of happiness was totally different when I was 18 years old, than now 22 years after.
A serious question that occurs me, over and over again: which alternatives people have for "long flights" ? If I want to go from Poland/Germany to Portugal or Uruguay, which alternatives are a viable, other than fly?
>If I want to go from Poland/Germany to Portugal or Uruguay, which alternatives are a viable, other than fly?
If you merely "want to" (e.g. for entertainment, tourism) the alternative would be to stay at home or visit neighborhood countries where you don't need a flight to go to.
If you need to (e.g. for work or some serious reason) you could still fly.
[+] [-] orange_tee|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nabla9|5 years ago|reply
Climate change is not a problem caused by individual-level decisions or virtues. It's not solved by them either. Climate change is a coordination problem. It must be solved without relying on human virtues. Change the game (regulation, taxation) so that individual cost matches the harm.
Carbon tax should be so high that nobody asks if they should fly but if they can afford to fly.
[+] [-] sacks2k|5 years ago|reply
The unintended consequences of this would be stunning. But I suspect if the people that enacted these proposals were ever around to see the results, they would shift the blame.
"Carbon tax should be so high that nobody asks if they should fly but if they can afford to fly."
Just like all of these types of proposals, they only help the rich and powerful. Propose gun control? But hire private guards with guns to protect you. Propose Universal health care? But have the best private care in the world that the rest of us will no longer be able to afford.
We also aren't focusing on the actual source of the problem. The US only accounts for around 25% of total carbon emission. India and China make up a much larger percentage, yet can can continue to pollute and destroy the environment with impunity while gaining power in the process. While economies shrink in places that have strict carbon emission rules, China doesn't follow those same rules and grows. It's sort of like playing baseball when the other team is allowed to take steroids.
..and before you tell me about per/capita and 'fairness', this doesn't really matter in the end when humanity is destroyed.
[+] [-] mytailorisrich|5 years ago|reply
For example, even your suggestion to change the game through regulation and taxation boils down to individual-level decisions to demand this from governments (which in general we elect).
Repeating that the problems are not caused by individual-level decisions only passes the buck and make people think that it is not their fault and that it is not for them to do something whereas I think that, on the contrary everything starts at individual-level.
[+] [-] throwaway888abc|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pelasaco|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pelasaco|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldtea|5 years ago|reply
If you merely "want to" (e.g. for entertainment, tourism) the alternative would be to stay at home or visit neighborhood countries where you don't need a flight to go to.
If you need to (e.g. for work or some serious reason) you could still fly.
[+] [-] coldtea|5 years ago|reply
How magnanimus of her