[neuronic]

It seems like an issue would be the requirement of massive cuts into freedom - possibly preventing people from pursuing their livelihoods. At the very least, these livelihoods have to be significantly shifted. Convincing people to support or even drive these uncomfortable changes in their lives is more than hard.

Look at car manufacturing. I doubt we will be able to 1:1 replace jobs related to combustion-engine based cars. There are so many parts and corresponding suppliers involved. It all vanishes with electric cars due to their comparative simplicity. From resources mining to car mechanic - many people are directly affected.

Of course new jobs will arise with electric cars, new mobility and computerized driving. But those are not for the drive train engineers, manufacturers and related workforce. Those will be for new, highly trained individuals or appear in a different sector, such as service - and that is if these new jobs aren't automated anyways.

Replacing plastic straws is facing severe opposition because the alternatives are not well liked. For quite a lot of people it is more important to have a non-soggy straw than to let one less bird die.

Many of us are also ready to reduce flying, especially ridiculously cheap flights that make your carbon footprint explode. Others, less fortunate than us, depend on such flights for their only vacation this year.

Are we going to take that away from them in the name of climate by imposing a carbon tax? Should a flight from Northern Europe to Tenerife really cost 90€ while blowing enormous amounts of CO2 into the damaged atmosphere?

We are getting into authoritarianism here at some point...

[throwaway5752]

Your freedom to move your fist ends at the tip of my nose. Climate change is hurting many worldwide, and it will get worse base on all available evidence. You are massively cutting the most basic of freedoms (food, water, and livelihood) by not fixing it.

You aren't allowed to drive drunk because it hurts others, and that's not authoritarianism. It's simply not allowing someone to harm others, just as climate change is doing to many.

[JudgeWapner]

> You are massively cutting the most basic of freedoms (food, water, and livelihood)

my lungs emit CO2, so you must either believe that infringes on your freedoms, or that some emission of CO2 is acceptable. What about the food you eat. How did it get to the grocer? How much energy did it take to produce the nitrogen that was used to fertilize the soil, or to drive the tractor that harvested and plowed the field? What about the structures that you dwell in every day? They took an enormous amount of concrete and steel which rely on fossil fuels to procure and assemble.

Unless you advocate going back to a caveman society, carbon emission is so deeply ingrained in our society that it cannot be eliminated in our generation. And you do not have the right to tell others to live like a caveman.

[brandon272]

One thing I am finding really nuts is that, in spite of what we now know about climate change, North American drivers are currently thirsting for larger and larger, less fuel efficient, very expensive trucks and sport utility vehicles. Auto manufacturers are currently tripping over themselves to design and produce larger vehicles to satisfy that demand.

Given that, I have a really hard time reconciling the "we just can't do anything, sorry, it'll hurt our freedoms" attitude with the "I don't care about my CO2 output" attitude that is evident in the consumption behaviours of most people I see. It's as if they consider outputting tonne after tonne of carbon into the atmosphere as a point of pride or immutable entitlement.

[drak0n1c]

The data shows that the U.S. lowered emissions in 2017 and 2018 more than other major countries. A fraction of the <10% of emissions that personal vehicles make up isn't worth focusing valuable attention and effort toward.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/04/us-carbon-dioxide-emissio...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-...

[brandon272]

Our views on vehicles and vehicle fuel consumption are symbolic of how we view our commitment to lowering emissions. People aren't buying huge SUV's because they've analyzed the data to determine that the relative impact of their consumption isn't worth buying a smaller vehicle. They are choosing to spend more on fuel-guzzling vehicles (and spend more on fuel) because their consumption and output is an afterthought.

While total overall emissions (in the U.S.) may be steady or shrinking, the total amount of emissions for transportation is growing. There's no excuse for that. All it tells us is that an overall reduction in GHG emissions could be even lower if people made slightly more conscientious transport choices.

https://rhg.com/research/preliminary-2017-us-emissions/

[jfnixon]

"People aren't buying huge SUV's because they've analyzed the data to determine that the relative impact of their consumption isn't worth buying a smaller vehicle."

Just curious how you know this to be true.

[brandon272]

It's an assumption. Would be happy to be proven wrong if you know otherwise.

[jfnixon]

Anecdotal only, but I notice my friends with more than 3 kids need a larger vehicle. Also, heavier vehicles are safer for the passengers. And some people need to carry cargo.

I'm sure not everyone has a 'good' reason, but a fair number of people do make a conscious choice.

[minikites]

>It's as if they consider outputting tonne after tonne of carbon into the atmosphere as a point of pride.

They absolutely do, it's about spite and punishing other people:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/business/energy-environme...

>“Why don’t you go live in Sweden and get the heck out of our country,” Mr. Blue wrote.” I will continue to roll coal anytime I feel like and fog your stupid eco-cars.”

http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/29/17971903-to-figh...

>The negative impact of environmental messaging became apparent when 210 study participants were given $2 to go light bulb shopping. When energy efficient, but more costly, compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) were sold with a sticker that read "Protect the Environment," conservatives shied away from them.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelt...

>Taking joy in that suffering is more human than most would like to admit. Somewhere on the wide spectrum between adolescent teasing and the smiling white men in the lynching photographs are the Trump supporters whose community is built by rejoicing in the anguish of those they see as unlike them, who have found in their shared cruelty an answer to the loneliness and atomization of modern life.

[dTal]

This comment is not overstating matters. I encourage anyone to go and skim the Wikipedia article on "rolling coal" to appreciate the magnitude of the issue. This isn't quiet resentment of environmentalism we're talking about here, this is open and self-aware rebellion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal

[wcoenen]

> go and skim the Wikipedia article on "rolling coal" to appreciate the magnitude of the issue

The article just describes what it is. It has no information on how prevalent the practice is.

[vages]

I don't think any of the restrictions you mention should be called authoritarian. Nations and the world have made many things illegal in the name of the common good before, e.g. child labor, slavery and leaded gasoline: Taking away someone's "freedom" to poison society and nature with leaded gasoline is really _giving_ the freedom to live a healthy life back to everyone else.

All of the problems you have mentioned are solvable. And I think people's attitude towards environmental restrictions will change much more rapidly than you'd expect: https://www.positive.news/society/must-change-always-be-slow...

[morsch]

I agree that it appears unfair that only rich people would end up getting to fly, and that's because it is unfair: we're not used to income/wealth inequality having this particular effect of drastically restricting mobility anymore (though it's only been 50 years[1]).

On the other hand we are very accustomed[2] to inequality having drastic effects in virtually all other respects, including such fundamental ones as how long you live and if you get to have your own room. For both of these, some countries have specialized solutions to absorb some of the shock (e.g. Medicaid, socialized health care, public housing, rent control). I guess it's not inconceivable to have something similar for transportation, no doubt with the same limited effect on inequality as with health care and housing.

But inevitably, global warming is going to affect the lower income groups first and foremost. If we wait, the effects of global warming will just be worse, particularly for them.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_set [2] bizarrely so, in my opinion

[lazyjones]

> Should a flight from Northern Europe to Tenerife really cost 90€ while blowing enormous amounts of CO2 into the damaged atmosphere?

It's not authoritarianism to simply increase taxes for kerosine to be more in line with car fuels. But the Gores and Schwarzeneggers like flying around the globe to Davos and other places to spread their message.

[makerofspoons]

We didn't care that we were not able to create 1:1 replacement jobs when we stopped making buggies and started making cars. I doubt the system will care this time either. I agree with you that convincing people to support these changes would be hard, but fortunately the economy will shift regardless of what the losers want. Electric vehicles are simply better, as are renewable energy sources and other growing technologies. What I'm more worried about is people voting for authoritarians that will artificially prop up dinosaur technology like coal power stations.