[jokoon]

This is one way to look at it.

My view is that climate change is a world problem. Governments will not oblige their citizens to make steps on their consumption if it means reducing their comfort and their economic power.

Steps should be taken in advance so that once green deals are put in place, countries can implement those effortlessly.

We often hear that some countries don't make enough efforts, but

1. Other countries import carbon emitting products

2. The developed countries of today have emmited greenhouse gases for decades, which allowed them to become developed countries.

The geopolitics of climate change are extremely difficult. I don't think the UN is up for it.

Although a better scenario would be to enact tight regulations on a country basis, but it's a political minefield. Imagine riots because people want to keep using their cars and trade goods that have become illegal, or vendettas against people who emit co2.

[chewz]

> Governments will not oblige their citizens to make steps on their consumption if it means reducing their comfort and their economic power.

Here is the catch - efforts to reduce overconsumption mean slowing economy and lower tax base. No goverment can afford that.

> Imagine riots because people want to keep using their cars and trade goods that have become illegal, or vendettas against people who emit co2.

I believe we are on a verge of Millenial movement of some sort that will make a matter of enviroment a quasi religion of sorts. That would change the attitudes.

[mcv]

For a long time, the only times pollution reduced was during economic slowdowns. Lately, these movements have become separate. Measures to make our consumption cleaner means we can reduce our pollution without having to reduce our consumption, and that's basically what we need. Cleaner energy production, electric cars, better insulated houses, etc. It's happening way too slowly, but it is happening. We can absolutely do this if we put more effort in phasing out the old technologies.

[crispinb]

The superstition that so-called 'economic growth' (which is actually not growth at all, but just a global entropy increase) can be decoupled from physical dismantling of ecosystems is a faith-based initiative of consumer-fundamentalism. There's no evidence that it's possible, and even the best approaches we can make would take centuries of technological advance - each decade destroying more of our living home.

[solarkraft]

> I believe we are on a verge of Millenial movement of some sort that will make a matter of enviroment a quasi religion of sorts. That would change the attitudes.

It's happening. And I'm really happy about it.

[robbiep]

So did everyone in the 60s and at other periods. The world changes, but it’s no revolution. I’ll believe it when I see it, I remain cautiously optimistic but have my doubts as to whether the ‘millennials’ will be able to pry themselves away from their self interest for long enough

[whatshisface]

Leaded gasoline, rivers that you can light on fire with a match, and chlorofluorocarbons are all things that were around America in 1960.

[robbiep]

And the world will be a different place in another 50 years, but did the golden age that all our parents thought was coming in the 60s materialise to their expectations? let's temper ours lest we grow disappointed and jaded.

Change is slow when viewed in a small timescale, and massive when viewed on a large one. I hope we sort our shit out, and I will contribute to the best of my ability to bring this about if at all possible. But, you know, history.

[whatshisface]

Aside from the 1950s equivalents of Ray Kurzweil, how many people back then really thought a golden age was on its way?

[Sharlin]

The birth of the first Green movement in the 70s was very much revolutionary. The cultural memory of just how bad things used to be has unfortunately already faded, to the extent that reactionary forces are endeavoring to bring back the bad old times.

[solarkraft]

I'd like to add, in case you don't know what I'm refering to:

There is a large movement widely called "Fridays for Future" going on lots of european cities (large and small) in which students will go on a school strike to demonstrate for sensible climate policy.

[crispinb]

Sure, and there's the Extinction Rebellion stuff in the UK. Here in Australia we're kind of complacent/lazy, not often giving a stuff about anything except sports, celebrities, and limitless acquisition of consumer crap. But there is a bit of the school strike stuff happening.

It's all a bit marginal though, isn't it?

People might object to the 'quasi religious' aspect of what you're talking about. I'd make the point though that any culture which acknowledges even minimally the true nature of the living planet that is our home would appear mystical or religious to the deathly bloodless denatured worldview that so ruthlessly holds power now. The latter is either going to give way to something that is a better fit for physical reality, or it will destroy itself by soiling its own nest, largely in hapless ignorance regarding what's at stake.

[solarkraft]

I can only speak out of my bubble here, but I believe the Fridays for Future movement and resistance against the copyright reform really shook the German youth and the whole country as a consequence.

I have a feeling things are actually moving: A few days ago a mid-sized German YouTuber has published a 1 hour long video harshly criticizing the major German party CDU, not for its support of the copyright reform, but largely on economic and ecologic grounds. Everyone, from younger friends to older coworkers are talking about it, sharing how far they have watched it so far, pledging to watch it ...

I don't think it would have spread this rapidly and far (it was at 2.4M views the last time I checked) without the already tense climate.

Maybe this movement is not a "quasi-religion" (though it might become so), but environment-politics are finally a major, widely discussed point.

[ulisesrmzroche]

People have been doing this forever, as in ecological propaganda. Even better, we had monkey-wrenching ecoterrorism.

Some youtuber putting out some random video is marginal at best. Kind of hopeless, honestly.

[crispinb]

I hope you're right. I really have my doubts, but have seen enough life not to be too confident in my predictions.

[inflatableDodo]

>I'd make the point though that any culture which acknowledges even minimally the true nature of the living planet that is our home would appear mystical or religious to the deathly bloodless denatured worldview that so ruthlessly holds power now.

I call it the 'Global Non-Denominational Death-Cult'. Ultimately it favours no particular group, but the tithe is very high.

[crispinb]

Absolutely - death cult is very apt.

[mythrwy]

I'm not happy about it.

Replacing one faith based authoritarian system with another isn't really a leap forward.

[crispinb]

Consumer-fundamentalism is the most dangerous faith-based authoritarian system the world has yet seen.

[Super_Jambo]

Just so long as they don't bio-char the boomer unbelievers. (Burning of course having too high a carbon footprint).

[js8]

> Governments will not oblige their citizens to make steps on their consumption if it means reducing their comfort

It's interesting though that they will oblige them to wars.

This is generally not a true statement. Government is not entirely segregated from the citizenry. It is, in some form, representation of society (even in a dictatorship).

[Gravityloss]

If half of the media tells it's a hoax, why would the population want to endure inconvenience for it.

Denialism has a real effect.

[mythrwy]

Was this a hoax?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm

It isn't necessarily denialism nor shilling to question the validity of predictions. It's a good thing.

Unfortunately the whole topic has become breathless "99% of scientists!" and tied in with social economic programs to the point I'm not convinced any more. To say nothing of failed predictions.

Ya, I believe C02 _should_ warm the earth based on the science. But this whole world is ending thing I'm waiting to actually see something.

For the record, I've been hearing this for over 30 years as an adult and so far not much. Perhaps one day it will all catch up, but I'm skeptical at this point.

[bumby]

I think it's more about the way we communicate model results. In the media, it's communicated as absolutes like "The ice caps will be gone by 2100!"

In reality, the model results are communicated in uncertainty. More akin to "There's a 70% chance the ice caps will be gone by 2100 if the current level of CO2 emissions are not abated." That's a much less sexy headline to say nothing about the fact that most people wouldn't be shocked if a 3 in 10 chance event actually happens. Nate Silver does a much better job explaining this in his book "The Signal and the Noise"

[sundvor]

It got the anti-environment pro-coal Liberals reelected in Australia last weekend, for sure. That, and fear of taxes for the stupidly rich.

[crispinb]

And now Labor is careening in the same pro-coal direction. Sad!

[ThomPete]

Half of the media don't. Most of the media live from the climate catastrophe rhetoric

[NeedMoreTea]

> better scenario would be to enact tight regulations on a country

Here, I am less convinced.

Globalisation came about in good part to move from the places with tighter regulation - on pollution, on employment, on finance - to those without.

It is the same way that offshore finance came about by trading each regulation against each other. The net result is there are fewer controls everywhere, despite a few headline money laundering regs. The history of this is fascinating.

[Mirioron]

I find it difficult to imagine how solutions to climate change, that don't rely on improvement in technology, won't result in authoritarianism. I don't think that all the world governments will accept limitations on their people freely.

[NeedMoreTea]

The clean air acts, the banning of freon and other CFCs, and other public health measures like treated water and ending leaded fuel required regulation not authoritarianism. All placed limitations on their people.

Why would this be any different?

We don't need to replace political choice, or freedoms with repression to bring in carbon taxes and start banning plastic, coal or gas.

[Mirioron]

Because those limitations are minor compared to "eat less meat", "don't drive a car" and "food will be more expensive in general". These are going to be very tough sells among populations that are not rich. Look at the Yellow Vests in France.

[NeedMoreTea]

Goods were more expensive in general when a sales tax or VAT was brought in. Without riots or oppressive regime.

If taxes and regulation penalise meat, people will buy less meat - just as taxes and regulation have changed the town landscape from cigarette butts everywhere, to remarkably infrequent. When I was at school pretty much everyone smoked. Now it's really uncommon to see a smoker. Again, there were no riots or oppression.

Considering the clear majority on both sides of the political map in Europe are convinced by AGW, rich and poor alike, I don't think it as tough a sell as you make out. Inequitable solutions will, rightfully, be a tough sell among populations.

[Mirioron]

None of those things are even remotely comparable to eating meat. Meat is the easiest way to have a balanced diet in terms of nutrition. When you increase the price then people will simply pay more. Besides, VAT and other such taxes are only around 20%. You need far more than that. Look at the Yellow Vests if you want to see what happens when prices go too high. We even have instances of political parties being voted out because they increased alcohol taxes too much. What do you think would happen with meat?

[NeedMoreTea]

Any nutritional argument is moot unless you are thinking of outright blanket ban, which is a completely different proposition.

We were not generally malnourished in the West during the fifties, sixties, and seventies, despite consuming far less meat. Though we were far less obese and there was far less type 2 diabetes. A chicken was more a tasty, luxury treat than the tasteless, textureless rubbish readily available everywhere today. Most ate meat, but far less in each meal.

Doesn't seem enough to bring down governments by itself. Defining party by single issue is downright dangerous. Particularly when the popular mood seems to increasingly be "fix the damn climate". The Tories - now polling 9% - probably wish they'd never even thought of mentioning the Brexit they are incapable of delivering.

p.s. The Yellow vests seem to be about the inequality of action rather than prices. French fuel prices are amongst the lower in the EU.

[Frondo]

Meat is easiest because it's sold everywhere. Where I live, someone makes a variety of vegan convenience food that they've managed to get stocked in 7-11s all over the place. The food is all comparably priced to meat-based equivalents (this is stuff like "vegan bbq pulled meat hand-pie") but completely plant-based.

If you ate one of those, you'd find it as filling, tasty, and satisfying as something meat-based.

In fact, eating those (just out of curiosity) was the thing that even opened me up to a meat-free diet, because before that, I'd had friends serve me tempe, tofu, etc., and man that stuff is a bad introduction to a plant-based diet.

If you added a tax on meat to where the tasty, high-quality plant-based thing being sold at the 7-11s was now 20% cheaper, people would switch and not even think twice about it.

The problem is that, up to now, people package plant-based food as part of a lifestyle, and not just something tasty to stand alone on its own. Hopefully the impossible burger and beyond meat close that gap, too. You shouldn't need to be a straight-edge hardcore vegan to eat only plants 6 out of 7 days of the week.

[specialist]

Do you eat organ meat? That's where most of the necessary nutrients are.

https://terrywahls.com/minding-your-mitochondria-dr-terry-wa...

How much protein do you eat per day? Anything more than 5-6 ounces of meat per day is just wasted, harmful.

[adrianN]

You don't have to stop eating meat completely. It just becomes more expensive.

[specialist]

Versus the "eat more meat", "drink more milk", "ingest more HFCS", "build more sprawl" campaigns?

Freedom Markets™ proponents always obsesses over taxes and ignore the incentives.

Consumption will follow the subsidies.

[coldtea]

>Why would this be any different?

Because nobody cares about "freon banning" with plenty of alternatives, or treated water, and leaded fuel had a long runway letting people the time to replace cars etc.

It's the actual "hard" bans and lifestyle change requiring laws that people would complain about.

And doubly so corporations and private interests making money off of them.

[coldtea]

Or, inversely, that those seeking to expand their powers and enforce authoritarianism wont hijack the "climate change" as their excuse...

[crispinb]

I don't know about the solutions - my view is that the die is cast.

> My view is that climate change is a world problem

That's undoubtedly true, and the fossil fuel companies clearly acknowledge this - their 30 year anti-science propaganda campaigns have been waged across the world.

[crottypeter]

>30 year

40 year

[consp]

> Governments will not oblige their citizens to make steps on their consumption if it means reducing their comfort and their economic power.

The effects climate change has and will have are doing that for them.

[maxxxxx]

" if it means reducing their comfort and their economic power."

This is not really clear. You could argue that using more solar and electric vehicles will increase comfort due to cleaner air.

[inflatableDodo]

>Governments will not oblige their citizens to make steps on their consumption if it means reducing their comfort and their economic power.

The UK government is currently delivering on all three, though I suspect not for any ecological reasons.