[CuriousSkeptic]

I’m genuinely curious about the answer to this question. It’s confusing me that the impression from any scientific source is that 1.5 is long gone, 2.0 is a pipe dream and any likely scenario is far higher, and that is if we start to implement drastic measures right now. Yet even the most hardcore “green” politicians talk about the issue as if we can drag our feets another decade or two with minimal impact on current generations. Why the big gulf here?

[AnthonyMouse]

If you have two politicians, and one of them tells you everything is fine and we don't have to do anything, and the other says you're going to have to pay more today to prevent some hypothetical future badness tomorrow even though they can't demonstrate the badness until tomorrow, people are skeptical of the thing that costs them money. Even if it's true.

Then politicians want to get elected, so the one side moderates their position and the other doesn't.

It's one of the reasons carbon tax + dividend might actually have a chance. If the dividend only goes to humans but the tax is paid by both humans and corporations, and it's revenue neutral, then the average real person is getting back more than they're paying. That's the sort of thing people like.

[xyzzyz]

It's one of the reasons carbon tax + dividend might actually have a chance. If the dividend only goes to humans but the tax is paid by both humans and corporations, and it's revenue neutral, then the average real person is getting back more than they're paying. That's the sort of thing people like.

I don't think humans will get much back out of it. Most of what corporations are emitting is on behalf of the customers. All the cement factories that emit insane amounts of CO2 do it because that's what it takes to produce cement, which customers then buy. When carbon tax passes, the cement price will necessarily rise, which will offset some of the dividend gains. The exact amount of increase depends on the elasticity of the demand for concrete, but from what I can tell, there aren't really any substitutes for concrete that wouldn't also be hit by carbon tax (there's lumber, but most of what we currently build with concrete can already hardly be built with wood).

This is not to say that carbon tax wouldn't have intended results: it would indeed shift the consumption towards less carbon-intensive products. However, I don't expect that average carbon dividend will be significant.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Most of what corporations are emitting is on behalf of the customers.

You might go so far as to say that all of it is, but that's not the question. The question is, if e.g. concrete costs more due to the tax but we still need it, how much of the tax is passed on to consumers vs. coming out of corporate cash piles? If the answer is "anything less than 100% in all cases" then the difference is a net transfer from corporations to humans.

[CuriousSkeptic]

Also consider wealth difference. Wealthier spend more money than poor people, so even if just a tiny fraction of every dollar is passed back as dividends, the accumulative effect is to distribute wealth towards the poor.

[tgsovlerkhgsel]

Prices going up is less direct, and thus likely less on people's minds, than "I'm getting a check from the government every month".

[xyzzyz]

Because most people have heard the scaremongering about global warming for decades already, and nothing that requires a total realignment of the economy and society hasn't happened yet (and no, some heatwaves and some extra hurricanes are not a big deal enough to make people care). Politicians understand that nothing serious will happen in their lifetimes either, and scientists, when asked, don't paint nearly as bleak picture of the warming as the activists suggest.

Look at the most recent IPCC report: the predicted sea level rise by 2100 is below 1 meter with 95% confidence, and the economic cost of global warming is predicted to be at only a few percent of global GDP. Sure, we'll need to build a few sea walls here and there, rebuild a few more houses destroyed in hurricanes, shift cultivation from the newly-desertified areas to the areas where the climate change increases precipitation, but that's not a disastrous outcome that we need to avert by spending huge amounts of effort right now. Of course, if you support yourself by back-breaking subsistence farming, these things would in fact be a disaster for you, but this is a problem for poor people in poor places very far from developed countries. We (both society and the politicians) don't care much about their plight today, and we won't care about them in future either.

That's why hardcore "green" politicians don't push the society for some serious change: because there's not much need to do so in developed countries. People wouldn't like the change, because it would make their lives clearly worse, while doing nothing won't make it significantly worse. Some people though like the mood affiliation brought by "green" people fighting for "climate", which is why the green politicians only need to hit those notes in their hearts to get the support. Making real change is optional.

[CuriousSkeptic]

This was my understanding until a few weeks ago. But reading up on the subject paints a different picture. With the non-linear changes likely to be hit soon. Things are going to get serious for us too, and likely noticeably so within the next decade.

[xyzzyz]

Where did you read about these non-linear changes? Do these represent the climate change consensus, like e.g. IPCC?

[CuriousSkeptic]

To be honest I’m extrapolating a bit based on my own understanding of complex systems, and how the IPCC report things vs, how individual scientists interpret things, and how scientists tend to report things. But when reading IPCC watch out for language about “safe predictions” (linear extrapolations from historical data based is kind of safe, since it’s easily quantifiable, model based on uncertain non-linear changes in unprecedented conditions are less safe, so official reports are wary of quantifying things beyond hand wavy descriptions.

This YouTube channel was suggested here on HN a while back, and has been interesting to follow: https://www.youtube.com/user/PaulHBeckwith

[vkou]

> Yet even the most hardcore “green” politicians talk about the issue as if we can drag our frets another decade or two with minimal impact on current generations. Why the big gulf here?

Green politicians demand action yesterday, 'Green new deal' politicians demand 30% reductions in the short term, left-wing politicians who are in power promise 30% reductions over the next 15 years[1], right-wing politicians who are in power promise 30% increases over the next 15 years.

The problem is that:

1. In non-proportional-representation countries, a vote for green is a wasted vote.

2. In proportional-representation countries, greens get some votes and government seats, but whether that translates into political power is dependent on blind luck. Depending on how many seats other parties get, they may be included in a coalition (And thus, have some influence on policy), or completely shut out (And thus, have no influence on policy).

3. The United States is the biggest per first-world polluter, and thus has the most low-hanging fruit to be picked. But all else being equal, it tends to vote right-wing. [2]

PS. Before anyone says 'China' - China's emission policies can be influenced by tariffs. We just need to get off our asses, and clean up our own house, first.

[1] Of course, they won't do anything to curtail carbon-extraction industries - they expect the rest of us to sacrifice so that petro-firms can keep making money.

[2] The only reason US emissions have been holding steady, despite 'coal now, coal tomorrow, and coal forever' rhetoric, is blind luck. The unit economics of natural gas became good, because of fracking, and it emits less CO2 per KWH than coal. If it weren't for fracking, the US would be right on the path the Republican party wants it to be.

[bitwize]

Even the most "green" politician must court the votes of people who've become comfortable in this modern lifestyle and are unwilling to see it changed. And most of those are on the take from big corporate donors.

If AGW has a solution, it lies only in drastic population reduction and a complete rewilding of the human race -- what Daniel Quinn called "living in the hands of the gods". This lies well out of our culture's Overton window, but more environmentalists are taking a long hard look at it.

[pjc50]

Mass death is something people are unwilling to contemplate, yes.

[bitwize]

Mass death isn't the only way to reduce population. But it's something we may already be too late to avoid.

[AnimalMuppet]

Let alone advocate...