[throwaway92384]

You are assuming your lack of agency extends to people much higher than you in society, without evidence and against my experience (leaders in organizations have different views -- about their organization's purpose, for example -- than the people under them, views they only share with other leaders, or free agents, if they even ever do share them).

I'd say there are multiple adults in the room, and they sometimes fight, sometimes form alliances. They often do not care what you think is rational, your tribe's word for "good", because they are not of your tribe. Some have long time preferences but "collective best interests" to them means "civilization still stands somewhere on the planet".

[Mvandenbergh]

Well, "throwaway92384", I am not assuming any such thing. I personally know a number of people who are or have been MPs in the UK and the Netherlands, senior civil servants as well as many people in leadership roles in the private sector. I don't think this makes me particularly special incidentally, the same thing is true for many people who are actively engaged in policymaking.

My comment is based on extensive professional and social interactions with other people in leadership roles. It is very frequently the case that such people, including government ministers simply don't have as much independent power of action as you think.

The original parent comment said that if things were really so bad, then something would be done with the implication that since not much is being done, things cannot be so bad. Since we are not mass-building PWRs and running five parallel crash fusion programmes, it must follow that someone has examined the evidence and decided that the problem of climate change is not so bad and therefore we are not doing those things.

The problem with this view is the assumption that there is a someone or a group of someones who sit back, review IPCC reports and then have the ability to collectively compel the political leaders of the world to act rationally. If there was such a group then their lack of action would indicate that they had made a rational decision not to act.

My point is that there are no such people. The powerless enjoy the fantasy of conspiracy because it means that all it would take to solve our problems is some kind of board room coup of the Majestic 12 standing committee.

The reality is that everyone in the system has to act within their roles in the system. Executives at oil companies will say that they wouldn't mind a carbon tax, as long as it was equally applied to all companies. That's logical as they would continue to have a level playing field with the other oil producers and it will take years for us to get off oil as a species anyway. Oh but they don't have the power to pass an oil tax, that's for government.

Politicians in smaller countries will say, they would love to pass such a tax but unfortunately it needs to be global or it will just erode their competitive advantage without reducing emissions. Only if large trading blocs like the EU and US united on enforcing such a system could it be done.

American politicians might say that they personally would love to but they'd need a majority in the Senate, the House, and the right person in the White House.

None of these people are being disingenuous, they all have an accurate view of the limits of their own power within the system. My point is that there is no "outside the system" which can update the system to work better for large collective action problems or force a solution. It's cogs in the machine all the way up. Even the power of Donald Trump, as leader of by far the world's most powerful nation has substantial limits to his freedom of action.

[m0zg]

But there _are_ "such people". The wealthy elite, to be exact. They can order the government to do as they please. If the situation is dire, and their collective several trillion dollars are going to go up in smoke in their lifetime, you can bet they'd ram whatever programs they like through the government to avert that. Take the progressive icon such as Jeff Bezos. $120 billion fortune, trillion-dollar company employing 800K people. All of this is entirely dependent (presumably) on the world order not collapsing by the end of the century. And it's not like the guy is illiterate or anything - he's into space exploration and building hundred thousand year clocks. The amount he pledges to fight climate change? Less than 10% of his wealth. Comparably wealthy Gates, who can't shut up about climate change, spends relatively little on it in his philanthropic efforts. Barack Obama, who should be supremely informed on the topic, bought a property near the ocean for $12M. I refuse to believe that these three people in particular are uninformed. I also refuse to believe that they wouldn't be able to effect change if they really wanted to. And by "change" I don't mean just speaking from a podium like you see them do all the time. I mean real, actual change: fund programs, push sensible stuff through the government, etc, etc.

The rational conclusion I make from all this: the rumors of our impending demise have been greatly exaggerated, if all people with means and influence do to avert it is read bullshit from a teleprompter every now and then.

[Mvandenbergh]

While I accept your point that very wealthy people do not appear to be acting rationally if uncontrolled climate change will cause as much damage as the forecasts assume, I have two counterpoints:

1) People do act irrationally, even well informed people.

2) I don't actually agree that "they can order the government to do as they please". Saudi Arabia killed one of Bezos' employees and hacked into his phone. What has he been able to compel the US government (headed by someone who hates him) to do about it? Barack Obama did attempt to change US policy on climate change and was not able to because no single person has the ability to move US policy that way.

[m0zg]

Khashoggi wasn't Bezos' employee. Even if he were, he'd be one of almost a million people he employs directly or indirectly.

From reading the report it's debatable Bezos' phone was hacked at all. The report seems to be more to provide plausible deniability to whatever Sanchez's relative that leaked Jeff's dick pics to the press.

I don't see what SA has to do with any of this.