[Wowfunhappy]

I sympathize with and share your exhaustion, but I force myself to pay attention to these stories. They remind me why Climate Change is always my #1 priority when voting in elections, and when thinking about the world writ large.

There was an editorial in The Atlantic a couple of years ago—which I now can’t seem to find—titled something like “We should be covering climate change like it’s the only story that matters”. The body of the piece was very short, but can be summed up as “because in terms of relative importance, it is the only story that matters. But we won’t do it.”

But we should. But we need to.

[joshstrange]

I was listening to a podcast a while back (middle of 2020) and the guest said something the effect of "If I could choose to end racism or reverse/stop/slow/fix climate change I would choose climate change. If we don't stop/slow climate change then nothing else will matter, if we fix the climate we have the time to address racism". I'm not exactly sure why but that has stuck with me and has shaped my thinking around it since. The fact that addressing climate change is just tacked on the current infrastructure bills making their way though congress (or at least the one going through budget reconciliation since it would never pass in the senate with that) is sad. I understand some of the political reasoning behind it, it's not as sexy of a topic as other things in the bills but it's just incredibly depressing how little attention appears to be paid to it.

[prox]

Making money comes first in this world, and only then comes the realization if our kids or grandkids still have a habitable world.

Guess up until now it’s an abstraction people couldn’t imagine. Despite years of warning.

Recently been thinking we should reform old style political parties. Instead we get to directly vote for ideological topics which we can vote on, and politicians/parties who adhere to them. So instead of parties we vote for ideas directly. Just an idea that needs a lot more work :)

[wk_end]

> Making money comes first in this world

In the past year virtually every major economy in the world shut down to try to ward off a virus that, even unchecked, couldn't kill a fraction of the people or ruin the world the way climate change might. Google tells me that it'd cost anywhere from $300 billion to $50 trillion to end climate change, however that'd work [0]; the amount we've collectively spent on COVID, somewhere around $10 trillion more than half a year ago [1], would at the very least take a big dent out of that.

Clearly, there's a point where we can put money aside for other things. It's not just greed; it's short-sightedness and stupidity too.

[0] https://www.globalgiving.org/learn/cost-to-end-climate-chang...

[1] https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/world/story/global-cost-...

[prox]

Yeah, that’s one way to look at it. If we had tackled climate change like we do covid a decade ago or more, we might already have made significant progress.

[gruez]

>Recently been thinking we should reform old style political parties. Instead we get to directly vote for ideological topics which we can vote on, and politicians/parties who adhere to them.

I'm not sure whether it's that. Addressing climate change might be a popular policy, but spending money to address climate change doesn't seem to be.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27686289

[jonfw]

Gas tax is particularly regressive. People with lower incomes have less access to electric cars, charging infrastructure, and real estate with convenient commutes.

[toomuchtodo]

Use the gas tax as a crude carbon tax, and spend the revenue subsidizing less costly EVs, charging infra buildouts, and incentives to businesses to support remote work.

[Fauntleroy]

You're not alone in that thought, but the first step is dismantling the party system. In the United States that would either require extreme campaign finance reform and the elimination of First-Past-The-Post voting systems. Or a violent revolution. Either way it's not looking likely...

[iNane9000]

The parties can be improved without dismantling. In fact, that’s exactly what must happen and indeed the fate of our democracy depends upon it happening.

[NewJazz]

Political parties are a product of the electoral system they compete in.

[howmayiannoyyou]

| Climate Change is always my #1 priority when voting in elections

If every climate change candidate you favored for won in the US and Canada the impact on climate would be near zero. Why? Because China, Vietnam, India and Indonesia are now the majority contributors to emissions and they don't care about your agenda.

Such are the unintended consequences of progressive agendas. We regulated 'dirty' businesses out of existence (mostly) in North America and in so doing gave up our influence over how those industries operate.

And, no, we cannot coerce compliance via tariffs or sanctions. You cannot manufacture drugs, chemicals, electronics and other critical societal goods today without inputs from polluting countries.

The lack of dimensionality in progressive political agendas is disheartening and dangerous.

[matsemann]

I disagree. Force people to pay for the externalities their actions have. Like buying electronics from China could have a tax based on how polluting it is. Then factories will either get better to win on price, or someone might build a factory elsewhere and actually be able to compete.

[JohnWhigham]

Tarriffs aren't enough. Most companies/consumers will just eat the costs. You need the federal government to start actively supporting building things back home, which personally I don't think will be possible for at least a generation. Too many people are addicted to the lifestyle NAFTA enabled.

[jrmg]

We regulated 'dirty' businesses out of existence (mostly) in North America and in so doing gave up our influence over how those industries operate.

Thats a bit hyperbolic, but presuming it’s true, What influence do you believe we would’ve had if we hadn’t done that?

[howmayiannoyyou]

The pandemic proved the premise (not hyperbolic), with particular reference to drugs & PPE.

Had industries like refining, chemicals & primary materials manufacturing (as just 3 of many examples) remained centric to North America we would now be in a position apply the "Green New Deal" ethos and its vast expenditures to industries that provide offsetting jobs, tax revenues and secondary income flows at home. Instead, we must now direct the progressive agenda to things like real-estate, power grids, power generation, transportation & farming. These industries are either comparatively small employers or soon-to-be so due to automation; and several are reliant on inputs from China that simply transfer even more wealth from the US abroad.

[mnowicki]

if we hadn't done that already, then we'd have the opportunity to regulate the out of existence in the future - it's much different

[xwdv]

I like to think in a worst case scenario we can always use military power to halt or destroy their industries if necessary to save the planet. The developing nations emitting the most pollution have no chance against the United States.

[robotnikman]

Unfortunately most of those countries have nukes

[Wowfunhappy]

Finally found the article. I'd kept searching in The Atlantic, when it was actually from The Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-isnt-the-media-c...

[Wowfunhappy]

^ Never mind, that's still not it. (Sorry.)

[fennecfoxen]

Of course, if one does want to cover it like it's the only story that matters, one should really seriously take a look at how to best present that — because there are real possibilities that a naive approach might very well fail you, and get the coverage ignored.

[mc32]

While it might be true, even the Atlantic isn't just covering climate change as a no. 1. priority.

Their priority is more about intersectionality (and not even as it regards climate).

If they believe it's climate, then they should stress climate and leave other things second.

[nicolas_t]

They remind me why Climate Change is always my #1 priority when voting in elections > The problem I always face is that I want to vote for a party that want to do something against climate change but the party that claims to be ecologist wants to get away from nuclear without any real plans like they did in Germany. I believe that right now, we should rely on nuclear power and that it's the only way in the short to medium term to get out of the crisis.

[howmayiannoyyou]

Not to mention the undeserved political-economic influence Germany's energy policy has gifted to Russia.