[OminousWeapons]

> Has anyone heard from the President a message to reduce consumption in the U.S.? We waste so much, there need be no hint of tightening belts or doing without things we like. Most Americans could drop our emissions and waste 50 percent just improving our lives. We live this huge lie that consumption correlates with quality of life, health, or happiness for most of us.

To be blunt, I wouldn't vote for a politician that told me I need to reduce my quality of life, nor would most people, which is why you never hear a politician say things like that. The average person does not want to hear that they need to tighten their belt so that someone else's belt now or in the future can be loosened. That's just not how people work.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

> To be blunt, I wouldn't vote for a politician that told me I need to reduce my quality of life

Yeah, that is unfortunately a very common sentiment and a large part of why things continue to suck in the world and are unlikely to get better. It isn't just climate, people are far too selfish in pretty much every aspect of society and the whole is suffering because of it. I wish I could be optimistic about the future, but then I see comments like yours and am reminded that humanity has well earned it's pain. When the possibility of success approaches zero, giving up is a rational alternative to trying.

[OminousWeapons]

I feel you are being overly pessimistic. We can still accomplish substantive change, we just need to know how to market it. A message of collective sacrifice doesn't resonate with a society like ours because we don't view ourselves as part of a collective; we are individuals. You need to alter your messaging to fit the existing culture. Changing your messaging is far easier and effective than changing the existing culture.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

Alright, so what is the message then? How do you get a selfish entitled status-obsessed overconsumption-promoting culture to do anything that will actually help?

I'm pretty convinced there is no such message. I think it is telling that you refer to such a concept without even suggesting what it's co tent might be. It is fairy dust.

[OminousWeapons]

The message is that many changes we will have to make for climate change will either make life better or will not negative affect people. Switching to electric vehicles will lower long term vehicle ownership costs and mean that you never have to go to the gas station, and oh yeah they are faster, more modern, and cooler; using efficient appliances lowers costs without lowering quality; switching away from beef will make you less likely to get fat, improve longevity, and save you money; switching to solar power makes you more resilient against the type of issues that happened in Texas; switching to high speed rail means less TSA bullshit and more comfort for less money; carrying a water bottle around instead of buying one time use plastic bottles means you will always have a cold beverage with you and you will never be thirsty; etc.

These aren't messages that will resonate with everyone, but they will resonate with more people than saying "life sucks deal with it". Look at how Ford is marketing their new electric pickup. Do you ever see the words "global warming", "climate change", or "sacrifice" appearing anywhere in their copy? No, because that messaging doesn't work so they focus on talking about capabilities, features, and QoL improvements instead.

[AlexandrB]

> The average person does not want to hear that they need to tighten their belt so that someone else's belt now or in the future can be loosened. That's just not how people work.

People did it during WWII, not just by participating in combat but by donating their possessions to the war effort, and that was within living memory of people still alive today. Saying "that's just not how people work" assumes that it has always been so. I think something has changed since the 40s to make any kind of sacrifice for the community look like anathema to most.

[scohesc]

(using the US as an example)

People "tightened their belt" during WWII because they had their sons conscripted by the government to go fight in the war. Some people never saw their fathers or sons ever again once they left the train/ship for Europe. Women were leaving the homemaking roles and working in wartime factories, offices, etc. because you had (theoretically) half of your population off in another country fighting for their lives.

You had _everybody_ on board since everyone knew somebody who was currently fighting, died/wounded in battle. It was a very real, persistent, visible issue. Climate change is not visible to everybody and doesn't affect everyone like the war effort did.

People see higher cost of living and they're living their daily lives just as they have been for the past decade. There's been no directly observable reason for the majority of people to start encouraging climate change action. It sucks, but that's the way it is right now because humans are humans.

Climate change is not that visible of a threat, (un)fortunately, depending on how you look at it. The majority of humans don't look farther than a couple years ahead, _if that_. They're too busy trying to survive with increased taxes, inflation on all goods and services, along with horrific monetary policy during a pandemic.

[elliekelly]

And this is why doing anything about climate change is such an uphill battle.

[OminousWeapons]

Correct, if we are serious about solving climate change, we need to come to grips with the fact that people will not lower their quality of life, and so we need to find impactful changes that either maintain the QoL status quo or improves it. For example, a Tesla or the new Ford Lightening pickup is something people can live with. Extremely good public transportation that saves people time and money is something people can live with. A bike is not something most people will live with.

[david422]

I don't know what the actual answer is, but I think tax does a pretty good job of influencing behavior. Maybe there needs to be more of it.

You get a tax credit for buying EV's. Maybe there needs to be a bigger credit, or a bigger tax on fossil fueled cars. Don't ban stuff, just increase taxes on stuff and influence people's direction. The money raised can be used for making things better.

[chefkoch]

>we need to come to grips with the fact that people will not lower their quality of life

No problem, climate change will do it for them.

[elliekelly]

Yes, as the saying goes, when you find yourself in a hole keep digging until you find a better shovel.

[OminousWeapons]

Another popular saying: the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Tell us again about all the awful things that will happen in the future and all the huge sacrifices we need to make today to prevent them so that people can shrug yet again and go back to ignoring you. We can either live in a fantasy or accept reality / human nature for what it is and actually start being productive.

[ryukafalz]

> A bike is not something most people will live with.

Observations from cities that have actually made tangible improvements to their cycling infrastructure and seen a significant increase in cycling mode share suggest otherwise.

[yonaguska]

Doubly so when the people telling me to tighten my belt, are flying to climate conferences in private jets.

[ryukafalz]

> That's just not how people work.

In 1973, when OPEC fully embargoed the Netherlands (among other countries), the Dutch government instituted "car-free Sundays" for three months in an attempt to curb oil use. It seems to have been fairly popular.

[tonyedgecombe]

>To be blunt, I wouldn't vote for a politician that told me I need to reduce my quality of life

Interesting that you interpreted what @spodek said that way, they talked about improving quality of life and you read the complete opposite.