[dane-pgp]

Let's say you could convince an extra 10% of the world to follow those rules, and that it doesn't cause a rebound effect (as per the Jevons paradox). How much extra time would that buy us before an unstoppable climate catastrophe?

[chrisamiller]

There is already an unstoppable climate catastrophe happening. Many of the effects are already baked in for the next 50-100 years and it will disproportionately affect the poor.

What we can still control is how bad it is. (An increase 1.5 degrees C looks a hell of a lot different than 4 degrees C). That's still very much a fight worth fighting.

When people ask if we should do this or that, the answer should be "yes". These rules are fine - we should eat less meat, we should drive and fly less, etc. We should also do more systemic things, like investing heavily in battery tech and solar and wind and even fusion longshots. We should regulate the hell out of emissions, and use the proceeds from taxes and fines to help mitigate the effects on the poor. Getting to net zero carbon is going to be hard but it has to happen.

[scottLobster]

And rhetoric like your last paragraph is just going to produce backlash and make the problem worse.

"The rules are fine", and net zero "has" to happen". So in your mind there's no room for argument and the objective is sacred. So how many guns are you willing to put to peoples' heads to get them to change their diets? To get them to stop flying? Driving in particular is required for many peoples' livelihoods, particularly those on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum.

IMO, the truly "hard" part of getting to net zero is getting people like you to realize you're not going to force your proposed solutions onto the rest of the world. You're going to have to team up with people you don't like. You know why Texas, the oil/petrochemical capital of the US, has so much wind power? It isn't because an army of environmentalists descended on the state house shouting slogans and waving signs, it isn't to save the environment, it isn't to stop climate change. It's because wind energy is cheap in Texas, something that appeals to even the most coal-rolling, roundup-spraying, green-lawn-in-the-desert Texan.

If you want to save the environment, drop the moralizing and meet people where they are. Until that happens environmentalism is just going to produce backlash, that allow the environmental movements feel even more superior and do things to produce even more backlash, until the price of meat, power, transportation and housing goes up so much that you get a backlash that undoes any short-term progress that was made.

[chrisamiller]

I'm under no illusions that everyone is suddenly going to sacrifice quality of life to save the planet - humanity, writ large, is happy to burn coal until they choke to death on the fumes.

So how do we stop the slow-motion disaster that we're living in?

1) I completely agree that trying to minimize pain by teching our way out is important. The reason we have cheap wind and solar power is heavy government investment in research, which eventually trickles out and becomes commercially viable. The recent energy bill is great, but doesn't go nearly far enough. Still, if you take an honest look at the numbers, it's simply not going to be enough to avoid the worst effects.

2) We have to make it more profitable to be low-carbon than it is to burn things. I think that unavoidably leads to the conclusion that we need to tax carbon. It also has to be done in a smart way - not super-high all at once, and then return the proceeds with checks to the middle/lower income people who are hit hardest to solidify political support. The goal is to nudge people to change their behaviors, without doing it so hard that they vote you out of office.

Look, we were happy to keep dumping arsenic in streams until those externalized costs were built into the cost of doing business. The effects of carbon as a pollutant are here now - we can't keep pretending that they don't exist. What is the cost of Miami being underwater? What is the cost of wildfires and drought in the west? Yes, it will cost billions of dollars, but if it saves trillions, that's a smart investment.

[dane-pgp]

Okay, perhaps I should have asked "How many lives do you think would be saved this century compared to the default scenario where an extra 10% of the world aren't convinced to follow those rules?".

[Schroedingersat]

> as per the Jevons paradox

You don't start eating 50kg a day if you become vegetarian, and you don't spend 30 hours a day travelling if you do it by train. Yes, universally switching from cars to any other form of transport would save people 1-3 hours a day to do other things, but if they spend that time doing anything other than sitting in a car it's a win.

You also don't get to use "what if noone did that" as a counter argument for something helping if everybody did it.

If everyone insulated their home properly, got rid of their cars, stopped eating beef, and cut the remaining animal proteins by half we'd be pretty close to net zero right now.

[dane-pgp]

My point about the Jevons paradox is that if, for example, 10% of people stopped eating meat (for climate reasons), that could mean that the price of meat goes down, which would make meat more affordable for other potential consumers, so a different 10% of people might end up starting to eat meat.

That's an extreme example, but it's not impossible to imagine that there are low-income occasional meat-eaters out there who might start consuming more meat if the price went down. Maybe the increase wouldn't completely reverse the initial reduction, but if the net result was equivalent to only 5% of people changing their lifestyle, then we're talking about a very small change in CO2 emissions.

[Schroedingersat]

So 'your thing doesn't work if I imagine that people instead do the opposite' as a rebuttal then?

[dane-pgp]

I'm imagining that people will do the opposite because it is known that people usually buy more of a desirable commodity when its price goes down.

Of course there are limits to how much latent demand there is, and how price-sensitive consumers are, but it is not unreasonable for me to have raised this as a possibility.