
Why Climate Change Won't Be Stopped (2018) - jeffreyrogers
https://ecosophia.dreamwidth.org/18748.html
======
rayiner
People are missing the point of the article. It's not about hipocrisy, or the
ability of ground-up change to solve climate change, but instead about _the
credibility_ of people demanding sweeping government intervention to address
climate change. When someone who advocates for banning abortion turns out to
have paid to have his girlfriend have an abortion, it obviously doesn't have
any bearing on the moral question of abortion. Nor does it have any
significant aggregate effect on the number of abortions. But it eliminates
that person's credibility, for the simple reason that it highlights the
negative implications of the person's proposed policy. It underscores that
having an unplanned child can drastically change the course of a person's life
in ways they may be desperate to avoid. And it suggests that the person may
not even believe their moral premise, and wants to ban abortion as a pretext
for something else. By contrast, people who lead by example signal that
they're willing to live with the consequences of the policies they wish to
impose on everyone--and in the process demonstrate to people that those
consequences can be lived with.

The same thing is true for climate change. When people who demand a war-time
mobilization of the economy to combat climate change still emit gigatons going
on foreign vacations, that signals to people one of two things. One, the
reduction in standard of living required to address climate change must be
enormous, because even those who believe catastrophe is at our doorstep won't
suffer that reduction unless the government forces them to. Or two, those
people don't really believe climate change will be that bad, and their demand
for government intervention is a pretext for something else.

~~~
WhompingWindows
Individual choice has a very small role in climate change. The author has done
nothing, zero, to contextualize the issue in numbers and data, which clearly
demonstrate that individual choice is maybe 5-10% of what we need to
decarbonize.

Foreign vacations (which aren't even occurring in 2020) are a pittance
here...we're talking about billions of fossil-fuel powered engines, hundreds
of millions of livestock, heating and cooling homes for upwards of 10 billion
humans, the production of steel, fertilizer, plastics, concrete, electronics,
mining operations, shipping, trucking...it's just so much more vast than the
hypocrisy of rich leftist environmentalists going on vacations.

~~~
milsebg
Well that is exactly the point. Of course, climate activists reducing their
individual leisure demand would decrease global carbon emissions only
insignificantly, if at all.

That's not the point here. The point is that climate activists ask their
government for big changes because they fear civilization could end otherwise.
And those big changes would have significant impact on the lifestyle of almost
all people affected by these laws. So, why should one be willing to (and thus,
vote for the changes) change ones lifestyle, if the advocates just say "well,
I stop travelling abroad, when everyone else stops as well (and other carbon
emission is reduced, too)"? The OP is about credibility, or, even lower level:
sympathy.

Maybe it becomes more obvious if we look at one specific example. In the
Netherlands they lowered maximum speed on highways to 100 km/h (from 120
km/h). Correct me if I'm wrong but the carbon saving from that law is close to
non-existent compared to the whole economy's carbon emissions.

Or, the whole EU banned light bulbs. Also, the energy saving compared to the
whole EU's energy consumption is probably sub 1%. And with the advent of white
LEDs, people just use more light and the overall effect is even less.

Both measurments combined have an impact less than your claimed 5%-10%. Does
that mean that government should stop taking small steps, and only the "big
shot" counts?

Or can small steps (by governments OR individuals) be a tool to increase
awareness?

~~~
WhompingWindows
Those changes, mandating LEDs and lower speed limits, are vastly more
important and easy to make than trying to get a ton of individuals to choose a
different lifestyle. Psychology tells us about hedonistic adaptation, it'll be
much easier for a government to make a big play than for tens of thousands of
rich people to all individually give up their lifestyle. It'd be more
influential for them to boycott gas planes and use their wealth to stimulate
electric plane use, but again: psychology. That's why we need governments...

But think broader, about concrete and steel and shipping, the really hard
areas. There is no "choice" about steel, it's a technological and policy
issue...Even if we cleaned up our individual consumer choices, that won't
change the need for steel or change how it's produced in a dirty way.

Look at a wind turbine, for instance. It's a giant tower of steel. Even though
we need wind turbines as fast as possible, we still need dirty steel to ramp
those up, and we need new tech to then make future steel cleaner.

This is why focusing on individual choice is so small. Even if all us rich
Westerners went vegan and rode bikes to work, that wouldn't address all the
tricky technological and chemical issues.

------
anm89
As someone who cares deeply about these issues and is not a climate change
denier, I think this is absolute nonsense.

For example a person could sit around and light barrels of oil on fire and
create legislation that changed the incentives regarding energy production
(which we already do a lot of and is one of the only effective things we do at
scale to affect climate outcomes) or that bans or changes costs for plastic
production and still come out leagues ahead in terms of having changed things
for the better.

Sure if you are publicly announcing that you are lighting the oil on fire, no
one is going to take your legislation seriously but the reality is there is no
good source of record keeping on people's day to day behavior unless the
consciously expose it so you could simultaneously live a horrificly
environmentally unfriendly lifestyle and improve things.

My point is not that you should do this, but that the idea this change is
going to swell from the ground up is nonsense. It needs to come from well
organized legislation. That piece of legislation is probably not going to be
much affected by the individual track record in the hundreds of people who end
up being involved in its production.

~~~
cuillevel3
I'd go further and say it's actual harmful advise. If you don't drive a car,
you just made space for another car and you just started paying for someone
elses parking.

Appealing to virtuousness and living by example, is not going to replace
regulation and realigned incentives.

~~~
raspyberr
How would any party get voted in unless most people agreed with the
regulation? If a party wanted to double tax cars or get rid of them they
wouldn't be voted in unless that's what people wanted first. Change comes from
the bottom up.

------
seanwilson
I'm skeptical climate change will be stopped because of what we're seeing with
the pandemic: many countries and individuals won't take preemptive action
against a threat we scientifically know is going to happen until the impact
can literally be seen on their own doorsteps.

With the pandemic:

1) deaths/impact directly from the pandemic can be relatively easily
identified

2) deaths/impact happen in the space of weeks

3) the positive results of mitigations can be seen in weeks

4) countries can largely isolate the impact other countries have on them
regarding the pandemic.

None of these 4 points are true with climate change so it's going to be even
worse in terms of getting people to take it seriously and act in time. We
can't even get countries to agree that masks are a good idea.

~~~
kulahan
I'm absolutely certain the only way we stop climate change is via innovation
in the form of carbon capture technologies.

There's no way humans are just gonna cut back on eating meat, demand a removal
of single-use plastics, crack down on resource-intensive industries (almond
milk is INCREDIBLY inefficient and only getting more popular, for instance),
and fight to pass laws which force companies to get cleaner (thus increasing
the cost of those products).

I've met a handful of people in my _life_ who care enough to live a greener
lifestyle beyond making one or two relatively convenient changes in their
life, let alone overhaul their entire lifestyle.

It's absolutely down to the wizards working on green tech to solve the issue.

~~~
seanwilson
> There's no way humans are just gonna cut back on eating meat,

You don't think taxing meat by its environmental cost will work?

> crack down on resource-intensive industries (almond milk is INCREDIBLY
> inefficient and only getting more popular, for instance)

Almond uses an order of magnitude less land, emissions and water than dairy so
why not crack down on dairy if you feel this way?

[https://www.bbc.com/news/science-
environment-46654042](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46654042)

We already grow then feed soy to cows to get milk, why not just drink soy
directly?

~~~
kulahan
As the other user said, I don't believe we could get the political muster
necessary to pass a law taxing meat heavily any time soon. Meat is popular!
Nobody wants to give that up.

Also, you're absolutely correct that dairy milk is less efficient by a long-
shot, I was just pointing to it because I know a lot of people I personally
know are moving to it and away from dairy as though it's a quality
alternative. It's better, but still not great.

------
Wowfunhappy
I believe very strongly that most well-off Americans should pay higher taxes,
including me. I vote accordingly. If my preferred candidate wins, I expect to
have less money.

I still have an accountant do my taxes, in order to pay as little as possible.
I do not think this is hypocritical.

It doesn't make sense for me to completely upend my life unless society is
collectively doing the same. The way to make that happen is sweeping
government action, and nothing less.

~~~
antishatter
I mean there is a hypocrisy to this, you are effectively voting that folks who
cannot afford or are uneducated about taxes should pay more.

~~~
tobylane
I don’t see the problem there, and the hypothecated problem is consistent with
many others in America. It would help if taxation was simpler and more
transparent, but currently it sounds like states aren’t allowed to help their
citizens file because of lobbying from the software companies providing this
service.

Another solution is to take some of the extra money gathered and spend it on
better educating children and adults about tax.

------
juanbyrge
What the author misses is that government can play a huge role in combating
climate change. There are simple policies the government can enact that would
greatly improve the situation. Things like stopping fossil fuel subsidies,
enacting carbon taxes, and incentivizing clean energy. There was a recent Ezra
Klein podcast with Saul Griffith about this very topic. For instance , it is
literally impossible in some places to put up rooftop solar due to archaic
building codes. In a lot of cases the government is getting in the way. This
is why protests can be effective, even if individuals may not always reduce
their lifestyles.

~~~
this_user
The problem with measures like that is that they would still not be enough.
With everything that hass been pledged so far in terms of policy, we are still
well on our way to >= 3°C in warming, which would have catastrophic
consequences. But even getting those concessions was extremely difficult, and
there is still no guarantee everything will even be implemented as promised.

But the changes we actually need run much deeper, and they would directly
impact our lifestyle, because our current one is not sustainable. The problem
with that is that if governments were to attempt to implement those changes,
they will be voted out. For instance, the French government tried to do a
carbon tax, but was met with weeks of violent protests.

It's also a game theory issue for governments: putting a carbon tax on your
country's production will make your economy less competitive compared to those
that won't. You can mitigate the consequences for that by carbon taxing
imports, but that will not help you with your exports.

The bottom line is that we need to do much more, but it's politically not
feasible at this point. It will only be when people's lives are being much
more severely impacted, but by that time, it will be too late to avoid a
catastrophic outcome. IMO the only realistic hope we have is the development
of active carbon capture technologies that can be deployed on a global scale.
Whether that is feasible in time remains to be seen.

~~~
BosunoB
I'm pretty sure 90% of the changes won't impact anyone's lifestyle. Moving to
renewable energy and phasing out ICE cars allow for the exact same lifestyle.
The only things that might have to change are things that require carbon
emissions, like plane trips or meat production (although this one also might
not require carbon emissions in 20 years). I guess you could argue that
slightly more expensive manufactured goods impact a person's lifestyle, but
that's a pretty minor change, and if you do a carbon tax and dividend, that's
going to be moot for all but maybe 10% of the population.

------
martythemaniak
A huge part of the problem is people like the author that demand _cuts_ in
living standards. I enjoy my high standard of living and as someone with
friends and family in less developed places, I understand very well they would
really like the same high standard of living. Not only that, but I think they
_deserve_ that high standard of living.

The way to achieve that is by developing a set of substitutions, and having
rich people migrate to these substitutions and having poor people work towards
them. Many claim that this is impossible, but the fact is that we have barely
even begun trying to do this.

For example, all ground transportation can be electrified - cars, trucks,
semis, trains, etc. There is now a very clear path towards this that did not
exist 10 years ago. All electricity generation can be decarbonized in tandem.
Homes can be heated with carbon-free electric heat pumps by automating
geothermal installations. Short-haul flights be be electrified within a few
years. None of this is a missed opportunity, nothing is too late. We are just
starting to realize this path and there is a lot of work to do.

~~~
jordanbeiber
Don’t know where you’re from but as a an average Swede I consume about three
to four earths worth of resources per year.

It’s unsustainable on a fundamental level, driven by a consumerism that
triggers primal behavior.

You might not have to cut down, but someone eventually have to. There’s no way
around that.

[https://www.overshootday.org/newsroom/country-overshoot-
days...](https://www.overshootday.org/newsroom/country-overshoot-days/)

------
GVIrish
This article gets the problem right, but misses some other reasons for making
personal changes to combat climate change.

For one, the more people that buy products that are more environmentally-
friendly, the more the market will shift towards offering environmentally-
friendly options. If consumers were beating down car dealership doors to buy
every EV they could, car manufacturers would shift heavily towards EVs. If
everyone buying a house were looping in a solar panel installation into their
loan, we'd probably see more competition and faster price drops in solar
panels. The more people that buy meat alternatives, the more money gets
invested in developing meat alternatives.

Secondly, each individual action has the potential to influence someone else.
If you see your neighborhood switching to EV's, you may be more likely to buy
one. Or if a friend had a great experience with reducing their energy costs by
upgrading their windows, you might be more likely to get it done yourself.

Put the first two factors together, and then it is much, much easier to build
political support for the legislation needed to enact big climate change
initiatives. If more people take personal ownership of climate change, that
helps those people drive political will towards addressing climate change.
Politicians absolutely will respond to public pressure, but if the public is
largely indifferent on the issue, it makes it less likely politicians will
spend political capital on climate change initiatives.

~~~
readhn
"If consumers were beating down car dealership doors to buy every EV they
could, car manufacturers would shift heavily towards EVs. If everyone buying a
house were looping in a solar panel installation into their loan, we'd
probably see more competition and faster price drops in solar panels."

this logic is part of the problem. you live in a privileged bubble where
people buy electric cars and install solar panels on their houses. Median
American household has only $10K saved up, many below that and live paycheck
to paycheck. What EV/What homes/ solar panels? First we have to solve socio-
economic wealth gap issue THEN address climate change.

~~~
GVIrish
Why can't we do both? For people who don't own homes, we need to invest in
clean energy sources for the power grid. For people that can't afford EV's
now, if there were actually better demand for EV's auto manufacturers could
make the investments to reach the economies of scale so that more people could
afford an EV, PHEV, FCEV, whatever it may be. And if there is a big shift
towards clean energy that will create new jobs as well as reduce pollution
that causes health problems, particularly in low income neighborhoods.

On an individual level, if someone has the means to reduce their carbon
footprint, why shouldn't they? On a national level, developed nations have
more capital they can spend on shifting to clean energy. Poorer countries
won't be able to afford to make some of those shifts. If the nations with the
means make the shifts first, they can help bring down the costs of some of
those green technologies to where it's more feasible for poorer nations in the
world.

We're already at the point that wind and solar power is starting to be cheaper
than coal power. Continuing along that path means the developing world can
continue developing and expanding their economies with clean energy instead of
fossil fuels.

------
neilk
There are good reasons to not be a hypocrite. This isn't one of them.

So, the theory here is that if we only purify ourselves enough, we'll finally
get climate skeptics to listen? If we only take on all the systemic problems
with personal sacrifices?

Like, don't show up to important policy meetings on principle because we'd
have to fly there? It should be the other way around. Full-time climate
activists should get to fly where-ever they want, whenever they want, and the
rest of us should avoid flying.

I don't think the article's theory of change is how any other kind of policy
change happens. The strength of belief demonstrated by a minority doesn't, by
itself, convince anyone or move policymakers.

If you base your credibility on being a perfect example of how you want others
to act, it's exactly what the climate skeptics want. You'll fail and they'll
laugh at you. Because in this society we're all complicit until there are
systemic solutions.

I think there's more evidence for a small minority moving public opinion and
public policy when they act in a coordinated, continuous campaign. Self-
perfection doesn't come into it.
[https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-
nonviolen...](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-
resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change/)

------
hedora
His rape analogy is terrible on many levels, but I’ll go with it for a second.
It’s more like the electric company uses its proceeds to fund rape squads. He
argues we shouldn’t take any anti-rape activists seriously unless they first
disconnect their houses from the power grid.

Me reducing my personal carbon footprint is a drop in the bucket compared to
cutting CPU time at work, and that’s a drop in the bucket compared to voting
in a Green New Deal politician.

Reducing my personal carbon foot print is harder than reducing work’s carbon
footprint. So, I’ll start there, and vote and donate to political campaigns
accordingly (because that’s easier and has higher impact)

Ordering actions by cost benefit doesn’t make me a hypocrite, it makes me an
effective pragmatist.

------
shawndrost
If the hypothesis is: "Normal people aren't convinced by climate intellectuals
because the latter are visible hypocrites."

Then it is wrong for two reasons: 1a. Normal Americans on the left, and many
on the right, are convinced by climate intellectuals.
[https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-
vi...](https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-views-on-
climate-and-energy/) 1b. Normal Europeans of all stripes are likewise
convinced. 2\. (This is anecdata, but I'm pretty confident it'd appear in
experimentation if anyone cared to debunk this dumb hypothesis.) Climate
intellectuals that make significant efforts to avoid hypocrisy (like Greta, or
her less-famous counterparts, or me to a lesser degree) do not experience a
different reception from skeptics.

Indeed, personal action is rarely a point of interest for anyone in the
discussion. Probably because the focus of the climate intellectuals --
renewable electricity, decarbonizing heavy industry, land use practices -- is
so obviously outside the scope of direct personal action.

------
Tade0
It's not that simple. If it were, we would have many more vegans/vegetarians,
who obviously practice what they preach.

~~~
newacct583
We have an awful lot, though. And people like me, who are eating far less meat
(and in particular beef) than they did years ago specifically because of
energy concerns.

In fact the whole premise of the article is just wrong on its face. In fact
people who care about climate issues _do_ tend to have lower energy footprints
than climate change deniers! We drive smaller cars. We commute shorter
distances. We live in denser communities. We eat less meat. We eat local food.
We use less water. This can all be measured.

Is it enough? Of course not. But in fact to the extent individual action can
be used in service to this goal, _we 're doing it_. Get on board.

------
ls65536
It's great to see something from John Michael Greer come up on HN. I've read a
number of his books, many critical of modern society and its ills, and while
one might not always agree with everything in full including his predictions
about the future, it is difficult to argue that he hasn't done a fantastic job
backing up his claims and ideas, including providing many references to past
societies, drawing though-provoking parallels between what's happened many
times in history and what we're observing and living through today. As a
bonus, his writing style is often lively and fun to read, while still
maintaining the intellectual seriousness that such topics deserve.

------
munificent
I think there should be some eponymous law somewhere that says if you use rape
as an analogy, then your argument is almost inevitably flawed. Rape is such a
deeply emotional topic that invoked drives out logical reasoning. If you can't
find a less loaded analogy that still works, then it likely implies that your
argument is in fact false. A rape analogy is a flashbang grenade thrown to
obscure the lack of truth in your argument.

A better analogy might be forest fires. What the author is saying is that you
can't be against forest fires unless you also never light a candle in your
home. Or perhaps that you can't be against pollution if you ever throw
something in the trash.

I disagree with his implicit presumption that "solving" climate change
necessarily involves willfully lowering one's quality of life. Austerity is
not a _goal_ , it is _possibly_ a necessary step to fixing the problem. But
just martyring yourself will not magically fix climate change. In fact, ideal
solutions to climate change do _not_ involve lowering quality of life because
that makes them much easier to adopt.

When asbestos was discovered to cause cancer, we didn't fix that problem by
having every individual tear the insulation out of their homes and make a
personal commitment to freeze their ass off every winter. We _outlawed it_ and
used our existing large-scale systems like the law to solve what was a large-
scale systemic problem. That in turn drove innovation to find better
alternatives and here we are all now mostly safe from that problem.

------
agentultra
Well... the difficult part with this argument is that on an individual level
we don't contribute nearly as much carbon as say, the transportation industry
as a whole which represents some 18% of emissions?

I do as much as I can as an individual because I believe, morally, that it's
true: I'd feel like a fraud if I was seriously concerned about climate and
didn't become a vegetarian, refused to own a car, and stopped international
travel.

I try to buy only what I need, second hand if I can, to avoid putting more
technology in the waste system. I avoid buying plastic. I do everything I can
on an individual level.

But you know what?

Global politics don't seem to be moving nearly as fast or with any urgency to
the matter. In the US the EPA has been practically gutted. In my own country
the local government is using the pandemic as a cover to move on gutting our
own environmental protections.

We still need collective policy action on a global scale like we've seen with
the pandemic.

Unfortunately we're already decades too late to stop it. Even if we could turn
off the carbon switch right now, we'll still have to suffer through some of
the worst IPCC predictions.

------
quercus
All the worry about saving the environment is really a worry about preserving
the viability of urban/suburban lifestyles.

~~~
dv_dt
Rural lifestyles are significantly impacted by increased fires, drought, heat,
flooding - in particular farming is directly impacted by reduced yields and
increased disasters.

~~~
quercus
Thanks for stating the obvious, Sherlock. My point is: the WORRY about climate
change is mostly focused on urbanism. The loudest voices come from the city.
These people have a weak connection to nature aside from the occasional hike
and holiday. The mostly worry about their cities going underwater. Country
folks are used to dealing with the unpredictability of nature and are more
likely to find a way to adapt.

------
agakshat
Impose a carbon tax and watch how fast renewables, nuclear etc. become
financially viable and self-sufficient. The role people have to play here is
to get on to the same page so loudly that politicians can’t ignore our voices
anymore. Switching off my air conditioner isn’t really going to accomplish
anything.

------
amflare
Climate change won't be stopped because the population of the world who care,
and the population who might care, is massively dwarfed by the number of
people who will never care. And the incentives are aligned such that benefit
for humans means detriment for the planet. Thus, it is in no nation's
individual interest to actually push for climate change legislation. Because
first they would fall behind industrially, then economically, then finally get
squeezed into irrelevance. And even if they did hypothetically care enough to
make this sacrifice "for the betterment of the earth, humanity, and future
generations", it would all be for naught once they fell into irrelevance. Like
a child going on a hunger strike, nobody cares and they don't have a say
anyway.

------
Super_Jambo
The problem with this analogy is that personally reducing demand is
ineffective at stopping production.

If I stop eating beef (which I have) there isn't an equivalent reduction in
beef production. Instead the price goes down fractionally and someone else
eats it. If a whole bunch of people stop eating beef (which I hope I'm part
of) then we'll start to see some reduction in production.

The answer to global warming like any externality is market regulation.
Exactly _how_ you regulate that is less important: Maybe revenue neutral tax
on producers? Maybe a ration book for consumers?

Personal change is certainly helpful to demonstrate you're serious, but
structural change will be necessary to actually tackle the problem.

~~~
rabidrat
> If a whole bunch of people stop eating beef (which I hope I'm part of) then
> we'll start to see some reduction in production.

It doesn't seem to work this way either. First there will be a long period of
beef sources trying to create demand, through marketing, lobbying, etc
tactics. Only after they have spent through substantial subsidies, loans,
bailouts, etc will they be forced to downsize.

As an example: we recently saw a huge decrease in air travel demand. Response
from the airlines? Keep flying the same number of routes in order to maintain
status at airports. Run promotions to increase sales.

------
mturmon
I have no idea why people would upvote a junk article like this.

It has two cheap rhetorical ploys.

First, a crude and disgusting analogy with rape, of all things. (There's a
much better analogy to the governmental action that stopped CFCs, and actually
worked.)

Second, an accusation of hypocrisy that is completely without actual facts.

And more important: so what if some elites who profess to care about climate
change fly too much? It's deeply un-serious to demand pure motives on the part
of everyone who professes a certain policy, before taking action.

Counterpoint, organized by a climate researcher:
[https://noflyclimatesci.org](https://noflyclimatesci.org)

------
mnm1
The US was incapable of responding to the imminent danger of the pandemic
threat that was one month out. It's impossible that they will respond to a
much more abstract threat decades into the future. It's beyond absurd to even
propose this as a realistic idea. I don't think most other countries are much
different in this regard. Climate change won't be stopped because most people
don't want to stop it and almost all people in charge most certainly do not
want to stop it. And like the article says, changing on a personal level is
completely useless. On a personal level, why even try?

------
julianeon
This article doesn’t quite live up to its title - swerving at the end to say
unless we change, instead of concluding we won’t change.

This article was pilloried at the time for its negativity, but I think
Franzen’s article, “What If We Stopped Pretending the Climate Apocalypse Can
Be Stopped,” ultimately has it right.

[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/culture/cultu...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-
comment/what-if-we-stopped-pretending/amp)

------
bjoli
The most depressing statistic is the Corona one: the pandemic is projected to
lower the 2020 co2E emission by about 7.5 percent (based on 2019 numbers). To
have any chance of reaching ipcc's 1.5 degree goal we need to continue this
development for the rest of the decade.

I never believed 1.5 degrees would ever be reached, but the message from so
many politicians was that "we need to try our best to keep global warming to
1.5 degrees". Everybody must have known that it was bullshit all along.

And that is why climate change won't be stopped.

------
omosubi
Didn't coronavirus prove that individual action wouldn't do much to curb
climate change and that corporations and governments needed to do a lot more
in order to truly have an effect? With maybe the exception of meat consumption
basically all the individual actions that could have been taken were.

I agree there is a lot of hypocrisy in the modern environmental movement but
status quo bias and corruption play a larger role in our situation than a lack
of credibility from environmentalists

------
bsenftner
Of course it won't be stopped as long as people continue to think this is a
personal responsibility issue, and ignore that the military is the #1
greenhouse gas producer on the planet. After that we have extremely high
producers of carbon operating at global scale in transportation, manufacturing
and agriculture. This is not a personal responsibility issue, it is a cause
for legal regulation to force the military and corporate operations to go
green.

------
DubiousPusher
Climate change will not be stopped because asking people anywhere to take a
significant decrease in their standard of living will be a political diaster
and there is no silver bullet solution that allows people to maintain their
lifestyles and curb climate change.

------
LatteLazy
This is the same virtue signaling bullshit that’s gotten us no where on this
issue for 40 years. You’re neighbours don’t care that you compost. This is a
global crisis, not a chance for you to tell us all how great you are.

------
kanox
Is there any data as to how much climate change can be affected by personal
lifestyle choices?

The biggest CO2 emitters are electricity generation and transport and these
can be affected by government policy that encourages renewable sources.

------
throwawaysea
During COVID, we've seen drastic changes to the economy and individual
behavior. I recall reading articles saying it all amounted to only a 5% change
in emissions or something like that. I can't help but thing the real problem
is simply that we have too many humans. Or at least, too many humans at a
quality of life standard that is too high. We can institute population control
standards (cap and trade permits?) or we can decide that it doesn't make sense
to base our lives around consumerism and shipping things from long distances.
But the latter notion - which might look like forming localized circular
economies - feels as impractical an idea as those pushing for extreme
restructuring of societal structures. And everything else, like technological
innovation, seems either like a gamble or like noise.

------
RickJWagner
Works for me.

Every time I hear some Hollywood talking head going on about the urgency of
climage change, I just ask myself: Why should I lower my family's standard of
living, when this actor is basking in adulation while burning 25 times the
carbon we do?

Incredibly selfish, I know. On both our parts.

Honestly, I do make an effort to limit my impact on the planet. But I do what
my conscience tells me to do. Celebrity endorsements don't move the needle at
all for me, at least not in the right direction.

------
readhn
"Climate change activism these days is almost entirely a concern of middle-
and upper middle-class people in the industrial world: people, that is, whose
lifestyles are disproportionately responsible for the dumping of greenhouse
gases; people who use much more fossil fuel energy, and many more of the
products of fossil fuel energy, than the average human being."

100% Agreed.

------
dnautics
Really though the biggest problem is that our economic and political systems
require growth as a policy. This means individuals incur invisible climate
costs regardless of their personal habits, simply by participating in a
currency scheme that is driven by deficit spending. This is true whether that
deficit is used to fund bombing people halfway around the world, or social
programmes at home alike. The idea that the government can borrow money to
fund a green revolution (that will mostly soak the already rich/politically
connected) is laughable, because it misses the very hidden flaw in its premise
(that the act of sovereign borrowing is the cause of the problem in the first
place).

In principle capitalism itself is not the primary ecological problem;
capitalism could extract profits in a closed non exponential system by
exploiting gradients in efficiency incumbent with technological improvements.
That could even incentivise climate improvement. It's when there is a secular
incentive to mindlessly grow that capitalism becomes a menace.

------
bioinformatics
Because climate always change either mankind does it or not?

------
antishatter
Nothing is written.

~~~
natch
Physics is fundamental.

------
thepangolino
You can't stop change, period.

------
bambax
All true. The comments so far are quite entertaining in explaining how it's
not in fact the case; one even says that people should be able to avoid taxes
while hoping to pay more taxes in a distant future.

But climate change advocates are not the only ones to blame. Absolutely nobody
wants to change their behavior: no individual, no company, no country.

And so climate change is simply unavoidable. Trying to mitigate it is a waste
of time IMHO; finding ways to live with it may be more fruitful.

~~~
jeffreyrogers
The comments are revealing. People are having an emotional reaction that's
preventing them from realizing any real way of addressing climate change will
substantially change/reduce their living standards. I've had this conversation
with people in real life and almost no one gets it at first.

~~~
ls65536
There really does seem to be this pervasive idea that there's a non-stop
linear march of progress from the beginning of time, that despite some bumps
here and there "things always improve over time", and that for any of the big
problems humanity is facing that "they'll think of something", without much
thought as to who "they" are or what that "something" is, or even about the
additional side-effects of what that "something" might entail, which could go
on to cause ever greater problems later on (where the same argument is again
applied ad infinitum). This seems like a common argument made to avoid the
emotionally difficult thoughts about what an individual could do right now to
help prevent or even just to mitigate existing problems from becoming worse.

