Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Few willing to change lifestyle to save the planet, climate survey finds

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 39 posts

Re: Few willing to change lifestyle to save the planet, climate survey finds

#11

Post by bamboozled »

CM30 wrote: post #4

I'm not surprised. Trying to rely on people to voluntarily change their behaviour while leaving companies to seemingly do whatever they want without consequences is a terrible idea. Why should people sacrifice their lifestyle while large corporations continue to make cheap, disposable goods and waste resources anyway? What's the incentive to consume less and change our lifestyles if leaders/celebrities/billionaires j…

Couldn’t agree more.It’s like asking individuals not to eat meat to stop climate change…

What about stopping companies fracking, mining coal, selling combustion engines first ?

Re: Few willing to change lifestyle to save the planet, climate survey finds

#12

Post by AtlasBarfed »

dane-pgp wrote: post #7
CM30 wrote: post #4

I'm not surprised. Trying to rely on people to voluntarily change their behaviour while leaving companies to seemingly do whatever they want without consequences is a terrible idea. Why should people sacrifice their lifestyle while large corporations continue to make cheap, disposable goods and waste resources anyway? What's the incentive to consume less and change our lifestyles if leaders/celebrities/billionaires j…

Yeah, it's the wrong question, and thus a distraction from getting the problem solved. Instead they should have asked "Do you support a tax on the top 1% of polluters, which is paid as a dividend to the bottom 99%?" I suppose that might have the unintended consequence / cobra effect of making people want the top 1% to pollute more, so they get a bigger dividend payment, but, on the other hand, I don't think that the…

It's an interesting idea, but the rich and powerful run the world and basically don't pay taxes. You don't need environmental dress-up, you just need the rich to pay their taxes.

Wow, the world is pumping 40 gigatons per year excess CO2, which (at 100$/ton, god I hope we find a cheap way to remove carbon) is 4 trillion per year.

There are historically about 2 teratons of excess carbon in the air. Christ that's 200 trillion dollars.

Wow are we in trouble. Even if we only tried to get half of it out and get neutral, that is a massive amount of money.

But the thing is, globally, there does exist probably 10 trillion dollars we can devote to fixing the problem (4 to stop the current bleeding, 6 to start drawing down the existing "debt"). Hopefully we find something cheaper.

Re: Few willing to change lifestyle to save the planet, climate survey finds

#14

Post by sien »

68% of Americans say they wouldn't pay $10 a month in higher electricity bills to combat Climate Change:

https://www.cato.org/blog/68-americans-wouldnt-pay-10-month-...

What politicians say they want to do about global warming is very, very different to what people say they will pay for.

Re: Few willing to change lifestyle to save the planet, climate survey finds

#15

Post by PeterisP »

sien wrote: post #14

68% of Americans say they wouldn't pay $10 a month in higher electricity bills to combat Climate Change: https://www.cato.org/blog/68-americans-wouldnt-pay-10-month-... What politicians say they want to do about global warming is very, very different to what people say they will pay for.

IMHO politicians are quite well aware of that, so they say that what they want to about global warming is to express concern, make plans and perhaps subsidize some local industries which they might have subsidized just purely as an economic stimulus - because if they would actually require significant transfer of wealth for these issues or significant mandates (either direct or as hefty tax incentives) to change lifestyles, then the voters would simply vote them out.

Re: Few willing to change lifestyle to save the planet, climate survey finds

#16

Post by PeterisP »

PicassoCTs wrote: post #3

What do we need to change this? Education? Behavioral Hacking? More discussion ejection seat buzzwords? Surplus Resources produced by cornucopia machinery? Governments that are resistant to bribery and clan-think(aka human nature)? Or a virus that drastically reduces economic dynamics and individual exertions? Can in a dysfunctional society and system, a virus be considered a valid policy, to prevent far greater dang…

The thing that would change this would be clear, certain, imminent and obvious impact to local welfare, combined with trustworthy assurances that the desired actions will change that. If we look at e.g. the IPCC reports, then we see statements which effectively say "there will be a much higher probability of various bad events in the far future, most of them somewhere else, that are likely to have various unspecified very bad consequences to people in general, most of them in other communities; and by the way the changes are already irreversible", which fails all those criteria.

People will not be willing to make sacrifices as long as it's not clear (from sources you trust - experts may not suffice, as covid shows) what exact very harmful near-term consequences you and your community will face; how exactly the proposed sacrifice will change that; and how the coordination problem will be solved so that other large countries including those on the other side of the world also take that sacrifice, which is a key part of showing that the sacrifice will have an effect.

Re: Few willing to change lifestyle to save the planet, climate survey finds

#17

Post by PeterisP »

dane-pgp wrote: post #7
CM30 wrote: post #4

I'm not surprised. Trying to rely on people to voluntarily change their behaviour while leaving companies to seemingly do whatever they want without consequences is a terrible idea. Why should people sacrifice their lifestyle while large corporations continue to make cheap, disposable goods and waste resources anyway? What's the incentive to consume less and change our lifestyles if leaders/celebrities/billionaires j…

Yeah, it's the wrong question, and thus a distraction from getting the problem solved. Instead they should have asked "Do you support a tax on the top 1% of polluters, which is paid as a dividend to the bottom 99%?" I suppose that might have the unintended consequence / cobra effect of making people want the top 1% to pollute more, so they get a bigger dividend payment, but, on the other hand, I don't think that the…

Pollution doesn't happen because some "top 1%" want it, it happens because it is a byproduct of goods and services consumed by all of us.

A small tax won't change behavior, but a large tax will impact consumer prices of the relevant goods. Who do you think the "top 1% of polluters" are with respect to greenhouse gases? If USA adds a heavy tax to imports from Saudi Aramco and other oil companies, gas prices will jump and that will be the "unwilling change to lifestyle" that voters will complain about. If Coal India, the world's largest manufacturer of coal, gets heavily taxed then people's electricity costs will rise significantly and they will riot. If you tax producers of carbon-heavy commodities like concrete and steel, the tax will directly be passed on to those using concrete and steel, that's how commodities work. The same applies for all other industries relying on carbon emissions - to significantly reduce usage, the taxes need to be so high that people actually can't afford these "carbon-heavy" services any more and start using them much less.

It's not just about the willingness to voluntarily unilaterally change your own lifestyle, it's about the willingness to tolerate your government implementing measures that de facto force you (and others in your country) to change your lifestyles. While, as the article states, "Most (76%) of those surveyed across the 10 countries said they would accept stricter environmental rules and regulations", I believe that this is said with an implicit assumption that these stricter environmental rules and regulations will mostly affect "someone else" i.e. "top 1% polluters" without requiring any noticeable change in the goods and services they use.

Re: Few willing to change lifestyle to save the planet, climate survey finds

#18

Post by ergot_vacation »

gremloni wrote: post #13

This is good. This particular change has to be top down. The ability to put pressure on government and industry should be grass roots, not behavioral changes themselves.

Bingo. Fuck this gaslighting. The vast majority of pollution in general, and CO2 in particular, comes from industry, not individuals. Tossing trash everywhere and running gas through your bus-like SUV like a maniac is an asshole move, and your neighbors don't appreciate it, but it doesn't move the needle much on actual environmental issues. Big companies and big foreign nations are where the CO2 is coming from. They have a stranglehold on congress thanks to their money, so good luck forcing change. But in the meantime let's stop wringing our hands over "lifestyle changes". They don't matter.

Re: Few willing to change lifestyle to save the planet, climate survey finds

#19

Post by sien »

PeterisP wrote: post #15
sien wrote: post #14

68% of Americans say they wouldn't pay $10 a month in higher electricity bills to combat Climate Change: https://www.cato.org/blog/68-americans-wouldnt-pay-10-month-... What politicians say they want to do about global warming is very, very different to what people say they will pay for.

IMHO politicians are quite well aware of that, so they say that what they want to about global warming is to express concern, make plans and perhaps subsidize some local industries which they might have subsidized just purely as an economic stimulus - because if they would actually require significant transfer of wealth for these issues or significant mandates (either direct or as hefty tax incentives) to change life…

France has ~1/3 the per capita greenhouse gas emissions of the US and is a rich country so it's certainly possible.

France uses nuclear for 70% of their electricity generation and petrol is ~$7 / gallon ( $1.9/litre ).

Politicians just need to be honest about the costs and people just have to want it.

Re: Few willing to change lifestyle to save the planet, climate survey finds

#20

Post by PeterisP »

sien wrote: post #19
PeterisP wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO politicians are quite well aware of that, so they say that what they want to about global warming is to express concern, make plans and perhaps subsidize some local industries which they might have subsidized just purely as an economic stimulus - because if they would actually require significant transfer of wealth for these issues or significant mandates (either direct or as hefty tax incentives) to change life…

France has ~1/3 the per capita greenhouse gas emissions of the US and is a rich country so it's certainly possible. France uses nuclear for 70% of their electricity generation and petrol is ~$7 / gallon ( $1.9/litre ). Politicians just need to be honest about the costs and people just have to want it.

Well, you don't get to say what people "have to want", they have their own free will, and for the majority USA to transition to e.g. transportation habits of France would be a major lifestyle change, which they could make if they were forced to, but which they quite explicitly do not want - so if politicians are honest about the costs, that makes it certain that the policies won't be adopted, because there is not a willingness to pay them.

I mean, $7/gallon is approximately double the current price, and if we made a poll across the USA asking "Would you be willing to double the gas prices in order to ...." then the vast majority would not even read past the beginning, they are certain that nothing that they have ever thought about climate change would justify that amount of change right now.

Post reply on HN