|
karthun posted:No, burning coal and other fossil fuels is directly responsible for climate change. I highly doubt that if the coal miners seize the coal mine in the socialist revolution that they would stop mining coal. Instead they would demand that we open more coal power plants. Fortunately, coal miners would have the exact same amount of say in government as everyone else, and given their incredibly small demographic, it's guaranteed that they wouldn't have even a fraction of the sway that the current capitalist class dominating the fossil fuel industries do. Without the might of lobbyists, revolving doors, bought politicians, and a massive propaganda campaign of lies and deception, one of the largest barriers to switching from fossil fuels would be removed. Additionally, with money and power more evenly distributed in this socialist society, workers wouldn't be trapped into mining coal and could easily get jobs in other industries. Whatever the case, that's why it's important to have a democratically planned economy, dictated by the people for their common, collective good, and not dominated by special interest groups only interested in profit no matter the cost. Saying that burning fossil fuels causes climate change is technically accurate, but coal is burned by people for reasons. The dominate reason behind why we use fossil fuels is economics and profit, which directly ties back to the "free market" and capitalism. Inglonias posted:Ehh... I happen to like it. If treated improperly, it can cause a lot of problems, true. But I feel that there's nothing wrong with the actual concept of the free market. I consider myself a liberal, and I like the ideas that the market can represent - Innovation, competition, and freedom of choice.
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 09:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:00 |
|
|
karthun posted:No, burning coal and other fossil fuels is directly responsible for climate change. I highly doubt that if the coal miners seize the coal mine in the socialist revolution that they would stop mining coal. Instead they would demand that we open more coal power plants. Except that a public market or central planning agency will far more effectively be able to account for the externality of carbon pollution in its dealings with those miners, as opposed to the system we have now where the biggest profits talk.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 10:20
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
Yeah, essentially the issue with the free market is the way it handles, or more exactly doesn't handle, externalities it creates. Whether it's pollution or exploitation, the free market will find ways to avoid dealing with the problem by moving it out of sight or just ignoring it altogether. This is possible because an economic actor that creates this externality is rarely in a position where they have to fix it too, so there is no obligation to do so and they have the legal and political power to keep it that way. A central system would require these actors to actually answer to one another. As it works now it requires monumental amounts of effort for scientific and environmental agencies to even be acknowledged, let alone taken seriously.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 10:38
|
|
|
That doesn't hold true in practice though - the USSR and the PRC both have pretty poor records on environmentalism, and particularly CO2 emissions since there was such a large focus on industrialization. That's fairly inevitable as part of improving the quality of life of the people in those countries though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 15:00
|
|
|
satan!!! posted:That doesn't hold true in practice though - the USSR and the PRC both have pretty poor records on environmentalism, and particularly CO2 emissions since there was such a large focus on industrialization. That's fairly inevitable as part of improving the quality of life of the people in those countries though. Those countries also had no democracy though, and experience has shown that bottom up pressure is really the lifeblood of environmental action.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 15:04
|
|
|
satan!!! posted:That doesn't hold true in practice though - the USSR and the PRC both have pretty poor records on environmentalism, and particularly CO2 emissions since there was such a large focus on industrialization. That's fairly inevitable as part of improving the quality of life of the people in those countries though. The USSR and the US are perfect examples of how a centrally planned economy can make drastic, rapid changes in production, and produce a lot of stuff with incredible efficiencies towards a goal. Unfortunately, that goal happened to be industrialization then World War 2 for the USSR, and World War 2 for the US. The missing link is making a planned economy responsible to the people, not capital, and not an elite bureaucracy, which is why I said in my post we need a democratically planned economy. It's clear that market capitalism is completely unable to deal with externalities, especially pollution and things that have long term consequences. Even heavily regulated market capitalism has failed to produce the steps necessary to combat climate change, so any solution to climate change must require some other economic system. I haven't heard of anything better than a democratically planned economy. If you have some other solution to propose though, by all means let's hear it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
Should be pointed out though that the type of command economy instituted in China and the USSR was not amenable to adjusting for externalities either, because in both cases it effectively functioned on the basis of the centre issuing targets and not giving a poo poo about how those targets were achieved. That substantially remains the case today for agricultural production in China, where the government often centrally determines grain quotas or, more generally, institutional reforms and leaves it up to local governments to make sure they happen one way or the other. That's not an inherent function of central planning, though, it's just how it operated in Soviet-model economies, and probably has more to do with Soviet principles of political organization than the idea of planning per se.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Fortunately, coal miners would have the exact same amount of say in government as everyone else, and given their incredibly small demographic, it's guaranteed that they wouldn't have even a fraction of the sway that the current capitalist class dominating the fossil fuel industries do. Without the might of lobbyists, revolving doors, bought politicians, and a massive propaganda campaign of lies and deception, one of the largest barriers to switching from fossil fuels would be removed. Why is it that you assume that democratically planned economy will lead to a reduction of coal and other fossil fuels instead of killing off everything BUT coal and other fossil fuels? The only thing about electricity that people care about is A) that it works and B) that they don't like nuclear. There isn't too many things that fulfill both of those requirements. In your mind a democratically planned economy would not use fossil fuels. That is because you are thinking of an ideal system that works exactly the way you want it to work. The problem is that a system that works exactly the way you want it to work does not sound like a democratically determined system.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
karthun posted:Why is it that you assume that democratically planned economy will lead to a reduction of coal and other fossil fuels instead of killing off everything BUT coal and other fossil fuels? The only thing about electricity that people care about is A) that it works and B) that they don't like nuclear. There isn't too many things that fulfill both of those requirements. 2. Right now, more than 40% of the country believes climate change is a threat to themselves (see below), and even more believe it is a threat to others. As weather disasters increase in frequency and intensity, people believe in climate change more and believe it is a threat more--for example, after Hurricane Sandy and the midwest drought. That's in spite of the immense propaganda campaign by the fossil fuel industries to convince people otherwise. Again, destroy this propaganda machine, destroy their grip on power, and what exactly is propping the fossil fuel industry up? Public opinion is already shifting, and without being bombarded by lies from the media and oil companies, that shift would come a lot faster. Yale Project on Climate Change posted:In addition, they increasingly perceive global warming as a threat to themselves (42%, up 13 points since March 2012), their families (46%, up 13 points), and/or people in their communities (48%, up 14 points). Americans also perceive global warming as a growing threat to people in the United States (57%, up 11 points since March 2012), in other modern industrialized countries (57%, up 8 points since March), and in developing countries (64%, up 12 points since March). 3. A solid majority of Americans want more renewable energy and more efficient cars. They support increased regulation on emissions, and a majority want to see climate change either addressed this year or in the next few years. And that's just in the US. In other countries there's a lot more support for renewables. 4. If there's concern over cheap energy and fuel prices, it's because those are inelastic goods that people depend upon, and most people in this country are still feeling the squeeze of the ongoing economic crisis. In a socialist society, money wouldn't accumulate in the top so drastically, and literally trillions of dollars would be spread out among everyday workers. With finances no longer being as big a problem, money, and subsequently prices of electricity and gas, becomes less of a problem. karthun posted:In your mind a democratically planned economy would not use fossil fuels. That is because you are thinking of an ideal system that works exactly the way you want it to work. The problem is that a system that works exactly the way you want it to work does not sound like a democratically determined system. Here are some questions for you:
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:3. A solid majority of Americans want more renewable energy and more efficient cars. They support increased regulation on emissions, and a majority want to see climate change either addressed this year or in the next few years. And that's just in the US. In other countries there's a lot more support for renewables. I'm sure "fully funding social security" polls well too but peopled sure bitched when their paychecks were reduced on Jan 1st. They'll say they're willing to pay more for renewables right until the bill comes, then the bitching starts until we go back to 7c/kWh coal and the cycle begins anew.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I'm sure "fully funding social security" polls well too but peopled sure bitched when their paychecks were reduced on Jan 1st. They'll say they're willing to pay more for renewables right until the bill comes, then the bitching starts until we go back to 7c/kWh coal and the cycle begins anew. That ties into the fourth point I made, which is that what opposition there is to moving off fossil fuels has an economic root. Workers don't want more taxes and less money because they're already hurting. And they're right: wages have been stagnant, more and more money has been funneled to the ultra-rich. Why should they carry the economic burden? Well, they shouldn't. As I've talked about previously in this thread, there's no need for there to be more taxes and economic hurt put on the people who are already struggling. That money can come from the same place it's all been gathering: From the top 1% and from corporations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:3. A solid majority of Americans want more renewable energy and more efficient cars. They support increased regulation on emissions, and a majority want to see climate change either addressed this year or in the next few years. And that's just in the US. In other countries there's a lot more support for renewables. Texas A&M poll shows Americans support renewable energy — but don’t want to pay for it at the pump I will just let this sit here and sink in. Your own source says that people are not willing to pay for renewable. They will take it if it is free but they don't want to give anything up for it. The question that you need to ask and that you need to consider is not "What do people want?" it is "What are people willing to give up for what they want?" Your own source says that people are not willing to give up money for renewables. There is public support for renewables, just not to pay for it. There is public support to address climate change, just not to pay for it. Until you understate the the value of something is only what people are willing to give up for it then you will completely fail to understand the situation we are in and the solutions needed to correct it. You think that public opinion is on our side, its not, it is against us.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
karthun posted:Texas A&M poll shows Americans support renewable energy — but don’t want to pay for it at the pump Please don't cherry pick parts which parts of my of my argument you want to refute and ignore the rest. I already covered that there is opposition to funding renewables or rises in gas prices because of economic reasons. Again, let me restate my position: Working people don't want to pay for transitioning away from fossil fuels because they're already underemployed, underpaid, and struggling to make ends meet. And they're right. The burden of paying for this crisis should not be put on people who cannot afford it. The money to switch to renewables should come from the super-rich and large corporations that rake in trillions in profit and are hoarding trillions of dollars. And again, if this wealth was used to transition away from fossil fuels and redistributed to the population at large, the economic concerns would evaporate. You also didn't answer any of the questions I asked, and have yet to provide any actual solution to climate change.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
What exactly is a "solution" for climate change and why are you so convinced one exists?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:What exactly is a "solution" for climate change and why are you so convinced one exists? A solution to climate change is plausible and realistic way we could reach zero or near zero emissions in the coming decades. No matter what, we need to start moving towards zero emissions. Even if we have reached a point where we will unavoidably see a 2C increase in global temperature, that's not reason to give up hope, that's reason to redouble our efforts because the global temperature can always rise (for example, to 6C, or higher), and the higher we let the temperature go, the worse off we and the rest of humanity are and the more people that will die. Inaction, then, is not an option. I'm convinced a solution exists because the technology to reach zero emissions and mitigate increasingly harsh conditions already exist, it just need to be implemented. The trick, then, is how we implement the solutions. I've talked about that in this thread before, but key points are having a mass movement that links workers to environmentalists, green jobs programs, socialism, and a democratically planned economy. As I said, I've gone into more detail in my previous posts in this thread, but if you'd like a more detailed explanation I'd be happy to talk about it, just tell me what you'd like me to focus on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Please don't cherry pick parts which parts of my of my argument you want to refute and ignore the rest. Your own source proved my entire point. Public opinion is not on our side. People like renewable every, they just don't value it. When push comes to shove they will take dirty cheap energy over clean slightly more expensive energy and more importantly will oppose changes to the dirty cheap energy to make it more expensive. To be frank right now people value cheap every over clean energy. Any democratic determination of the economy will do nothing but subsidize cheap energy to make it even cheaper. You are thinking of an ideal system that works exactly the way you want it to work. The problem is that a system that works exactly the way you want it to work does not sound like a democratically determined system. The problem that the US has is our energy is too cheap. We live in a car based society were people want to live in 3,000 sqft houses on a acre plot 60 miles away from where they work and drive to work in their own personal Lexus lane and ever have to slow down for traffic or see another car. This right here is what people value and this is what they will fight to maintain. Or more correctly, it is what people THINK that they want. When you hit gas prices directly and subsidize mass transportation you force people to re-access their values. During this process you can shift people's values and public opinion will reflect it. You oppose this process because you oppose making energy more expensive and hitting people in their pocketbooks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 21:38
|
|
|
Hmm that was an interesting and articulate counter to the point I just made, I should make a second post reiterating my point just to be sure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:What exactly is a "solution" for climate change and why are you so convinced one exists? n + U235 → Fission Fragments + 3n + 202.5 MeV n + U238 → U239 → Np239 → Pu239 n + Pu239 → Fission Fragments + 3n + 211.5 MeV n + Th232 → Th233 → U233 n + U233 → Fission Fragments + 3n + 197.9 MeV Of course we would have to have people re-access their opposition to nuclear power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
karthun posted:Your own source proved my entire point. Public opinion is not on our side. People like renewable every, they just don't value it. karthun posted:When push comes to shove they will take dirty cheap energy over clean slightly more expensive energy and more importantly will oppose changes to the dirty cheap energy to make it more expensive. To be frank right now people value cheap every over clean energy. Any democratic determination of the economy will do nothing but subsidize cheap energy to make it even cheaper. You are thinking of an ideal system that works exactly the way you want it to work. The problem is that a system that works exactly the way you want it to work does not sound like a democratically determined system. You're making a whole lot of claims and not providing any sources to back them up. Specifically, you have provided no evidence for your claim that a democratically controlled society would vote for increasing emissions and lowering their cost, and I have already provided evidence that undermines that claim. People want cheap energy now because they can't very well afford expensive energy for economic reasons I've already outlined. I've talked about how there's ample motivation for people to support renewables, but let me restate it: Anyone that cares about their own future or their family's future or who has empathy for their fellow human has motivation to support a zero-emission society. I've provided evidence that that support for renewables already exists. I've also pointed out that working class people don't have the money to support moving towards a zero-emission society, and that is the key factor preventing such a transition. I can provide plenty of statistics or studies on wealth inequality in the US or on a global scale if you want. And to rehash what I've asked you multiple times already: If you think my solution is flawed, what is your solution? karthun posted:The problem that the US has is our energy is too cheap. We live in a car based society were people want to live in 3,000 sqft houses on a acre plot 60 miles away from where they work and drive to work in their own personal Lexus lane and ever have to slow down for traffic or see another car. This right here is what people value and this is what they will fight to maintain. Or more correctly, it is what people THINK that they want. When you hit gas prices directly and subsidize mass transportation you force people to re-access their values. During this process you can shift people's values and public opinion will reflect it. You oppose this process because you oppose making energy more expensive and hitting people in their pocketbooks. The infrastructure of the US is the problem, and part of moving towards a zero emission society is moving away from cars, suburban sprawl, and consumerism and towards mass transit, efficient urban centers, are towards a less wasteful system of production. Hitting people in their pocketbooks is not a way for them to "reassess their values," it's a way to bankrupt them or make them suffer even more. 17 million Americans are already food insecure. How many more would be if you raised the cost of energy and gas? Given the fact that most people in this country don't have access to good mass transit, many people have no choice but to drive their cars. The fact that we have a network of highways and not trains, or that we have suburban sprawl and not pedestrian-friendly urban developments is a systemic problem that cannot be solved by isolated individuals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
karthun posted:n + U235 → Fission Fragments + 3n + 202.5 MeV I agree that nuclear power would be incredibly beneficial in moving us towards a zero-emission society. However, like any change, it won't happen automatically. It has to be fought for. Edit: Actually, support for nuclear power is way higher than I thought it would be. This site is claiming 65% are fine with nuclear to generate energy, and only 29% oppose it. This one says 62% for vs 33% opposed. Given that many of the nuclear supporters are Republicans (see the second link), that could be the basis for convincing conservatives to support zero-emission energy, if not for fighting climate change, at least for ensuring jobs and energy independence. Edit 2: Electric Editaloo This poll shows the relationship between protecting the environment versus growing a strong economy. Especially notable is that a large dip occurs in sync with the great recession. Economics and environmentalism cannot be taken in isolation. Workers and environmentalists need to fight together. The best thing about a program like a Green New Deal is that improving the economy and working towards stopping climate change are not mutually exclusive; a nation-wide green jobs program would do both. Uranium Phoenix fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Mar 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:
Those numbers will change when you ask them about putting the reactor anywhere near where they live though. It's the same as the renewal support change when you include higher prices in the question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
Real hurthling! posted:Those numbers will change when you ask them about putting the reactor anywhere near where they live though. It's the same as the renewal support change when you include higher prices in the question. Sure. That's why it's still important to promote education on such issues, and why if nuclear power is going to be implemented, people are going to need to fight for it. It's also a good reason to develop reactors like the LFTR that don't require a lot of water and therefore can be located in less population dense areas. In all instances where there is a problem, there are going to be difficulties in figuring out a solution, especially when the problems are as big as "how do we implement nuclear power on a national scale?" or "how do we move to a zero-emission society?" I think too many people look at the difficulties and end their thoughts there, rather than start thinking about ways to go about solving the problem, or intermediate goals we should be pursuing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:No, it doesn't. You're confusing "don't value" with "can't afford." The public at large is poor and feeling the squeeze of an ongoing economic crisis. They literally can't afford to fund a transition to renewables. If you want me to support the claim that most Americans are poor with statistical evidence, I can do that. No, you provided evidence that people do not value renewable energy. They like it, they just don't value it. What they value is the cars, the network of highways, the low density sprawl and the oil that runs it all. It is where we have put our money for the last 60 years. It literally is what we value because it is what we chose to afford. quote:People want cheap energy now because they can't very well afford expensive energy for economic reasons I've already outlined. I've talked about how there's ample motivation for people to support renewables, but let me restate it: Anyone that cares about their own future or their family's future or who has empathy for their fellow human has motivation to support a zero-emission society. I've provided evidence that that support for renewables already exists. I've also pointed out that working class people don't have the money to support moving towards a zero-emission society, and that is the key factor preventing such a transition. I can provide plenty of statistics or studies on wealth inequality in the US or on a global scale if you want. No you havn't. You have not shown what people value, or more importantly that they no longer value the cars, the network of highways, the suburban sprawl and the oil that runs it all. quote:And to rehash what I've asked you multiple times already: If you think my solution is flawed, what is your solution? To force our society to make a decision between expensive oil, coal, and natural gas and nuclear power and as many renewables as we can squeeze in. To force our society to make a decision between cheap multi-modal mass transportation and the expensive automobile. To force our society to make a decision between low density sprawl and mixed-use development. quote:Here are some more claims that you are not providing evidence for. Please provide a source backing up your claim that people want a 60 mile commute to work, or that their dreams are literally all to own big houses and nice cars. People are complex, and painting them all with a single brush that condemns them all for pursuing a straw-man of the American Dream is both inaccurate and insulting. Are you really trying to make an argument that people do not want to live in low density sprawl? I'll let you walk that bank. quote:The infrastructure of the US is the problem, and part of moving towards a zero emission society is moving away from cars, low density sprawl, and consumerism and towards mass transit, efficient urban centers, are towards a less wasteful system of production. Exactly, you can only do this by making the automobile more expensive. There is no easy way out. There is no way out where people do not get hurt. There is no way that people don't suffer. At least we can raise gas taxes to greatly subsidize mass transportation, something you oppose. Gas taxes are a classic example of a Pigovian tax. Tax the god drat crap out of it same with coal and all other fossil fuels. Uranium Phoenix posted:I agree that nuclear power would be incredibly beneficial in moving us towards a zero-emission society. However, like any change, it won't happen automatically. It has to be fought for. Adding to Real Hurthling!'s post, The Green New Deal calls for shuttering all nuclear power plants.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
OK, so to move towards zero emissions and mitigate climate change, all we need to do is: 1. Move toward a democratically controlled, socialist economy 2. Develop LFTR to the point that it is feasible How likely do you folks think either of these actions are on a timescale that would actually matter? It's kind of like telling someone that you'll give them a billion dollars if they can throw a penny into an average-sized drinking cup from 50 yards in one try. Any way to meaningfully address climate change will involve a reduction in the standard of living of the United States (not to mention a good number of other countries). A majority will never freely choose to reduce their own standard of living. Therefore, climate change will not be meaningfully addressed. The social calculus here is simple, if brutal. That is, unless you want to do away with democracy in the name of saving the environment and future generations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
karthun posted:No, you provided evidence that people do not value renewable energy. They like it, they just don't value it. What they value is the cars, the network of highways, the low density sprawl and the oil that runs it all. It is where we have put our money for the last 60 years. It literally is what we value because it is what we chose to afford. karthun posted:To force our society to make a decision between expensive oil, coal, and natural gas and nuclear power and as many renewables as we can squeeze in. To force our society to make a decision between cheap multi-modal mass transportation and the expensive automobile. To force our society to make a decision between low density sprawl and mixed-use development. karthun posted:Exactly, you can only do this by making the automobile more expensive. There is no easy way out. There is no way out where people do not get hurt. There is no way that people don't suffer. At least we can raise gas taxes to greatly subsidize mass transportation, something you oppose. Gas taxes are a classic example of a Pigovian tax. Tax the god drat crap out of it same with coal and all other fossil fuels. There's also a fundamental flaw in your "solution": How do you get the laws you're advocating for passed? How do you get a massive gas or coal tax passed? The fossil fuel industry sure as hell is going to fight it tooth and nail. Everyday people are also going to fight it, because as we've all seen, regardless of the reasons, they don't want to pay extra. Where is the political support coming from? karthun posted:Adding to Real Hurthling!'s post, The Green New Deal calls for shuttering all nuclear power plants. Edit: Also, karthun, you're continuing to make a whole lot of claims, and not backing it up with any data or evidence whatsoever. Could you please cite some of the sources you're using so I know your entire argument isn't just a bunch of assumptions and opinions pulled out of your rear end?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:OK, so to move towards zero emissions and mitigate climate change, all we need to do is: I think that environmentalists and labor need to link their fight, since climate change is at its root an economic problem. Together, they need to protest, strike, and create traditional demands that draw more people towards their movement. Through a sustained, grassroots fight that uses a variety of tactics, people can demand not just jobs and better working conditions, but green jobs that support moving towards a carbon-free economy. As the movement grows, its effectiveness will grow, and it can move from smaller demands on the local level to higher and higher demands, ranging from increasing the minimum wage or ending coal subsidies to demanding a national green jobs program, election reform, or even constitutional amendments and nationalization of large corporations. The more of the economy that is democratically controlled by workers, the less power corporations and the super-rich have, meaning the more chance we have to implement a transition towards a carbon-free society. If we look at history, we can see past mass movements have made drastic changes in the course of a few decades (Civil Rights, Women's rights, or the Labor Movement). We can see how planned economies led to rapid industrialization (USSR) or rapid retooling of the production of industry (US during WW2), which gives precedent for retooling our society and revamping our infrastructure. We can see how a mass movement in one country can erupt extremely quickly (Tunisia) and then inspire other mass movements around the world (Egypt, Occupy in the US) which can mobilize millions of people to action, giving us hope for any mass movement in the US spreading around the world. Based on that historical precedent, I think that significant gains could be made in the next few decades. Obviously, it's impossible to predict at this point. Your Sledgehammer posted:Any way to meaningfully address climate change will involve a reduction in the standard of living of the United States (not to mention a good number of other countries). A majority will never freely choose to reduce their own standard of living. Therefore, climate change will not be meaningfully addressed. The social calculus here is simple, if brutal. That is, unless you want to do away with democracy in the name of saving the environment and future generations. See, that's why to me it doesn't matter how difficult or far-fetched any of the solutions I'm proposing might sound: we have to move towards them, because the alternative is too gruesome and horrifying to simply stand by and watch happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:the statistical evidence is that people, if given power, would actually work to stop climate change like I'm claiming. You did not post statistical evidence of that. Sorry. Also idea that if people are wealthy enough to afford climate change mitigation they'll pay for it seems very optimistic, and doesn't really jibe with what I know about people. Specifically that many (most?) people are never wealthy enough, and even doctors grumble about the price of gas or airline tickets. Besides according to your theory, why aren't the uber-rich pushing for climate mitigation? Many of them will lose millions, for what it's worth, even under moderate scenarios. Maybe if you could provide some evidence for your claims, have any psychology papers supporting your thesis? Any demonstrations of collective bottoms up movements fighting for long term goals at the expense of short term hurt? Excuse me but your ideas seem more grounded in faith than evidence. Opinion polls are not evidence of how people behave, btw, and they are especially not evidence of how theoretical future socialist governments will behave.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
Squalid posted:You did not post statistical evidence of that. Sorry.
[2]. People want to see a transition towards renewables and carbon emissions regulated [3]. Climate change has and will continue to affect their every-day lives Squalid posted:Also idea that if people are wealthy enough to afford climate change mitigation they'll pay for it seems very optimistic, and doesn't really jibe with what I know about people. Specifically that many (most?) people are never wealthy enough, and even doctors grumble about the price of gas or airline tickets. Besides according to your theory, why aren't the uber-rich pushing for climate mitigation? Many of them will lose millions, for what it's worth, even under moderate scenarios. You're holding me and only me to an unreasonable standard of evidence. I'm literally the only one in this argument actually using sources to back up my claims. You're not even holding yourself to the standard you're demanding from me, as evidenced by talking about "what I know about people" and then generalizing that to entire populations. What I'm doing is looking at reality, history, opinion, economics, and evidence of what's going on and trying to use that to map out the best path towards stopping climate change. Obviously since I'm not an expert in the fields of sociology, psychology, economics, history, statistics, climate science, energy, and politics my ideas are incomplete. However, I really really really would like people to talk about what we need to do to stop climate change. If someone has a better idea, please, put it forth. Instead, most people in this thread say "nope won't work" and then bemoan how we're all screwed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 01:32
|
|
|
Uranium Pheonix posted:Reducing the global standard of living is not necessary. In fact, the global standard of living can be improved by implementing a transition towards a carbon-free society, though that's more an effect of the democratic socialism I'm advocating for. Please re-read what I wrote - I'm not talking about the global standard of living, I'm talking about the U.S. standard of living. Moving to zero emissions would absolutely mean a reduction in the U.S. standard of living, which is exactly why a serious push to greatly curtail emissions won't be seen in this country. Most people will be unwilling to give up their material goodies, even when faced with what amounts to an apocalypse. I am totally on board with what you're getting at - the Green New Deal is a really brilliant synthesis of solutions to two problems that the US faces, and it is one of the many reasons I voted straight Green last year. Your enthusiasm and belief in the feasibility of it is inspiring, but I also find it to be pretty naive. Zero emissions would mean swimming against the tide of what all "productive" aspects of society have been geared around in this country for the last century plus. I understand that mass social movements can change the world, and I sincerely hope you are right and wish you the best of luck. However, I can't help but look at the sad tale of the last mass social movement in this country - Occupy. It's goals were about as close to "necessary and completely self-evident" as you're going to get, and it was marginalized and then completely crushed by a media apparatus that is wholly controlled by elites as well as an American mainstream that basically didn't give a poo poo. Seriously, look at the reactions that the average American had to Occupy. It started off as "huh, I agree with what they're getting at, this is pretty interesting", moved to indifference, and then finally annoyance as the camps were cleared out. By the second week of protesting, nobody could give a rat's rear end about what was going on in Zuccotti Park, despite how important it was.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:First, you're over-generalizing. Painting all Americans with the same brush is stupid. Second, you're not taking into account how economic realities force people's hands. If the only job I can find is 40 miles away, there's no housing I can afford in the area, and there's no mass transit system I can use, I pretty much have to get a car and drive. You're blaming individuals for a systemic problem. In many cities or areas, mass transit is not an option. There are no buses, subways, rails, or even bike lanes and sidewalks. If you raise the price of gas $1 and they still buy it, it's not that they value gas $1 more as shown by the fact that they buy it, it's that they have no choice (Note: I don't consider "stop going to work, get fired, have zero income and become homeless" a "choice"). So in your world there is no other choice between driving 40 miles to work and getting fired? You can never sell a house or move out of your apartment. Car pooling is now illegal. Bus's are all scraped, NYC rips out its subway and the computer rail system for major cities is destroyed. Bikes only magically work in bike lanes and the ADA is ripped up too I guess. You are talking to someone who rides a bicycle 11 months out of the year in Minneapolis. And you paint me for over-generalizing and painting Americans with the same brush. Yes, there are people who live in the middle of no where, we no longer can afford nor desire to subsizie their lives. It sucks. I am fine with the state moving them into an urban area. quote:How do you force that choice? The ability to tax and substize is one of the governments most powerful tools to correct market imbalances and inefficiency. I suggest we use it. Pigovian taxes are used correct for unpriced externalities, like carbon dioxide. I suggest we use it. quote:There is a way to not induce needless suffering on the masses. Instead of highly regressive taxes that attack inelastic goods and take from a class of people who have the least, we could tax the richest people who have literally trillions of dollars hoarded and use that money to transition to a zero-emission economy. You need to build mass transit before people can take it. YOU are the one saying that you need a god drat socialist revolution before you can implement your plan and then you bitch at me for having the relativity minor problem of raising some gas taxes. The highway trust fund is nearly empty. You will start hearing over the next year and a half that it is a crisis and that we need to do something about it. Nothing gets thing done in Congress like a crisis. quote:Edit: Also, karthun, you're continuing to make a whole lot of claims, and not backing it up with any data or evidence whatsoever. Could you please cite some of the sources you're using so I know your entire argument isn't just a bunch of assumptions and opinions pulled out of your rear end? What would you like me to cite? What a "Pigovian tax" is? Or an "externality"? Or that "Carbon dioxide" is an "externality"? These are very basic concepts that that you can look up on your own. I am not trying to estimate if a carbon tax is better then a gasoline tax, I don't know but I am not trying to make that argument and I am more then willing to defer to experts. I don't know if it is a better plan to price a fossil fuel Pigovian tax at a rate to maximize state income rather then a rate to maximize changes in behavior, I don't know but I am not trying to make that argument and I am more then willing to defer to experts. What I do believe is that multi-modal transportation in mixed-use development area is the best place to live. That is my personal opinion and I am not trying to convince you of it. I just put my money where my mouth is and moved to South Minneapolis 5 years ago and have been biking and taking the train ever since.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:Any way to meaningfully address climate change will involve a reduction in the standard of living of the United States (not to mention a good number of other countries). A majority will never freely choose to reduce their own standard of living. Therefore, climate change will not be meaningfully addressed. The social calculus here is simple, if brutal. That is, unless you want to do away with democracy in the name of saving the environment and future generations. I've linked it in this thread before but as an example, Australia could move to 100% renewable energy in 10 years with a cost, over a 30 year time frame, lower than continuing to rely on fossil fuels. This is without any appreciable drop in standard of living. The UN have also produced a global report on the feasibility of a 100% renewable (and IIRC non-nuclear) global economy. I'm not anti-nuclear, but I am wary of nuclear in the hands of either private regulators or a government which could tomorrow be a government that hands over nuclear plants to the highest bidder.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 02:54
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Given the evidence that Well I'm not making claims, I'm just poking holes in yours. and the sad fact is one is a lot easier to do than the other, and requires a lot less evidence. My baseless claims are just as likely to be true as your own, and just one could invalidate your reasoning. There really aren't a lot of ideas in this thread. I've been following it from the beginning and it just goes around in circles, the same ideas pop up over and over with little to support them. "There's nothing we can do." "Socialism now." "Trust in the free market." "Just buy a farm." These ideas generally seem designed to fit philosophical or political goals. Serious plans drawn from scientific and historical evidence are scarce and precious, and unfortunately tend to avoid political controversy. I guess most posters just want to vent their frustrations over our current inaction, which is fine, I'm not going to get on everyone's case who complains about capitalism or wants to sperg about fuel efficiency gains in computer controlled cars. Most people aren't really informed enough to have a serious opinion anyway. At least everyone here is on the same side, well except Arkane. Your claims just popped out at me in all the noise. I'm sorry for putting you on the spot, but I genuinely thought your ideas were interesting, and specific, and hoped you had more evidence. I want to agree with you. There has actually been a lot of research into the psychology of Global Warming denialists and the psychology of collective action, most of which is pretty depressing for environmentalists. If you'd like I could dig up some journal articles for you. It's been a while since I've read on the subject and I have limited database access now but I'm sure I could find something interesting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 10:00
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Given the evidence that Unfortunately, you assume people are logical when it comes to their beliefs on climate change. Evidence shows that is not the case. If you don't believe in climate change, you are less likely to believe that extreme events are influenced by climate change. Article posted:When you categorize individuals by engagement—essentially how confident and knowledgeable they feel about the facts of the issue—differences are revealed. For the highly-engaged groups (on both sides), opinions about whether climate is warming appeared to drive reports of personal experience. That is, motivated reasoning was prevalent. On the other hand, experience really did change opinions for the less-engaged group, and motivated reasoning took a back seat. The individual believes that the majority of people believe what they believe on climate change, even when surveys show they are very wrong. Article posted:The false consensus effect became obvious when the researchers looked at what these people thought that everyone else believed. Here, the false consensus effect was obvious: every single group believed that their opinion represented the plurality view of the population. This was most dramatic among those who don't think that the climate is changing; even though they represent far less than 10 percent of the population, they believed that over 40 percent of Australians shared their views. Those who profess ignorance also believed they had lots of company, estimating that their view was shared by a quarter of the populace. I've also read papers (unfortunately I can't find the link) basically saying that listening to news reports that are counter to your personal views only reinforces your personal views. You can get the picture: if you don't believe in climate change, you're not going to see its affects, you're going to assume people agree with you, and you're not going to listen to counter-arguments. Thus, you'll see no reason to change. Here's a direct example of how logic doesn't enter into global warming debates: a recent paper showed that our planet was in the middle of a cooling period before the most recent spike in warming. Article posted:According to the reconstruction, global average temperatures increased by about 0.6 degrees Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit) from 11,300 to 9,500 years ago. Temperatures remained relatively constant for about 4,000 years. From about 4,500 years ago to roughly 100 years ago, global average temperatures cooled by 0.7 degrees C. Evidence for climate change, right? Not according to redstate.com. redstate.com posted:For the moment, leave aside those sensationalist claims about “enormous increases in greenhouse gases caused by industrialization” – a simple enough observation given that pre-industrial societies produce very little greenhouse gas, outside of human and animal flatulence, but not logically connected to any measurable shift in global climate. Aren’t these scientists conceding that man-made global warming might be… good? Wouldn’t that mean the people who have been trying to bankrupt Western industry with madcap environmental laws have also been ignorantly shoving us into the frozen hell of a new Ice Age? You start from the opinion that global warming isn't happening, you read an article about how we were in a cooling trend before a giant spike in warming, and you only remember that we were entering an ice age before warming "saved" us from being covered in glaciers. This is what the environmentalist movement is fighting against, which is why the argument isn't so simple. You can't just show someone evidence that global warming is happening and have them believe you. You can't even tell them that most people believe global warming is happening. You literally have to change their entire worldview.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 14:09
|
|
|
An interesting discussion about geoengineering that's worth spending some time to watch. Some good debate and just illustrates why Uranium Phoenix's POV is flawed. You just aren't going to coax those bunnies away from the headlights, pal. The comments are what you'd expect from angry old white men. I'd not bother reading that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 15:05
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:I've linked it in this thread before but as an example, Australia could move to 100% renewable energy in 10 years with a cost, over a 30 year time frame, lower than continuing to rely on fossil fuels. This is without any appreciable drop in standard of living. Common misconception: per capita GDP = standard of living. There are plenty of well-being indicators that have no statistical relationship with carbon emissions (beyond minimum thresholds). I could imagine, for instance, a de-growing economy (in absolute terms) with increasing employment, health and education. We don't have to "pay" for climate change with our standard of living. We just need the courage to imagine a different mode of living.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
Myotis posted:Common misconception: per capita GDP = standard of living. I wasn't referring to GDP, I was referring to the report pointing to no major change in patterns of behaviour besides an increase in the use of electrified public transport - it assumes any drop in demand for energy is from electrification of ICEs, efficiency increases and optimisation of the grid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 04:57
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:I understand that mass social movements can change the world, and I sincerely hope you are right and wish you the best of luck. However, I can't help but look at the sad tale of the last mass social movement in this country - Occupy. It's goals were about as close to "necessary and completely self-evident" as you're going to get, and it was marginalized and then completely crushed by a media apparatus that is wholly controlled by elites as well as an American mainstream that basically didn't give a poo poo. Seriously, look at the reactions that the average American had to Occupy. It started off as "huh, I agree with what they're getting at, this is pretty interesting", moved to indifference, and then finally annoyance as the camps were cleared out. By the second week of protesting, nobody could give a rat's rear end about what was going on in Zuccotti Park, despite how important it was. I know that the high priests of Occupy-worship a la Chris Hedges tell you otherwise but Occupy had no hope to begin with, and it is evidenced by the way it was destroyed by the establishment with barely a droplet of effort. In fact, they didn't even need to do much - I think the police were there just to send a message, and was probably a bit of an overkill to the most disorganized and pathetic uprising in human history. I mean if you thought all our hopes were riding on Occupy then I can see why you are such a pessimist now. But it says less about humanity and more about the decimated state of the progressive movement - torn to shreds by the twin forces of decadence - lifestyle-centric activism and neo-liberalism. Oh and furthermore Your Sledhegammer posted:the deeply tragic but inevitable end result is that billions (most likely including myself) will suffer and die. Your Sledhegammer posted:(I think we've overshot the human carrying capacity of the planet) Your Sledgehammer posted:We can't stave off collapse, but I hope that in the death throes of this society, some of us can begin to build a foundation for coming generations. Lest the good-will people in this thread think they are talking to a reasonable person and not a bipolar primitivist-nihilist who alternates between sulking about destruction and gleefully daydreaming about the wonderful fantasy world that can come about from the complete eradication of humanity. Dusz fucked around with this message at 13:18 on Mar 21, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 13:10
|
|
|
Purely anecdotal, but I know a number of people who were initially sympathetic with what Occupy was talking about but became annoyed with the movement because of the "hippie camp" nature of it, regardless of whether that was just a perception fomented by the media or reality. Oh, and Dusz, please keep talking about your opinions of me 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 13:48
|
|
|
Dusz posted:I know that the high priests of Occupy-worship a la Chris Hedges tell you otherwise but Occupy had no hope to begin with, and it is evidenced by the way it was destroyed by the establishment with barely a droplet of effort. In fact, they didn't even need to do much - I think the police were there just to send a message, and was probably a bit of an overkill to the most disorganized and pathetic uprising in human history. Well, to be fair, Chris Hedges is a pacifist and while he says a lot of good things, his prescriptions for the future are pretty out of touch with reality. Like many, he's bought the myth of non-violent protest bringing about economic reform. Mostly due to our educations system fetishization of MLK jr and Ghandi (in spite of the actual truth behind both of those movements) There were no hopes riding on Occupy for me, and something tells me Your Sledgehammer wasn't expecting much either. I'm glad you decided to come back to the climate change thread and share your terrible opinions/personally attack people you disagree with, missed you Dusz.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 14:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:00 |
|
|
Dusz posted:Lest the good-will people in this thread think they are talking to a reasonable person and not a bipolar primitivist-nihilist who alternates between sulking about destruction and gleefully daydreaming about the wonderful fantasy world that can come about from the complete eradication of humanity. Lest anyone believes Dusz is a good faith poster, if you want to take the time to read through his diarrhea like prose, you can find one sprawling mass of text which outlines his three ideas of the solutions and their merits. Liberalism, which he concluded was limited and ultimately won't gain traction. Revolutionary marxism, the alternative to liberalism. And what he sees as cynical, quietist do-nothingism, which he'll never tire of coming in here to shout down w/o any nuance. When hes done though, he'll smugly poo poo and run out of the thread wanting us to expect that he somehow is above us for presenting and standing by revolutionary marxism, as if that is at all a good-will, realistic solution anywhere in the near future. Hows the revolution coming along, Dusz? Do you feel like you're making progress? Of course you're just going to say of course you're not, that it wasn't YOUR solution, just the only one you're willing to timidly stand behind in the thread. When anyone attacks the facileness of your reasoning, you cry that they're disingenuous for asking of you a comprehensive solution, as if your paltry one should suffice as your Bona Fides for making GBS threads on any discussion you don't agree with. You think you're here on a public mission to kick out soap boxes, but you're swinging so hard you end up right on your back. You think throwing things Your Sledgehammer typed without comment back at him are in anyway meaningful to the thread? He knows he typed that, he'll stand behind it. You're not adding anything with your weak, schoolyard bluster. So please, get this "no, you!" out of your system so the thread can go back to normal. Yiggy fucked around with this message at 16:01 on Mar 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 15:48
|
|
