Hacker News Reader

Comment by lumberjack | Hacker News Reader

If people were not so stuck up on individual action, that would be some progress towards solving climate change. One of the big obstacles is admitting that we need collective action to solve this worldwide problem.

Would ee propose individual action when less dangerous situations occur in society? Say, a bank run is imminent. Does individual action work? Does the government broadcast it on the 8 o'clock news and do the people stay at home or do they run down the bank nonetheless? We do not propose individual action on other matters but we expect individual action to work on climate change.

View on HN

> we expect individual action to work on climate change.

Don't regulations come into play? In the EU, inefficient light bulbs have been phased out [0]

In France, we have free energy market since 2010 [1], with some players [2] focusing on green energy, etc.

Diesel & gas (for cars) prices are sky-rocketting (taxes !! [3]). Not cool for people who don't have the choice to keep using their old cars (students, unemployed, etc.) but the goal is to make combustion-engine cars so expensive they become unattractive.

[0] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-09-368_en.htm : On 18 March 2008, the Commission adopted a regulation on non-directional household lamps which would replace inefficient incandescent bulbs by more efficient alternatives (...) between 2009 and 2012.

[1] https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFT...

[2] https://ekwateur.fr/offre-electricite : I'm a happy customer

[3] https://www.zagaz.com/stats.php

Something something freedom. Humans should be free to destroy the planet without meddling from them pesky guvments dagnabbit!

Banks can be shut down to prevent bank runs, but only temporarily. You can't just close the bank down or heavily restrict withdrawals forever without significant negative consequences. Fighting climate change is not a short term proposition.

Even if you are totally correct, it's irrelevant unless (A) you can maintain democratic support for such collective actions, or (B) you get rid of democracy.

In the US at least, even the democrats don't propose climate regulation strong enough to have a measurable impact on the climate over ten years. People will absolutely resist the moment energy prices go up notably, which will be necessary to measurably affect climate.

The problem isn't that collective action needs to be taken, it's that sufficient collective action won't sufficiently be supported by voters. That's why Democrats aren't proposing it, and that's the actual hurdle that needs to be overcome.

> The problem isn't that collective action needs to be taken, it's that sufficient collective action won't sufficiently be supported by voters. That's why Democrats aren't proposing it

I think there are other reasons why Democrats don't propose strong climate regulation, such as the large donations they receive from people in fossil fuel.

There is already very strong democratic support for collective actions. Think of all the climate marches, the protests and occupation of DAPL, anti-fracking movements, etc. People who strongly support collective actions way outnumber the people who oppose it. It's just that those who oppose it have all the political and economic power in our society.

The Liberals in power are collaborating with Conservatives and killing collective action solutions by engaging with respectability politics. One is not allowed to protest except for at very specific times and in ways that are chosen by those in power to be acceptable. Any protest that gets too rowdy is decried by both sides. The only other way you are allowed to resist climate change is by buying the expensive stuff in the green packaging rather than the other stuff.

Respectfully I think that's a very rosy view. I think if gas prices or home energy costs double, the proposal is dead on arrival regardless of campaign contributions or climate marches.

I think people will say they support collective actions right up until those collective actions actually affect their lifestyle. That's why even a lot of democratic policy efforts have been geared toward subsidies instead of reducing use. Much of the populace genuinely is OK with someone else's money being spent on solar, wind, and EV credits. When it means they can't afford to fly for their annual vacation, it's a different story.

Do you think there's anyone promoting individual action who'd be against collective action? Or could a small individual action be a gateway to participating in collective action?

> Do you think there's anyone promoting individual action who'd be against collective action?

Yes. A lobbyist who wants to avoid new legislation to control climate change, but still claim they care about it.

Ah sorry, it should indeed have said: is there anyone who is in favour of individual action, but against collective action.

There are many people who seem to enjoy the aesthetics of consumerist-oriented environmental action but are horrified by the idea of mass protest, civil disobedience, worker's strikes, etc.

Sure, you're not going to get them to do any of those things. You would still need to get them to vote in line with these principles. The question is also: how do you convince those who are prepared to take action to do so?

Many are prepared to take action and actively do so. They are subsequently vilified by politicians and media for not falling in line and voting or taking other acceptable (and ineffective) actions.

Strikes and large protests are not encouraged in mainstream discourse and the principles they represent are not available as an option to vote for.

While the title isn't very clear, the article mentions collective actions as well. Political action also stems from individuals and should of course be part of our actions against climate change.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com