Hacker News Reader

Comment by WhompingWindows | Hacker News Reader

There's a constant war of words here: are individuals responsible for cleaning up their footprint, or are corporations responsible for their dirty practices, or are governments responsible for putting policies to guide the economy?

The answer is: we need all three. We will not tackle climate change without strong change on the personal, corporate, and governmental levels.

View on HN

I agree with need all tree. However someone needs to go first and that is government. They need to level the playing field so no corporation can gain an advantage of abusing externalities and educate the population.

We have business leaders in the US claiming for more tax. At the same time we have 3rd world countries shipping trash back to the 1st world.

Governments could and should be doing more to price externalities and force innovation.

We do indeed, but the leverage lies with and so the emphasis should be on the governmental. I have changed my lifestyle markedly since I had my own personal revelation around climate. I don't use that to go on a holy crusade to convert, I don't even mention it unless a discussion goes there and asks. That's so I can live with myself, and look the kids, who will have to endure the consequences, in the eye. Companies engage in far more greenwashing, lobbying and distraction than real efforts, eco brands somewhat excepted.

I cannot change labelling law to require impacts (emissions, habitat, sustainable) clearly shown to allow me to buy with wisdom. I can only guess. I am certain, despite having above average interest, I often guess wrong. I can't bring a carbon tax, packaging levy, delist companies that don't play along, or creatively rewrite corporate law to place survival as important as profit, or change international trade law.

One new oil rig, chemical plant or drilling field can easily cancel the individual efforts of an entire city, perhaps country.

So I tend to see it as government first last and everything; corporate at gun ^W legislation point, and individual as a matter of personal ethics and social acceptance. Despite having started with me - as far as I'm reasonably able.

If you could only pick two out of those three, which would you choose?

individuals and government. Corporations don't exist in a vacuum.

Corporations dictate consumer behavior in the ways that matter here. Do you think individuals agitated for the rise of throw-away goods during the rise of mass produced plastics in the 60s? This was the simply the most companies could do in the production process to maximize profit in a way that wouldn't stop customers from buying.

Also, nothing will change until people stop imagining that corporations and government are foreign bodies comprised of something other than their neighbors and themselves.

It is weird how people pretend that corporations and governments are some type of weird entities with minds of their own instead of just a group of individuals. Individuals changing priorities will directly result in corporations and governments changing priorities.

But the inverse is also strongly true. It's why people decry the "nanny-state". The government and corporations can make decisions that result in changes in individual behavior. Many times, it's easier to get 51 senators (or whatever) to agree on pushing policy than mobilizing millions of consumers on the same issue. Part of the advantage of a representative government is that it's a smaller group of people to arrive at a consensus.

Societal changes are always about some group reaching a consensus on a topic and collectively acting on their decision. Governments and Corporations can sometimes be easier to deal with than 300+ million individuals when it comes to driving that consensus.

Individuals and corporations. Government doesn't exist in a vaccum.

government and corporations. Individuals don't exist in a vaccum.

It doesn't prove much.

If governments put a price on carbon, individuals and corporations will do their parts as a result.

Yes, with the caveat that it must be a large enough tax to make it cheaper to use cleaner energy sources. Otherwise it will go the way of regulatory fines: they become the cost of doing business and amount to a fixed line item on a budget rather than a factor that scales.

Change happens at the margins. NASCAR for example is unlikely to care about even rather extreme carbon taxes, but even fairly small tiny taxes matter for electricity generation which is at a major tipping point.

Governments and Corporations will never do anything without strong demand from individuals. Individuals however are completely unable to solve climate change through daily personal decisions, it has to come from large institutions.

All in all, the only way to address the issue of climate change is collective mass action, including strikes, boycotts, divestments, ect from all large polluting entities, while simultaneously leaving governments no other options but to address these issues head on.

Consumers drive the business decisions.

Set incentives to make the consumers choose the more environmentally conscious choice, via a carbon / plastic / waste tax to cover the externalities.

If consumer drove business decisions, we‘d still have no seat belts and the ozone layer would not exist anymore because of CFC.

In some ways, consumers can make a difference, but only to serve as a trigger for political decisions (if we get lucky).

Also in your example, what comes first – the consumer’s choice or the carbon tax?

The tax should come first. Price incentives are strong, they will drive consumer behavior which will drive business behavior.

Wheren't both those examples driven by government regulations?

Yes, for example in 49 U.S.C. §301 and 42 U.S.C. §7671.

That is my point :)

When you have a coordination problem, there are just two possible answers: either it's the government or some other government-like body.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com