And your response is precisely the problem - people think only government can solve this. But government has not, will not and cannot solve it.
We need to move beyond government as the solution.
The first step in that is to loosen up your certainty that only via government can anything large scale happen.
If you want to do that, you're gonna need to present some plausible alternatives... otherwise you're not truly "challenging" anything so much as saying "this is a belief you have that I will not provide any evidence to counter but merely point out."
Once many people come to accept the truth of this, many minds will think in directions other than obsessing about government and what it is not doing.
People tend to disagree very strongly with new ideas. You can see that right here - this thread is voted to the bottom of the HN topic. That's OK. It's an idea that once planted cannot be unthought - the government is not the solution. Let's start thinking of how we can solve this without any dependence on government.
Oh yes you do. Certainly you think we can have an alternative to government for a reason? Care to share that with us?
Besides, government or no, the only way to fix the problem is through collective action. Not destroying our environment needs to be a social norm. Whatever is required to stop the current train wreck needs to become mainstream. Otherwise, we'll just continue our merry way until our civilization collapses in a couple decades. Worst case, I'll be alive to see it.
So. Besides begging our governments to do something, what do you propose? Overthrow them? Obsolete them? Ignore them? How? What would we need to succeed?
We can vote with our wallets (or feet) all we want, if we don't get over 80% of the population onboard, it just won't work.
> Oh yes you do. Certainly you think we can have an alternative to government for a reason? Care to share that with us?
He did. You didn't listen. He said that we need something beside the government, because the government isn't actually going to do anything (or at least not anything like enough).
So if you're going to argue with his position, I would ask you what evidence you see that the government will ever do anything close to enough to solve global warming? Because, as I look at the current situation, and the last 10 years, I'm with andrewstuart: government isn't going to get it done. That plan shows almost zero evidence that it will ever work.
Now, look, you should keep trying to get government to do what you think needs done. But don't put all your eggs in that basket, because it looks like it's a pretty lousy basket.
I'm asking what. By what should governments be replaced? How? What should we do?
I guess, if I were to pick one thing, I might say "install solar everywhere you can". Not only do you use less fossil-generated power, but you also help manufacturers ride the cost curve down, which makes more people consider installing it.
And by "everywhere you can", I mean some places were you can't actually install it, but you can nudge people that way. Suggest to your boss that they should install it at work. Mention it to the minister at church, or to the manager at the bar (or even both, if you regularly go both places).
Disclaimer: I don't have solar on my house yet...
To be clear: I believe in and support the notion that the government should set the rules (based on established science) and enforce the law. (No, not particularly with physical violence beyond that needed for incarceration of gross offenders.)
So what is the alternative you are suggesting?
The first issue is that everyone else thinks only government can solve this. If you say governments can't, but have no other solution, you're essentially saying "no-one can do this." Which, while depressing, isn't going to achieve much.
The second issue is that, clearly, governments could actually fix this. They most likely aren't going to. But the capital and human investments needed aren't impossible. It's not like a neolithic tribe building a computer for example. Resolving global warming is actually possible with our current resources and technology.
Really? We'd all love to see a plan.
Or by "resolving" did you mean "holding it to only a 2 degree rise"?
> They most likely aren't going to.
Yeah... I think that's kind of andrewstuart's point. They aren't going to. So, given that they aren't going to, what's the next move?
> You seem to be missing out the bit describing which non-governmental actor can fix this.
andrewstuart may not know. I certainly don't. But if the government isn't going to fix it, then the correct move is to stop expecting that the government is going to fix it. I don't know what else to do, you don't, and andrewstuart doesn't. But maybe we ought to start thinking like we've got to figure out how to solve it, because the government isn't going to.
Might work if you throw lots and lots of nuclear reactors into the mix. It's less dangerous than most people think, and is most likely the most efficient way to amortise the energy shortage induced recession.
(Renewables still need massive investment, I'm just saying they likely won't be enough.)
Prioritize. Food, shelter, health. Everything else is expendable. Accept an unprecedented, long term recession on the order of 10% per year, possibly a bit less if we're lucky.
That's the easy part. The hard part is doing that without having a civil war (or just plain war) on your hands. We most probably need to come up with a convincing story where the economy slows down drastically, and we're all happier than we are now.
There's one little snag, though: this plan necessarily involves reducing inequalities. We cannot afford the richest of us. The problem is that they are rich and have a lot of influence. They will throw the army at us (possibly by asking the politicians whose election campaing they funded).