Hacker News Reader

Comment by RobertRoberts | Hacker News Reader

When I was a child, my parents were in a dooms-day cult.

When people threaten your future with vague notions of impending, and irrevocable doom, there is only one answer:

Live for today.

Why don't climate dooms-dayers not see that their very tactics of spreading irrational fear (instead of rational solutions) is antithetical to their desired outcomes?

(there's a post about planting trees I haven't read yet, seems reasonable to do _something_ that everyone agrees with instead of trying to ram down ideas very few people agree with)

View on HN

> Live for today.

Isn't that the cause of the issue though ? "Who cares about 100+ years in the future, my v8 mustang and my weekly plane trips are pretty convenient, and planting a tree won't change much anyway, and china is doing anyway, plus if I'm the only one doing it it won't help that much, and &c."

> seems reasonable to do _something_ that everyone agrees with instead of trying to ram down ideas very few people agree with)

The problem is that the things most countries agreed on are not nearly enough and even if they were almost none of the goals are met.

Wouldn't you say though that "live for today" is a logical response to high amounts of insurmountable and uncertain fear? If you're an average person, what can you logically do to overcome the actions of governments and corporations with pocketbooks that make more per minute than you do per year? I'm not defending it. I'm just asking, how do you convince someone otherwise?

You can't go "Just buck up and do something!" That's something you tell someone who is depressed and that doesn't work. Plus they can point to survivorship bias to the very, very few that meaningfully accomplish anything.

People who don't have the will to personally do something about it shouldn't discuss it. It all boils down to you in the end. If you just want to continue with your life and don't care about it feel free to just do that, but at least don't try to persuade others they shouldn't care, you go from inactive carelessness to actively trying to make things worse. If you feel concerned take actions. Who's going to challenge politicians, lobbies, industries, if everybody thinks "I can't do anything and nobody can anyway", we put ourselves in this situation, we can get out of it. I think everyone aware of the issues, aware of the solutions, and not taking any actions is an insult to humanity.

But in terms of climate change, that's not viable. It's literally a global effort to make change and the current discourse doesn't say anything about that. In my youth, don't waste water by much, every little bit counts if we all do it. Don't litter, if everyone cleans up a little, there's not much trash out there. When I was a kid growing up in Florida, there was a special place in Hell for you if you didn't cut the soda can rings before throwing them away. Where even Hitler looked down on you. While living in Florida, that was the norm. I didn't know anyone who didn't do this. I leave the state to travel for a few years, NO ONE DOES IT. Colorado, Washington, Virginia and Oregon to name a few. I look like a freak to people. They all wonder WTF I'm cutting the rings for. Mind you, these are people who are at least relatively environmentally friendly. And I'm a republican (ish).

I yell at people who don't snip those rings and shame them with pictures of sea turtles. Lots of shaming. Don't use plastic straws, at least use paper ones if it has to be disposable (which Florida coastal restaurants do). Don't crank your AC too low, or get an HE fan to help it out. And again, I'm a republican. Little things compound over time.

But when someone goes "How the hell am I to offset the CO2 of a cruise ship or cargo ship?" I mean... yea. Little actions I can defend pretty easily. And while I understand the powers of compounding efforts. Still.

The current environmental rhetoric doesn't leave room for the average person to make change. In the 90s, the rhetoric was "everyone, down to the individual level can make a difference". Naive and childish statement now that I'm in my 30s. But I do see the value. And that message is no longer spread. It's just "Big companies and governments are to blame and there's nothing we can do about it! We have to rely on governments and companies to make change!"

> Isn't that the cause of the issue though ? "Who cares about 100+ years in the future, my v8 mustang and my weekly plane trips are pretty convenient, and planting a tree won't change much anyway, and china is doing anyway, plus if I'm the only one doing it it won't help that much, and &c."

This is a caricature with little bearing on reality. Indeed, the biggest share of CO2 emissions isn't due to "rich Americans" living wasteful lifestyles, but people in emerging economies living a comparably modest lifestyle. That's what makes this problem extremely difficult. We would have to deny those people the lifestyle that we enjoyed for the past 50+ years.

We could achieve far more by, say, investing into replacing more primitive power generation in those countries than replacing inner-country air travel with more primitive transport.

> The problem is that the things most countries agreed on are not nearly enough and even if they were almost none of the goals are met.

Of course, moral posturing costs nothing. When you actually try to do something as political leader, such as putting a tax on fuels as Macron did, chaos ensues.

> Indeed, the biggest share of CO2 emissions isn't due to "rich Americans" living wasteful lifestyles, but people in emerging economies living a comparably modest lifestyle.

Not really https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/sc...

> We would have to deny those people the lifestyle that we enjoyed for the past 50+ years.

It's not like they have to go through the industrial revolution 1800s UK style to attain our level, we have the tech (and they're using it, solar/wind is becoming extremely competitive for example, hell even nuclear is better than coal/gas). But yeah if everyone's going to live like the current US/EU citizen we're fucked for sure no matter how many trees we plant.

> We could achieve far more by, say, investing into replacing more primitive power generation in those countries than replacing inner-country air travel with more primitive transport.

Or we could do both since these things are 100% unrelated and not enough anyway.

We're all responsible and we can all do better, so let's stop playing dumb games and do what we can. It's not like skipping your trip to standard_tourisitic_location_#231, eating less meat, buying local food, using public transportation or buying less useless junk on amazon/ebay is going to turn your life to absolute shit so let's do it ... Yes cargo ships, asian factories, saudi's oil fields, pollute a lot, but guess who's profiting from them... Don't you see the big picture ? How do you think your colombian coffee, ecuadorian bananas, chinese phones, thai clothes, saudi's gas, japanese cameras are made / get to you to you ? "Yelp, it's not me, it's the chinese/indians/saudis, look at the stats!!!". It feels like talking about pollution is like asking your 8 years old to do his homework, "I'll do it in an hour".

> Not really

Yes, really. Those number support my point. The vast majority of CO2 emissions are from countries with "relatively modest" living standards.

> But yeah if everyone's going to live like the current US/EU citizen we're fucked for sure no matter how many trees we plant.

I guess we're fucked then, right? Because that's the trajectory.

> Or we could do both since these things are 100% unrelated and not enough anyway.

They're not unrelated at all, because money spent on one thing can't be spent on something else. Furthermore, giving up airplane travel for, say, railroads, is a lowering in standard of living. Investing in infrastructure abroad isn't.

> We're all responsible and we can all do better, so let's stop playing dumb games and do what we can.

Sure "we" can, but "we" won't, so let's indeed stop playing dumb games of moral posturing and figure out how we can have the best impact without relying on humans suddenly acting in a rational and responsible manner. It's just not going to happen.

> It's not like skipping your trip to standard_tourisitic_location_#231, eating less meat, buying local food, using public transportation or buying less useless junk on amazon/ebay is going to turn your life to absolute shit so let's do it

Yeah, fuck that. I'm not giving up on any of it. Now what? What are you gonna do about it? Remember, I'm billions of people.

> is a lowering in standard of living

Eh, what if we need to lower our living standards ? The earth is a finite space with finite resources. Do you really think we can get 8b people live like the average US/EU citizen ? We can barely do it with < 2b and it's already too much pressure on the environment.

What's the end goal ? We all have cars, amazon same day drone delivery, eat meat 3 times per day and go on vacation every 3 months ? Is that humanity's endgame ? Most intelligent specie on earth, intelligent enough to comprehend the issue, too primitive to act on it, if that's humanity's fate it's kind of ironic, I like it in some way. "I want it all today even if it means I won't have anything tomorrow"

> Yeah, fuck that. I'm not giving up on any of it. Now what? What are you gonna do about it? Remember, I'm billions of people.

I'll be long dead before it starts having real world impacts. But at least I can sleep at night knowing I'm not actively trying to make things worse for future generations. Earth will be fine even if we fuck it up, life will most likely survive and thrive. All in all it wouldn't be that bad, just like when dinosaurs went extinct, but instead of a natural disaster it's mass suicide.

> The earth is a finite space with finite resources

All important resources that are either non-exhaustible or substitutable. While there are certain theoretical limits, there is no limit to economic growth. This is the cornucopian position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornucopian

The Malthusian position, held by many scientists who do not actually understand what economic growth actually is, has been shown to be wrong time and time again.

> Do you really think we can get 8b people live like the average US/EU citizen ?

I believe we can get 80 billion people to live at a standard that far surpasses our current living standards. In due time, that is.

> What's the end goal ?

I don't know. Fully-Automated Gay Luxury Space Communism? Why does there need to be an end-goal?

> We all have cars, amazon same day drone delivery, eat meat 3 times per day and go on vacation every 3 months ?

We'll all have space-cars, same hour drone delivery, eat meat every fifteen minutes, and go to work for a week every three months.

> But at least I can sleep at night knowing I'm not actively trying to make things worse for future generations.

No you can't. What if future generations will think of you as "one of those fucking Malthusians" that held back human development by supporting austerity politics? What if you're completely wrong about all your beliefs about the future, just like Malthus before you?

> Yeah, fuck that. I'm not giving up on any of it. Now what? What are you gonna do about it?

Tax.

> Tax.

You know what happens when you tax people too much and they don't like it, right?

Otherwise, I'm with you on that one.

>seems reasonable to do _something_ that everyone agrees with

So people will do something that has very little effect on the problem, feel good for their contributions. Then, people will learn than this "something" had no meaningful impact, feel betrayed ("but we agreed on this"), and give up. "Oh, come on, I already did "something". They'll wait for someone else to pickup the burden.

That would be big waste of time and energy.

>Why don't climate dooms-dayers not see that their very tactics of spreading irrational fear (instead of rational solutions) is antithetical to their desired outcomes?

It's not irrational fear.

Why do cynical eye-rollers like you always try and crab bucket people's attempts at changing things for the better?

It's an interesting and valid point, I think. Fear may motivate some to start changing and looking for solutions, but it has the opposite effect on many: denial is one of the most pervasive defense mechanisms in psychology. And climate denialism has got to be the most astounding example of it.

From the other perspective, it's yours that is cynical (saying that we're all going to die in a few years), and its yours that is crab-bucketing us into the past (stop eating meat, stop flying airplanes, stop driving cars, stop taking holidays, even stop watching YouTube[0]).

How far back down the technology tree are we supposed to go?

0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJn6pja_l8s "Climate crisis: the unsustainable use of online video"

Do you not worry about the world you will be leaving behind for your children? or nephews/nieces? or just the rest of humanity that will come after you?

Surely, I can't be alone in this.

Irrational fear? Climate change is an irrational fear in America? Just drives home how late we are to do anything about it.

If Americans, the richest most polluting people on earth can't be persuaded to release less CO2, good luck convincing a citizen of India or Indonesia to do the same.

And apparently a sizeable part of the population thinks that planting trees or buying a few Teslas will solve it.

The fear of climate change ruining life in America is irrational, because America is the richest country in the world and will probably be able to push most of the bad effects off on other people. Even if climate change destroys trillions of dollars the US will still have trillions left. Americans should be thinking in terms of spending a few billion now to save a few trillion later, not in terms of an existential crisis for the human race.

The Paris Agreement, as part of the way as that's going to get us, is by-and-large being globally implemented. Rising awareness about climate change has contributed to pushing for all sort of policies from more fuel-efficient cars, to state subsidies in dozens of countries for things like renewable energy, electric cars etc.

If your view of people pushing for something being done about climate change is that of a dooms-day cult you're going to have to admit that it's a rather politically successful cult.

One tactic that seems like it will be very effective is to call or write your congressperson to let them know that you support H.R. 763. The bill has support from economists and scientists alike. It's designed not just to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but to do it in a way that minimizes impact on the economy, and also provides an incentive for other countries to pass similar legislation (by imposing tariffs on imports from countries that don't).

More info here:

https://citizensclimatelobby.org/energy-innovation-and-carbo...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com