Hacker News Reader

Comment by Syonyk | Hacker News Reader

I remain greatly annoyed by the class of individual who is typically well off, talks frequently about climate change, and has the attitude that "This is so important that the only thing one can possibly do is Vote Democrat and wait for them to fix it." While living a high carbon international type life that they likely don't even bother offsetting (because those are scams, you know - and I do agree with them there, carbon offsets smell very strongly of indulgences).

And it extends on upwards. I've yet to hear a compelling reason why a many-millionaire needs a huge house, but many certainly go that route. If you actually believed in what you were talking about regarding climate change, I can think of an awful lot of better ways to put tens of millions to use than a mansion with the heating and cooling energy requirements of a small island nation.

View on HN

No amount of personal lifestyle changes will affect the end result and the only thing that will affect the end result is policy--specifically carbon pricing and border adjustments. So while I don't think "voting democrat" is sufficient (because they seem to do little more than lip service toward the climate), "personal responsibility and lifestyle changes" are a distraction (and a deliberate one that the fossil fuel industry invests in). Indeed, one has to raise awareness ("talk frequently about climate change"), pressure their representatives, and of course vote. Everything else is penny-wise and pound-foolish.

Note that I'm not a partisan, and any Republicans who want to help conserve the world (including the economy) are welcome at the table as far as I'm concerned.

imo personal responsibility and lifestyle adjustments are just the kind of grassroots behavior that could lead humanity out of this. why wait for the industrial/capital machine to see the light and change course?

this approach, however, would have to be widely adopted and it may take generations. it's not a quick fix but i suspect it would be longer lasting, being built on a societal foundation of healty eco-habits.

> why wait for the industrial/capital machine to see the light and change course?

Because you not using pesticide in your garden while 100 square miles around you are getting sprayed on an industrial scale is a nice symbolic action that makes you feel cosy, but nothing more. Similarily personal climate changes are nice, but don't you ever fool yourself that this would even remotely dent the current trend.

The changes we need are not on the scale of "everybody that can should take a bicycle instead of a car" they are on the scale of we need to restructure the whole damn mobility system, the energy sector, industrial sector, logistics on a scale that makes the industrial revolution look like a walk in the park.

This is not something you can do from the roots up starting in your own backyard, this must come as a huge transformative movement carried by many people and aided by governmental and industrial interest, otherwise it is just not going to be enough.

>this must come as a huge transformative movement carried by many people

I believe governmental and industrial interest will follow the example set by these "many people". How do transformative movements start anyhow?

In order to arrive at "the change we need", we have to start somewhere.

We're facing the same general task... just have different ideas about how to approach it.

Wait for it to fall in your lap, or work for it.

> […] "This is so important that the only thing one can possibly do is Vote Democrat and wait for them to fix it." While living a high carbon international type life […]

You're not wrong, but voting for politicians that think/thought that climate change is a Chinese conspiracy is hardly an option IMHO.

* https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/jun/03/hillary-cl...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theo...

> If you actually believed in what you were talking about regarding climate change, I can think of an awful lot of better ways to put tens of millions to use than a mansion with the heating and cooling energy requirements of a small island nation.

Again, not wrong, but just because people are hypocrites doesn't mean that they're wrong:

* https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

Plenty of oncologists smoke cigarettes. :)

> You're not wrong, but voting for politicians that think/thought that climate change is a Chinese conspiracy is hardly an option IMHO

That's not what the OP was suggesting or implying. His was a statement about the ineffectiveness of political leadership so far and the irrational belief that simply voting means you've already done your civic duty. Yet, reliably, any comment about politics in the US instantly becomes about picking a side.

> Again, not wrong, but just because people are hypocrites doesn't mean that they're wrong:

It does mean that they're wrong. Someone who's a hypocrite will spend more time shuffling about blame and responsibility than addressing the problem at hand.

This approach is objectively wrong if your goal is to solve the problem.

> Plenty of oncologists smoke cigarettes

Since we're engaging in pointless pedantry and linking fallacies:

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

> I've yet to hear a compelling reason why a many-millionaire needs a huge house, but many certainly go that route.

Sure, it might look better if these millionaires practice what they preach and live in small cottages, but it won't move the climate needle in any meaningful way. It's basically the same argument as "If everyone was more mindful of their climate impact, the world will get better," which is already questionable, except that we now narrowed it into a small number of rich folk, so the impact is even more questionable.

Also, when Greta Thunberg decided she got tired of the hypocrisy and crossed the Atlantic in a yacht, people still made fun of her as being a spoiled rich kid. Some people will complain no matter what - let's ignore the messengers, and focus on the message.

Voting for Democrats also does pretty much nothing evident from the current stalemate on the 3.5T plan.

Whereas if we did not vote for Democrats, we'd have many policies that make things even worse. Remember, Republicans have agency too, and they use it to make everything much, much worse. Voting for Democrats, even if it's just to block Republican virulence, is therefore an undeniable positive act.

My objection is with the commonly held position that the solution to climate change is to "Sit back, relax, and Vote Democrat." That seems pretty well likely to end up in the same spot as "Doing nothing."

It's actually much more effective than expending energy obsessing about how much carbon you're emitting on a daily basis. Use that energy instead to vote/support/campaign for Democrats, because the marginal utility of having more Democrats in power is exponentially more important, given the consequences of not having them in power.

Use the energy to persuade your representatives to actually do something (including by raising awareness among your fellow voters) rather than voting for a particular party. Of course, Democrats are more likely to be persuaded, but "sit back and vote for Democrats because it's better than <shitty alternatives>" is a pretty surefire way to lose the climate war.

It's hard to avoid the obvious similarities between parties.

A Republican claims climate change isn't happening, or isn't human caused, or isn't a big deal, or we'll solve it somehow, and does nothing.

A Democrat claims climate change is the biggest issue facing humanity, it's a huge deal, it's all our fault, we have to take control of the economy to solve it, and... then does nothing.

Biden's plans didn't even hold up in the face of the risk of slightly increased gas prices before he was asking OPEC to do us a solid and pump more, please. They at least had the good sense to tell him to solve his own problems.

I appreciate what you're saying -- that the end result of a Democratic majority Congress, in addition to a Democratic President -- is the same. However, I do think it's unfair not to acknowledge 2 points:

  - The executive isn't all-powerful
  - The Senate has the slimmest possible majority, with 2 caucusing members hesitant to do anything without the other party purely because of optics

Add to that:

  - Progressive wings of the Democratic party have come up with comprehensive climate plans
  - Democrats do tend to set emissions reductions goals, while Republican tend to undo those emission goals.

I think it's unfair to say that both sides are the same on this issue, basically because two members of the Senate Democratic caucus are indifferent on the issue, even though darn near 100% of the Republican party is opposed to any action on climate change.

I agree, but this is a very small consolation to me. In particular, we're talking about a $3.5T budget, of which only a small amount goes to tackling climate issues and even those provisions are largely symbolic rather than serious. If Democrats were serious about climate, I would expect to see a full-court press on carbon tax (which actually generates revenue) with the social issues put on hold--because as important as social issues are, climate change is an existential threat. Imagine if we were invaded by the Chinese or Russians or aliens for that matter--would we prioritize social issues (perhaps with some half-hearted, billion-dollar gesture toward addressing the invasion), or would we sideline them to deal with the existential threat?

> ...or would we sideline them to deal with the existential threat?

Covid says, "We'd fight over whose fault the invasion was to try and make sure the other guy got the blame."

Just like every other dying empire seems to manage on the way down.

Absolutely agreed. Why actually do something when we can deflect to the other side? The partisans will console themselves with the knowledge that they chose the better side while the world burns around them.

The fossil fuel momentum is gargantuan, propelled by a growing population hungry for creature's comforts. Politicians will do what politicians do, take credit for the direction in which the wind blows. Doubtful they have any meaningful influence.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-re...

Pretty sure the 3.5T plan makes only symbolic gestures toward the climate ("EV charging stations", "civilian climate corps", "public transit"), so even if the Democrats were aligned on passing it, it still wouldn't make a difference.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com