Says a reporter living in Los Angeles, the 49th most expensive city in the world to live in. For a lot of people, what they need to talk about is how they're getting their next meal, how they're going to make rent, or survive a current war.
Maybe go to a war zone or a poor area and try to make the same point with a straight face.
The only way we will get real traction against this problem is if we stop framing it around shame and austerity and instead frame it as a problem solvable via technological innovation that also frees us from the constraints of fossil fuel dependence.
That framing is also more correct IMHO, as there are numerous reasons to get off fossil fuels other than climate. The most significant of these is political independence and the fact that fossil fuels are a strictly limited declining resource whose depletion threatens our civilization on the supply side.
This is a technical problem not a moral problem. There is no god that is going to punish us for emitting carbon. It's just physics: more carbon, more retained solar heat, weather changes that will disrupt the food supply and threaten a bunch of major population centers.
It's also a problem about human self-interest not saving some mythical shibboleth of "unspoiled nature." Nature just is and we are only spoiling it for ourselves. As George Carlin put it: "Stop saying save the Earth! The Earth will be fine. We're fucked."
Edit: on a final note: yes it is true that we could probably absorb and adapt to even severe climate change. But the cost of non-carbon-based energy is falling rapidly as technology advances and renewable energy is scaled up, while the deferred cost of climate change is rising. These lines almost certainly intersected some time ago. Getting off fossil carbon is cheaper than continuing to make climate change worse. This effect is compounded by the fact that fossil fuels are being depleted and therefore that the more we invest in them the more fossil fuel infrastructure investment will eventually be stranded as worthless. That depletion will probably bite at about the same time as climate change, draining the economy right when that cost hits. When you consider the depletion and stranded investment angles getting off fossil fuels is probably many orders of magnitude cheaper than the alternative path.
We already have several options available to massively curtail our emissions (solar, wind, hydro, geothermal). While yes new technology would make this transition even faster, a major, MAJOR roadblock is lobbying by fossil fuel industries and related corporate interests.
In terms of the technological discussion though, I am excited by the recent work done in molten salt cathode batteries for scale use (https://interestingengineering.com/molten-salt-12-week-batte...).
What I'm saying is that the shame-and-austerity framing plays right into the hands of fossil fuel industry propaganda.
One of the most insidious bits of fossil fuel propaganda I've seen recently is this whole "moral case for fossil fuels" schtick. They're pointing out that fossil fuels have lifted billions out of poverty, which is technically true, and then using that combined with the "moral panic" framing of the green movement to argue that greens want to push those billions back into poverty.
Personally I think we have historically framed environmental issues as moral because we (meaning the USA) are a culture with puritan roots and the whole protestant moral panic framing is baked into our cultural DNA. It's how we often approach problems, especially collective or tragedy of the commons problems. We approach them by deploying shame to try to change behavior. It very often backfires like it is here, or like it does when we try to shame teenagers out of having sex.
Furthermore, emissions of methane from LNG production and transportation contribute to global warming - by some estimates at a rate comparable to the CO2 emissions.
When you're in a war zone, even if you're in the country but far from the action, the only thing you can think about is your immediate survival and the survival of your friends and family.
Literally nothing else matters.
TIL. That was a terrifying read..
I wonder if western propaganda and hype generation for technology, quarterly gains, the latest stuff! could be leveraged intentionally to distract any human then given our shared biology.
That’s a rhetorical point since I know our biology is intentionally used against us like that by industry because marketing and PR execs have explained how it is just so they seek to keep our inner monologues flush with their phrases.
There’s plenty of new perspectives and applications of your agency available. Why not put yourself to them rather than demand others change theirs?
No? Going to sit at screen and PR others into action? Typical rich westerner; externalizing the change they want to see in the world.
What I don't understand is your lack of doubt that they would (or should) care. The conviction is something analogous to religion.
The LA times author was making the point that, to him and his readers, nothing matters as much as climate change. While what is happening in Ukraine is absolutely terrible, in his mind it does not reach the level of concern that climate does.
Parents response was “oh you’re so privileged”, and my point is that just about everyone on this site is. Frankly, their comment came across less like empathy and more like standard deflection.
Finally, climate change is only “our problem” in the sense that it’s primarily driven by the global rich and privileged. The people who will bear the worst of it are the poor in the global south who did little to contribute to the problem.
I may not be suffering either, but I'm not telling anyone that I know better then them what "the real problem is". I thought this would've been understandable, but maybe the clarification helps.
Saying “oh you don’t suffer therefore you don’t have any right to tell people what to do!” is classic derailing and it is what the opposition has done with climate change for decades. I don’t doubt that you had good intent with your comment, though.
Privileged people arguing with each other about who has standing to put it forward as an issue certainly is though.
First, I'll note that a lot of poor people IRL have just as much "social conscience" than other people, especially politically. Poor people vote based on the whole range of issues that everyone else votes on.
Second, the "i've got my own problems go away" response is applicable to everything, including poverty.
The older these tropes get, the less thoughtfully they are used.
Your point isn't what you think it is.
The solution is to emit less CO2. Carbon capture/reclamation will never be enough to actually change things particularly with the current levels of emissions.
So how do we address that? Best way, IMO, is to go after the largest CO2 emitters. That's transportation, electricity, and industrial emissions (mostly concrete and steel AFAIK). Hitting any of those industries with a tax to incentivize reduction will impact standards of living. It will raise the price of goods which ultimately hit the poor and middle class.
You could also subsidize switch over, but that's ultimately a lot harder (and probably less effective) than more general carbon taxes.
And, of course, this has to be done globally, so if we really wanted this to be effective then it'd mean not just fixing your own country but also ideally subsidizing or sanctioning/embargoing bad players.
However, if this is an existential problem that threatens all of mankind, why is her article locked behind a paywall?