How do we get the people in power to take the bare minimum of actions necessary to prevent the worst?
But effective countermeasures must reduce the absolute amount of consumption, whereas the only acceptable policies in practice are those that shift consumption elsewhere, hence no progress on this topic (absolute demand rises). Curiously related and posted here today https://blog.datawrapper.de/fair-share-resources/ (1)
And don't even try policing behavior w.r.t. that goal. For that our species is just too broken in the head. Really the best shot is a complex system of supply side regulation, education, technological innovation with a dash of psychological and cultural influencing and hope.
Really the better question to ask for oneself by now might be how to live with the knowledge that we're running off the cliff (with careful optimism "it might not become as bad" in the back of the mind).
Humanity learns by catastrophe... sometimes, a bit. Or take solace in the fact that modern civilization is just a blip on geological timelines and it will all recover after we're gone (until the next ape rises).
(1) which cites https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5...
Personally, I'd suggest looking at the lengthy history of doomsday climate predictions that were completely wrong to take some comfort about the future. Depending on how old you are, you'd have seen predictions in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, etc that by now all of the following would have happened: Earth is entering a new ice age, Earth will become unlivable due to global warming, acid rain will be rendering entire continents uninhabitable, major coastal cities will be driven underwater, climate driven superstorms making the world uninhabitable, and other nonsense predictions that have long since passed. Ask what makes things different about current predictions.
Meanwhile, all of the Hollywood celebrities and busy-body politicians who are trying to scare you and begging you to sacrifice and do dumb stuff like drink soda through paper straws are buying ocean-front property and traveling around in private jets.
Arguably far bigger and far more demonstrably real environmental issues like the health of the oceans are being ignored, in comparison.
Right: Climate change deniers will have to acknowledge that regardless of the uncertainties of current climate projections, we are polluting the Earth with CO2, and much more. In the long term this is not sustainable. They will also have to accept that current market forces do not “price in” negative externalities of CO2 pollution. Part of the solution is to change current market dynamics so that the negative effects of pollution are reflected in prices.
Left: Climate doomers have to compromise and accept that the world will not end if we hit 2-4 degrees of global warming. The exact range is debatable, but the underlying principle is that some degree of climate change and/or CO2 pollution is acceptable and perhaps even considered desirable as a trade off for economic growth. Worst case scenarios are just that - a tail scenario that is unlikely to occur.
Both sides: Changing human behaviour is the most difficult solution. There are billions of people on this planet that live in hardship and never got to experience economic prosperity driven by fossil fuels and pollution without consequence. Arguably, Western Europe and North America benefited the most. Hence these countries should lead the way in developing technology that reduces human impact on the planet.
I think it’s hypocritical for developed countries to attempt to force developing countries into binding pacts to reduce CO2 pollution. If we want other countries to pollute less, we need to drive down the cost of sustainable energy sources such that the other countries will rationally adopt them.
Practically, this means we should be investing 10x in nuclear fission, fusion, battery tech, wind, solar, and unknown moonshot energy methods. We should keep investing until we have an energy advantage over those who do pollute. When that happens, keep investing even more!
I'd say you have to take action and move away from affected areas, or prepare for it. That's what my family is doing.
You wouldn't rely on the government to save your home from a hurricane. You wouldn't expect them to plug an active volcano. At least with climate change, you have advance warning. Even in Indonesia, they're migrating the capital away from Jakarta, while taking action to keep it from sinking.
We need leaders who put it at the top priority and who will bring change, not talk, to our government. If the current leaders won't do it, elect in new ones. This is true at all scales of government, from your local school boards and city councils all the way up to congress and presidential elections. Make politicians know that this issue will drive re-election possibilities for the foreseeable future.
My other take on it is to de-normalize air travel. But honestly that seems even harder to do - convincing congress to change their act seems easier than convincing the business world to stop flying to meet each other.
It's not going to be destroyed. This 'extinction rebellion' stuff is not true at all. In less than a year you will never ever hear about that again. Al gore wrote an excellent article explaining the damage that climate alarmism and even his own poor predictions have done for the cause. It read legitimately that he is concerned about climate change and we do need to make changes. He is right and it's good on him to reflect on his mistakes and want to be better.
> I have to suppress the feeling of anguish about the future to continue functioning in my daily life.
Many other bigger issues than climate change to also worry about. The better thing to do is to not be concerned with or fearful of anything outside of your control.
>How do we get the people in power to take the bare minimum of actions necessary to prevent the worst?
Take Canada for example. We implemented a carbon tax and have some pretty severe consequences for it. Mind you, oil was already taxed about 100% for 'road taxes' and such. Tacking on an extra 20% tax isn't going to make huge changes, in fact it's very likely it's overtaxed and they won't actually gain any extra tax money. The government collects a pretty significant amount of money under the banner of oil taxes. To do what though? Build roads? I've seen the roads lately... they are terrible. The Carbon tax does not affect usage. Oil is an inelastic commodity whose price doesnt affect usage.
So lets say the carbon tax is meant to help with the cause of climate change. It doesn't in of itself. How about using the collected money in a way that benefits climate change? That isn't even happening. There's no benefits toward insulating homes or buying solar panels. Or really anything. There is a 'tax benefit' for buying an EV but the cut off is intentionally put so low that virtually no EV cars qualify.
So frankly if our goal is to do something to benefit climate change... we haven't done anything. People think we are doing something and that's worse than doing nothing.
So what should we actually be doing? Here's a list from my municipality's proposal. It's not approved or anything, still a work in progress.
Walkable neighbourhoods? So major redesign and reconstruction of the entire city?
More public transit? No mention of converting these away from diesel.
ban fossil fuel vehicles from the city?
ban use of concrete and wood from being used in construction?
circular economy of regenerative prosperity? I dont even understand this one.
Ban agricultural lands from city and convert them to carbon capture?
improve community resilience? I dont understand this one neither.
I look at the list and they are at best thought out at the highest level only. How do you propose destruction of entire neighbourhoods and redesign to be walkable AND not use concrete or wood in the reconstruction?
How about we just do the obvious stuff like single-payer solar panels, house insulation, ban ICE, no taxes on EVs, build grid scale batteries to store the energy produced from solar panels on every building.