Hacker News Reader

Comment by abdullahkhalids | Hacker News Reader

From a survey [1] released just this month.

> In this study, we conducted a representative survey across 125 countries, interviewing nearly 130,000 individuals. Our findings reveal widespread support for climate action. Notably, 69% of the global population expresses a willingness to contribute 1% of their personal income, 86% endorse pro-climate social norms and 89% demand intensified political action.

And an interview of the authors [2]

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-024-01925-3

[2] https://www.carbonbrief.org/interview-why-global-support-for...

View on HN

Yes, in surveys everyone is always generous and ready to sacrifice their own interests, then price of gas increases some 10-20% and you have protests and riots.

That makes a real difference for people making the median salary in western countries. Lots of people in finance, tech, etc. can obviously afford not to care but that's a minority.

The reason for protests is often because the sacrifices are usually placed on the general population instead of on the top X% percent whose emissions equal the rest of the population.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

Surely tax car prices, but also set tax for private jet fuel to a 10000%. While electricity is not far from becoming clean, it makes no sense that the rich and the poor paid the same price for it. As total consumption increases, a region has to turn on dirtier and more inefficient plants. So high consumption users should pay a lot more, instead of doing a general price increase. Etc.

We need 2-6% of GDP each year spend on this. For the next 30 years.

This is an amount of money we could just create by monetary policy or Quantitative Easing as the like to say. Nobody needs to get poor when money is spend.

What exactly are you going to spend it on?

Getting to netzero is most economically achieved using solar, wind and battery storage + gas peaker plants for intermittent capacity needs (already today and more so in the future).

Why not nuclear over gas?

If you're using gas it'll never be net zero.

Too bad they're not running the US, India, and China because poll results are meaningless if people have no actual ability to effect change and they don't.

This is definitely encouraging but I’d rather see a study about people forgoing consumption or voluntarily imposing self austerity rather than what their opinions are.

Climate change isn't primarily about consumption though, it's about burning fossil fuels, I think the consumption argument is a decoy by the fossil fuel industry.

I know a lot of people who are pretty minimal in their consumption, but just waking up in the morning and turning on their heating in their poorly insulated apartment means they're significantly contributing to climate change.

Of course manufacturing goods is part of it too, but burning coal, gas and oil is what caused climate change. Not buying clothes or eating food.

This year I plan to consume 6 solar panels and self install them on my barn roof. I'd say this is positive consumption?

What about most populated areas in the world cranking up air conditioning. Just not to drop everything on people living in colder climates. ;)

> or voluntarily imposing self austerity

The problem with this line of reasoning is that the only people who care are the anxious western upper-middle classes. Anyone poorer can't afford to care.

You absolutely cannot solve the problem through voluntary change of behaviour, and thinking that you can is a sign that you need to step out of your ivory tower. Instead you have to change the economy so that the most environmentally friendly alternative is the cheapest, and so that environmentally disastrous activities are prohibitively expensive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com