If the government had any backbone at all they'd rally people around the idea of committing to it and getting it done. In World War II people lowered their "quality of life" to support the cause. It can be done.
Incentives are another way. I still think a global carbon tax agreement would be a good idea: companies work together to implement carbon taxes and cut income taxes or a local equivalent. That helps eliminat the problem of production offshoring to cheaper carbon areas, and gived incentives to alternatives.
Actually making carbon economically unviable with our psychology works, obviously. I really, really hope we can figure out something else cheaper.
Finally, if we had a carbon sequestering method with no major side effects and clear costs, it would be psychologically easier to charge fossil burning industries and activities the cost of the CO2 emitted. Eg a fee of $30 per ton if that's the cost of sequestering. Of course, you'd need a way to measure the carbon impact of the sequestering, to make sure that process wasn't indirectly emitting carbon.
Reducing would also be highly useful, and I hope we will, but enpirically we don't seem to be built for it without some mechanism like what I described above. It's terrifying and dispiriting and I hope we figure out a way to work around our broken mass psychology.
Good luck.
In the meantime I sure would like to try some mitigation techniques.
We get what we vote for, for need to vote for backbones.
In other words, the SUV or sports car apparently has more to do with making people happy by making them look to be of higher social status than the actual utility of those goods.
This is also demonstrated in the South Park episode Smug, which criticizes hybrids. From a public policy perspective, the greatest reduction in CO2 comes from getting people into economical cars (like a 42+mpg --or higher in EU models--Civic) rather than in necessarily Hybrids or electrics which not everyone can afford. The greatest co2/$ reduced is actually going from average to a civic-like car.
Perhaps cultural changes away from materialism, as well as effective public policy may be important in reducing global warming.
But what we get is more "War on Poverty" style bureaucracies and activism which has become a self-perpetuating and wasteful industry of its own.
> In other words, the SUV or sports car apparently has more to do with making people happy by making them look to be of higher social status than the actual utility of those goods.
The first statement doesn't imply the second. Low social status can make someone unhappy, but that doesn't imply that consuming more doesn't make them happy.
In fact, I'm not even sure how much "materialism" is to blame for global warming. I know plenty of people who care more about "experiences" than "material goods" -- and in turn massively contribute to global warming by flying a lot. Equally, I don't view someone as wanting to live in a reasonably sized home in suburbia as necessarily materialistic, even though living there can introduce huge CO2 emissions from driving a lot.
This may seem contradictory makes sense if you think of it in terms of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If you are at the base level of meeting your physiological needs for food and shelter, wealth directly helps you meet those needs and makes them happier. If you can take care of that, the law and order that brings you safety is again correlated with being in a wealthier society. But beyond that, the correlation vanishes because wealth doesn't give you love, esteem or self-actualization.
I’ve spent way to much time as lay man trying to penetrate Econ speak to get the issue, but the crux seems to be this:
Currently markets and goods don’t price the cost of economic damage into products.
So plastics are cheap as hell because they don’t reflect clean up costs.
This means we have plastic straws which are so cheap on a per unit basis, that you can sell 100s in a single bundle.
Saran Wrap, packaging plastic, tooth brushes, phones, pens, toothpicks, mugs, wires, buttons, and billions of other items are extremely cheap.
Now imagine if ALL of them went up by a small amount.
Then recall, that for the developing world the difference between a 0.01 cent plastic cost and 0.05, is an increase in packaging cost for cheap goods like single use detergent sachets, or single use shampoo packets.
Of course, this will directly reduce usage of those goods, which is the intended purpose, but the fact is that those goods being cheap means people can grow faster without worrying about the issues which arise.
Carbon curtailment is fundamentally energy consumptive. We will spend more energy to capture carbon. We would have to create a system which is carbon negative in itself (after power and maintenance costs are calculated), and then pay for the whole thing,
Taxing goods to price externalities is probably the most efficient way to achieve it.
If I buy a product that has less packaging, so there's less waste, my quality of life is lowered?
If I take up bicycling, and as a result drive less, is my quality of life lowered?
If the hotel I stay at starts using containers of soap instead of single-use packets, is my quality of life lowered?
In each case, those are choices made out of ZERO economic pressure. You can do that TODAY, without the need of us discussing carbon capture costs.
However, most people DOMT exercise that choice, either through necessity or preference.
For all of those people, an increase in oil prices mean that they have to choose between working and living in an affordable place. It means more Money out of the monthly budget which is not available for other things.
This is economically defined as a reduction in their quality of life.
Do consider that, For most of humanity, food, water, medicine, clothes are decisions separated by razor sharp margins. Owning a car is a distant dream.
Simply - If the cost of everything went up, and you thus has less disposable income to use, then your quality of life by definition has dropped.
2) If the packaging results in greater spoilage, reduces stimulated demand, or is more expensive to produce than cheap plastic
3) more time to do things, less ability to transport equipment and goods
4) you're being moronic at this point
I guess that could be considered "lowering people's quality of life" though.
A classic example of economic growth innovation in price sensitive India is the single use detergent sachet- each of those represents an improvement in cleanliness and hygiene for people who couldn’t afford it before.
Now increase the cost of plastic, even marginally and that change reverberates down the product chain.
Everything from medicine packaging, to Saran Wrap to those single use sachets change in price.
However, the correct point is that if we don’t do anything, what will happen to that number? Is it truly conceivable that climate change will not send more people into poverty eventually?
It's access to some rudimentary health care. It's maybe a bicycle for transportation. It's a gas stove so you no longer have to use firewood to cook (speaking of deforestation...). It's maybe getting a cash-paying job so you can quadruple your income again.
Maybe I'm not western enough, but I can't understand that thing. How is a single-use detergent sachet an improvement over good ol' powder? Do you have any articles discussing it?
It's not only that, but I think it's a major factor. I'm only extremely slow internet so I can't look up the table, but I think our annual rate of emissions are 30-50% higher than in 1998. Could be wrong there though.