That is a particularly apt analogy for climate change, because as richer countries belch CO2 into a shared resource (the atmosphere), smaller, poorer countries pay the price with the literal destruction of their entire country (see Kiribati).
seems about right
How many war crimes and genocides have been perpetrated in the shadow of these polite collective agreements? In times of relative plenty and peace? How many governments are currently defying this norm? Over the last 100 years, did more humans personally intervene to stop genocide, say "someone should do something", or look the other way?
> I don't see what exactly unnerves you. Is it the realisation that it is indeed easier because you suspected it would be difficult? Is it unnerving because you are not used to thinking of it as a solution?
I'll admit, I'm a little flabbergasted at this. The context of the sub-thread is the concern that it'll take the force of tyranny to move humanity to "make a stand and change habits." I find it more unnerving (than tyranny) that the kinds of organizational units sufficiently motivated by climate-threats to become emissions-tyrants will find it much easier to kill other people than repress their own.
Let alone the fact that around 40% of the current population is sustained by synthetic fertilizers. The Haber-Bosch process represents 1% of the world's energy consumption.
Not everyone is going to like the environmental jihad that is being suggested, and that’s a big problem.
The thing about democracy is that not everyone has to like everything - just the majority.
I don't like that I'm going to have to change my lifestyle, in order to prevent appalling environmental damage, but I understand that I will have to.
The "big problem" is the kind of people who describe pragmatic evidence-based policies designed to avoid collapse of civilisation as "an environmental jihad"
Given the choice between the state taking away coal or mass extinction, I'm choosing the former.
Another point many won't like: moralistic "nudges" are shown, scientifically, to _decrease_ support for climate policy. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333068802_Nudging_o...
Geoengineering deserves a few orders of magnitude more research than it gets, imo, probably some multiple of what NASA and the LHC get. If we actually want to solve the problem, this, and mass conversion of the grid to nuclear, are the best we've got right now.
One other point that is outside the Overton window of both sides: we may not be able to reduce oil consumption that much worldwide with cheap energy, because as that gets cheaper, rulers in the Middle East will simply lower oil prices, rather than have their entire economies bust. Without oil sales, there will also be (even more) misery for hundreds of millions of people.
Wrong on two counts.
1. It gives the US tremendous moral authority in demanding change from other countries. Right now the attitude is "If the US, with all its riches and pre-existing contributions to emissions, can't be bothered to do anything, why should we?"
2. It's totally possible to prevent an economic disadvantage vs China and the rest of the world: tariffs. Countries with carbon taxes can form a tariff bloc against countries without them.
Okay, now the attitude of China will be "We're still at half the CO2 emissions per capita as the US, and we haven't had our full modernization yet." Then there is India who presumably want to emerge from third world conditions for most of the country, then Africa and so on. People are really really good at morally justifying their best short term interests.
I'm just really skeptical that "moral authority" can ever work as a motivator when the actors are huge countries.
> It's totally possible to prevent an economic disadvantage vs China and the rest of the world: tariffs. Countries with carbon taxes can form a tariff bloc against countries without them.
Tariffs aren't working so well for Trump though, are they? Forming the large bloc is the tricky part. But I certainly agree, the main problem here is global cooperation, getting the whole world to make some short term economic sacrifices together.
Honestly, just getting an agreement on a framing that this (global cooperation) is the biggest problem, rather than moralizing against individuals for leaving lights on and driving too much (etc), would be a tremendous step toward progress imo.
First we need global cooperation and agreement on the issue and goals. Then laws that create better incentive structures. Supplement that with better clean energy tech and more acceptance of large scale nuclear energy research and development. Pump a whole bunch of research dollars into nuclear, fusion power, and geoengineering. (This is far far more important than LHC, LIGO, James Webb telescope, funding should be much higher than those.) Figure out what the heck to do about Middle Eastern oil and it being the primary economy of so many countries. Then we're getting somewhere, perhaps!
It would be better for everyone if everyone stops polluting. But rich countries, that are mostly in northern latitudes and less affected by climate change, aren't taking any action. So it makes sense for poor countries, largely in places affected by climate change, to try to develop faster by any means possible so they can better-handle the coming disaster.
Whereas if rich countries take the problem seriously, add carbon taxes and tariffs and whatever other measures needed, they have moral, economic, legal, and even military levers against those who don't sign on. Poor countries can develop their economies with renewable energy and not worry as much about preparing for climate-fueled crises.
I think we're on the same page here. So an agreement between the USA and China would be an example of a great start, to get the rest of the world to follow suit. Let's frame the problem like that.
Realistically this is not going to happen in time to make serious global change by 2030. So in the mean time, we're also going to need real talk about the specific effects of climate change, and how to adapt and mitigate as much as we can.
We will be dealing with a global catastrophe, full stop. Pretending that isn't so isn't going to help the hundreds of millions of people now living near the margins of survival that will be tipped in the near future. Neither is framing the whole thing as a "choice" between the impossible and the inevitable.
The fate of our great-great grandchildren is very much at stake though.