Some examples:
- Start by implementing a odd/even rule for license plates in big cities, even full bans on weekends.
- Tax and/or de-subsidize the meat industry.
- Incentivize the installation of wind or other renewable energies. Energies with no CO2 emissions, like nuclear, should be encouraged.
- Stop getting oil from the northern sea. Leave it underground.
> - Tax and/or de-subsidize the meat industry.
And just like that, you've been voted straight out of office. Better luck next life connecting to the electorate.
You can't do those things. Humanity is a distributed consensus problem. Climate change presents an interesting change in the fitness landscape topology ahead.
Which, by the way, has been signaled to everyone for decades now. Just our political processes have not allowed those signals to reach "the economy" and we seem to be unable to act on anything that isn't felt by the economy. Which, I might add, is not a god-given fact, but rather a political choice.
Anyway, we will have a cliff. And it will have been announced. And people will suffer when our consensus finding process drives us all over this cliff.
That's part of the problem. The general public have been hearing it for decades now, and are probably just sick and tired of hearing about it. As far back as I can remember, it's been nothing but "Nuclear weapons are gonna kill us all" "Acid rain is gonna kill us all!" "Smog is gonna kill us all!" "Drugs and crime are gonna kill us all" "The ozone hole is gonna kill us all!" "Global warming is gonna kill us all!" "Terrorism is gonna kill us all" "Climate change is gonna kill us all!" Yet, here we are, still going on towards these various cliffs. I can at least put myself in the general public's shoes for a bit and empathize with their crisis fatigue. Economic crises are felt immediately--you lose your job. It's no surprise that it's politically easier to favor economics over other crises that are perpetually happening Real Soon Now.
These four (IMHO) do actually pose clear and present dangers to human health & wellbeing at scale:
* Nuclear Weapons
* Smog
* Ozone
* Global Warming / Climate Change
They were identified as risks and (except for Ozone, which was actually tackled and is improving to my knowlege) continue to be shown as risks. Or rather, by now, as actually doing harm.
On the other hand, these two here were never the big catastrophes that they were made out to be, yet were (and are!) continually overblown.
* Drugs & Crime
* Terrorism
Neither of them ever had the existential threat potential that the other group had. Not-so-incidentally, the proposed "solutions" to these problems were always...
* highly profitable for certain industries
* useful for conservative re-elections
* based in little to no fact
* often (predictably) counter-productive.
Bottom line: if we had actually put time and money into existing, working solutions to measurable, actual problems, we would have been perfectly capable to do so. We did it for Ozone, we could have done it again. We didn't.
Instead, we put countless dollars and lives into "solving" problems that were pretty much caused by their "solutions", and mostly because that was in the best interest of very few people.
If people are tired of anything, I hope/suspect that they are tired of a political/economic system that predictably ended up producing this mess.
This right here is the achilles heal of free market theory.
- actually getting rules implemented and enforced (political suicide by regulators - had an example of that in my own country just a couple months ago, made a mess in the government, the new rules didn't pass in parliament, governing party lost 10 pp in polls anyway)
- very irregular period of convergence from old rules to new (societal turmoil guaranteed, political consequences very likely) - see thatcher's closure of British coal mines for a good example
- the market as such will correct itself but is entirely unconcerned with the welfare of human beings in the meantime, and will continue to be unconcerned with it afterwards.
How?
- You provide incentives for attractive alternatives. - You invest in those alternatives and you invest in contextual drivers that make the transition more appealing. For instance, you provide an integrated plans for urban planning that cover different concerns. - You emphasize the benefits of those alternatives on an individual level. - You make a compelling narrative why the status quo is holding the individual back. - You diversify your narrative to to identify / appeal with as many different social groups as you have to.
That's just the content. Then there's also your political position. Whether your part of a power elite, or your not, you still need tactics to garner support, whether you like it or not. Alinsky's 12 rules for radicals, for instance, is a classic example in that regard.
The automative industry or the meat industry didn't just happen simply because individual consumers out of their own accord. They also happened because consumers where incentivized to buy in a 'modern' lifestyle with a heavy focus on cheap and convenience during the 20th century as opposed to more traditional, localized ways of living; and because those industries that supported this cultural shift were directly and indirectly subsidized. For instance, cities got covered in highway infrastructure in the 1950's and 1960's paid for through public funding and public policy making.
Public governance is about figuring out feedback loops in social, economical and political dynamics and finding ways to bend them towards your agenda.
Banning cars in city centers is already happening in European cities. The usual argument is to make living in the city more comfortable or make the city more attractive for commerce driven by regional or international tourism (both of which having their own drawbacks and tensions).
As soon as they got richer they could do what they dreamed of.
It's like cars, really. People used to walk. Not because it was nice and healthy but because they had no choice. Then bikes and public transport werean improvement, but really people do prefer the comfort and freedom of driving their own cars and when that became possible and affordable they did not need much convincing to jump at the opportunity.
Beware of value attribution and hindsight bias.
First, historic cuisines and diets evolved throughout history, and differed greatly depending by geographic location. Beware of generalizing particular historic contexts. You can't reliably extrapolate the dietary patterns of European serfs - as explained by their particular socio-economic context - and apply that the Mayan culture during the Classic period (same time frame 200-900 AD).
Second, the "they were too poor" argument only carries meaning in concrete socio-economic contexts. Even then, do note that the modern liberal conceptual framework of poor and rich didn't exist in earlier times. This even holds up today. It's tenuous claim to assume that, for instance, native cultures perceive themselves as "poor". If they do see themselves as "poor" today, that's always in reference to the dominant modern economic model based on western liberal enlightenment values and principles which has impacted their culture as an external factor.
> People used to walk. Not because it was nice and healthy but because they had no choice.
They didn't have a choice, but that doesn't say anything about how people perceived relying on muscle power across history, culture and geographical location.
Just 20 years ago, nobody considered the absence of social media and smartphones as a fundamental lacking in life. That's totally different today. For a short while, it was a choice, today, access to digital technology is a hard requirement in order to be able to participate in modern industrialized society. This is an example of how a feedback loop was created between availability and demand creating an artificial need. The same is true for most modern conveniences.
I'm deeply happy that I don't have to live a relatively short life working land, foraging or hunting game. But at the same time, I'm very much aware that's a hindsight bias and I'm very much aware that most modern conveniences aren't a prerequisite for the survival of humanity. As it stands, many of those modern conveniences have contributed to the existential threat which is Climate Change.
It's not. It's a general observation that holds true in many place, certainly Europe (and thus the West in general) and, say, China. The amount of meat eaten was constrained by the value of animals and most people simply could not afford to eat more meat than they did.
Likewise for cars. It seems to be an ideological take to claim that people do not prefer comfort and ease of transport...
Friendly reminder that Beijing has been implementing exactly that, then later a variant of that, since 2008.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_space_rationing_in_Beijin...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_restriction_in_S%C3%...
What cost have you chosen to bear ? Do you exclusively use public transport ? Have you banned planes from your life ? Home delivery (the last mile is the one that creates the more pollution) ? What share of your revenue do you give to plant trees ?
> You need to send signals like this to the market well in advance so they can invest and plan ahead.
We are talking about billion dollars of investment at stake. You need years to train engineers, develop new technologies, ...
The role of politics is not only to implement policies but also to signal where we are heading so that a decentralized solution can be achieved.
One thing is for real, every one of us could be doing more. It is not enough to just delegate this problem to someone else, politician or otherwise.
I know that it is very hard to change habits, more so when you are not seeing the outcome. But in the end it is just about doing what you believe is fixing the problem, not delegating.
Somehow I see a finger pointed at me, telling me to do more. The finger should be pointed at each and one of us, telling us to do more, and vote better.
Good luck I guess?
What I've seen happening here in the UK is that a lot of people leave their cars in a park & ride or close to a train station then shuttle in, which I guess is a step forward, but a lot are still driving all the way.
Most people have no alternative at the moment so hitting cars can only lead to unrest.
An example is France's attempt to heavily tax diesel, which partly led to the yellow vest protests because people have no choice at the moment.
Put a good, viable alternative in place then you can make the move against ICE/cars in general.
Then rich people just buy two cars. This increases carbon emissions.
Also, people are pissed off, so the government loses the next election.
> Tax and/or de-subsidize the meat industry
The way to go would be to tax carbon emissions, and lay down a timetable where they taxes will get larger over time; then everyone has big incentives to change behaviour.
I am happy to admit this is a complex issue, one that needs a global solution, an expensive one, maybe an unsolvable one.
But we also have to admit that so far no action has been taken. And this isn't action either.
That's what I'm asking for here: let's all be honest for this thread and admit this is worthless and we're running out of time and we either need to make hard choices OR admit we're not going to fix it...
We need to tax pollution the amount it costs to clean up that pollution, that's all. You can fly as much as you want if you pay the costs.
I suggest a £1 tax on non EV cars, that doubles each month
If new personal cars are EV only by 2030 then by 2025 most manufacturers will have changed most of their product line, by 2029 virtually all will have changed virtually all.
Not to cast any doubt on the horrible terrible disasters that the global warming will surely bring, but the UK is not Florida, so maybe they did some location-centric math and found that specifically for them it's not life or death?
It's also worth pointing out that the 'ban' doesn't ban the sale of all ICE cars - hybrids are still going to be available for sale until at least 2035.
from that article: "Britain should follow the example of Lombardy, a heavily-industrialised region in northern Italy, which is to ban the sale of fossil-fuel powered cars from 1 January 2005"
Q: Did Lombardy really enact that ban in 2005? What happened as a result?
Brexit has entered the chat
But yea I can get a blue passport now. What a great thing to waste years on.
As to “nothing did need to change” that quite clearly wasn’t the case or a winning vote for leaving wouldn’t be remotely possible. In any well supported political view there is some truth to be found in its suggestions and/or grievances, whether it’s ultimately misguided or not.
It’s easy to say nothing will change if it doesn’t affect you. I don’t understand why a trade agreement with a few extra bits of international legislation was put to a general public referendum. It’s got nothing to do with the average joe on the street, the general public has no understanding of this.
The WTO's goal is to reduce trade friction, hence it puts ceilings on duties. The UK (now) sets its own taxes, duties and restrictions, being part of the WTO does not affect that. As a service dominated economy it's in the UK's interests to lower protective barriers - setting tariffs to zero would be of a net benefit to the UK. You'll note that the UK is a founding member of the WTO, its trade either side of the deadline will not violate any WTO protocol. Standards (ironically) will also be entirely in alignment with the EU. Processes will not change either as there already exist processes for handling non-EU trade.
The places where import taxes, duties and restrictions will change is exports into the EU, hence the desire for a trade agreement.
> It’s impossible to plan for because it can all change at the last minute.
No physical processes will change. Numbers on a spreadsheet may do.
> It’s easy to say nothing will change if it doesn’t affect you.
Yet you argue that people shouldn't have been allowed a say, and it will force you to argue that it doesn't affect most people while trying to maintain that an unimaginable doom will be brought on <checks notes> the entire UK population.
Pick one or the other but to maintain both is absurd.
> I don’t understand why a trade agreement with a few extra bits of international legislation
Those "few extra bits of international legislation" include massive changes to the UK constitution. The same lament could be said about entering into the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum (or, even better, a single issue general election), among many other changes that led to a vote where people got to show their frustration about not being consulted or even listened to previously.
> was put to a general public referendum
It was put to a referendum because those in power thought it would kill the thing dead, and the alternative was seeing a political party (UKIP) get seats in Westminster, if not usurp one of the major parties. It was only a combination of electoral fraud (in Farage's case) and the first past the post system (in the party's case) that kept them out of Westminster, that wouldn't have occured again, as the referendum result shows.
> It’s got nothing to do with the average joe on the street
Again, please, be serious.
> the general public has no understanding of this.
The choice is simple, give up sovereignty for access to a large trade bloc. That's not hard for anyone with an IQ above 85 to understand. The minutiae and ramifications are much harder but the UK is a representative democracy, not an Athenian democracy of the kind that might allow the kind of condescending sneer at the plebs you are partaking in.
Reading this back, it reads like it was Farage that was the one engaging in fraud, but it was the Conservative party[0]. Barely a whisper in the media about it because it suited them, and nothing was done about it, which may be a timely lesson…
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Mackinlay#Electoral_spen...
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.
It happened and the world didn’t fall apart.
Negotiations are taking place in the way they always do, and a deal with the EU will be reached at the last minute as everyone expected it to.
Perhaps, but at what ridiculous cost?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_Crisis_(2011%E2%80%93pr...
But in general wars are about access to resources, food and water fundamentally
Announcing radical change in a different government's term is standard political theatrics. All that matters is the actions they take now.
I stood there for ages shouting at it,
Then I tried to reason with it,
Then I explained to it about in intricacies of human politics (you cannot have sudden cliff-edges in policies!)
Then I told it I had to send signals to the market
And the darn thing just sat there and continued to cause problems.
Inverse situation for covid. Suddenly there is a lot of money we can borrow from our children, because 'a problem right not' VS 'à problem in 10 years'
Not sure how we can fix this 'bug' in our governance model..
You cannot have sudden cliff-edges in policies (like banning the sale of new ICE vehicles) that would put thousands, if not millions of people out of jobs.
You need to send signals like this to the market well in advance so they can invest and plan ahead.