What Are You Willing to Sacrifice to Stop Climate Change?(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
What Are You Willing to Sacrifice to Stop Climate Change?
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-15/climate-change-action-is-hard-because-no-one-wants-to-sacrifice
40 comments
The straw thing is a good case study.
As far as I'm aware that started with a picture of a turtle being affected by plastic ocean waste.
Getting rid of non-biodegradable disposable items has always been a good idea, since they are designed to be thrown away. And the best way to do that has always been global industry regulation and producer responsibility after initial awareness raising.
However, the only context it gets mentioned in now is by people saying that its not going to stop climate change (which it was never claimed to) and that individual action is pointless.
It's like theres a whole industry dedicated to undermining people's faith in reasonable efforts to fix actual problems. And since their main weapon is subverting human biases they can attack from both sides at once.
So banning disposable plastic straws is at once a regulatory overreach of communist-hippies and also a conspiracy by big oil to continue polluting because all those stupid people think straws are the problem when really its foreigners or liberals or environmentalists or whatever other convenient scapegoat can be found.
Basically anyone angry about how were dealing with climate change and directs that anger at anyone other than the fossil fuel extraction industry and their enablers in the media and politics strikes me as super suspicious.
Corporations are effectively sociopathic and this feels like the stage after the denials and the minimizations in a typical narcissistic abuse cycle "well if it is happening and if it is a big deal then it's your fault" and hoping you forget all the times they denied it was a problem or that it wasn't a big deal.
As far as I'm aware that started with a picture of a turtle being affected by plastic ocean waste.
Getting rid of non-biodegradable disposable items has always been a good idea, since they are designed to be thrown away. And the best way to do that has always been global industry regulation and producer responsibility after initial awareness raising.
However, the only context it gets mentioned in now is by people saying that its not going to stop climate change (which it was never claimed to) and that individual action is pointless.
It's like theres a whole industry dedicated to undermining people's faith in reasonable efforts to fix actual problems. And since their main weapon is subverting human biases they can attack from both sides at once.
So banning disposable plastic straws is at once a regulatory overreach of communist-hippies and also a conspiracy by big oil to continue polluting because all those stupid people think straws are the problem when really its foreigners or liberals or environmentalists or whatever other convenient scapegoat can be found.
Basically anyone angry about how were dealing with climate change and directs that anger at anyone other than the fossil fuel extraction industry and their enablers in the media and politics strikes me as super suspicious.
Corporations are effectively sociopathic and this feels like the stage after the denials and the minimizations in a typical narcissistic abuse cycle "well if it is happening and if it is a big deal then it's your fault" and hoping you forget all the times they denied it was a problem or that it wasn't a big deal.
I'm willing to sacrifice a lot of things, my diesel and gasoline cars, my plastic straws even my lovely incandescent lightbulbs with their soft warm full light, but only as long as it's mandatory (and enforced) that _EVERYONE_ else does it as well.
If not everyone, I'm not willing to sacrifice anything at all.
If not everyone, I'm not willing to sacrifice anything at all.
Then obviously no one will sacrifice much of anything, because some subset will always be willing to cheat or ignore the call to these sorts of sacrifices. This is why collective action efforts at changing major problems are so fraught with difficulty. Instead, fundamental practical changes in the direction of better ways at doing things that also happen to be easier and more convenient are what really drives positive innovation in many cases. Example: the digitization of most documents just made it convenient for more people to stop using vast reams of paper in certain contexts.
> some subset will always be willing to cheat
I think a more charitable way to interpret the parent post is that they want a good faith effort made to enforce the mandates, without requiring that those efforts be 100% effective at achieving compliance.
Personally I think that if someone cares about an issue which requires collective action, then their moral obligation is only to contribute to the solution more than the median person. Of course it is impossible for most people to do better than the median, but if most people pursue this goal, it would bring the median down, while creating a democratic mandate for reducing the maximum.
I think a more charitable way to interpret the parent post is that they want a good faith effort made to enforce the mandates, without requiring that those efforts be 100% effective at achieving compliance.
Personally I think that if someone cares about an issue which requires collective action, then their moral obligation is only to contribute to the solution more than the median person. Of course it is impossible for most people to do better than the median, but if most people pursue this goal, it would bring the median down, while creating a democratic mandate for reducing the maximum.
If behvaiours cause damage to (inter)national safety, then cheating - in ways that are generally hard to hide - should become a lot less socially acceptable.
People will also, I reckon, begin to realize that a lot of the externalities from CO2-emitting activities (car noise, pollution, traffic and lack of exercise, for example) are things that they won't want to return to.
People will also, I reckon, begin to realize that a lot of the externalities from CO2-emitting activities (car noise, pollution, traffic and lack of exercise, for example) are things that they won't want to return to.
I'll put up with a lot in return for not having to spend 2 hours a day in my car commuting.
Offense is the best defense. It's naive to think that as an individual giving up a car or showers will make a difference compared to the unfettered pollution of multinationals. Policy change, law, economic incentives, with teeth - this is how to make an impact. Stay in your long shower, and pick up the phone afterward to call your congressperson, or to raise awareness about a climate bill, or to donate to a climate nonprofit.
Some multinational will create much more pollution than any individual, but it's also effectively distributed on all of their customers "account". So while a toaster manufacturer might create more pollution than someone's trip to Bali, if you divide by the numbers of toasters the produce, that 20k km round trip will outweigh the toaster. And the individual has total control over their holidays and can make a difference. They just choose not to, because it's easier to say "the world must change, what good is it if I do something".
Your slightly absurd comparison of a toaster to a trip to Bali has made me realise I don't actually have a solid grasp of the relative carbon contribution of each, compared with each other and the total that a society outputs.
You hear a lot about flying to holidays being something we have to give up, but that seems so flagrantly designed to annoy people that I feel the source is more likely to be climate change deniers than actual environmentalists.
Are holidays really a big thing? I know flights are technically hard to decarbonise today, but I don't think I've ever seen numbers suggesting they're a big priority compared with the low hanging fruit or that individual action is the best way to solve it.
You hear a lot about flying to holidays being something we have to give up, but that seems so flagrantly designed to annoy people that I feel the source is more likely to be climate change deniers than actual environmentalists.
Are holidays really a big thing? I know flights are technically hard to decarbonise today, but I don't think I've ever seen numbers suggesting they're a big priority compared with the low hanging fruit or that individual action is the best way to solve it.
> Are holidays really a big thing? I know flights are technically hard to decarbonise today, but I don't think I've ever seen numbers suggesting they're a big priority compared with the low hanging fruit or that individual action is the best way to solve it.
But leisure travel is an extremely low-hanging fruit when compared with e.g. food, isn't it? Nobody has to take a vacation by plane, but everybody has to eat.
The tourist industry is pretty wasteful and similar to the fashion industry: it's pretty much entirely unnecessary luxury. Compare that to e.g. concrete manufacturers or farms, they're not only necessary, they're pretty far from the top of the pyramid: you'll have a very hard time without them.
But leisure travel is an extremely low-hanging fruit when compared with e.g. food, isn't it? Nobody has to take a vacation by plane, but everybody has to eat.
The tourist industry is pretty wasteful and similar to the fashion industry: it's pretty much entirely unnecessary luxury. Compare that to e.g. concrete manufacturers or farms, they're not only necessary, they're pretty far from the top of the pyramid: you'll have a very hard time without them.
Carbon offsetting a round trip to Bali comes in at around $120 dollars on the first site I tried.
No idea on their specific methodology etc. but I do believe that the general principle of using financial tools to find the best solutuons to problems is sound. But that seems like a sacrifice thats roughly on par with buying a toaster and likely is immaterial in the context of a vacation halfway around the world.
But I'd guess the kind of person that wants someone to fix their holidays personally before they fix the toaster industry (or the agriculture industry that makes the bread they toast) is likely to reject such a solution for some reason as it makes solving climate change a bit too easy, and applying market forces and capitalism to replace fossil fuels is just as much of a threat as government regulation of the same thing. Is there any solution that they're going to like if the direct result is to reduce the wealth, power and influence of the oil and gas industry?
No idea on their specific methodology etc. but I do believe that the general principle of using financial tools to find the best solutuons to problems is sound. But that seems like a sacrifice thats roughly on par with buying a toaster and likely is immaterial in the context of a vacation halfway around the world.
But I'd guess the kind of person that wants someone to fix their holidays personally before they fix the toaster industry (or the agriculture industry that makes the bread they toast) is likely to reject such a solution for some reason as it makes solving climate change a bit too easy, and applying market forces and capitalism to replace fossil fuels is just as much of a threat as government regulation of the same thing. Is there any solution that they're going to like if the direct result is to reduce the wealth, power and influence of the oil and gas industry?
Long showers.. in the Netherlands most of the houses are connected to natural gas for heating and showering. We installed multiple solar panels and a heat pump, so we do not use any natural gas anymore (cooking is also electrical). This means we cannot shower all day long, but it is worth it to use only electricity!
The above comment may be very weird to people not living in The Netherlands as we all know that there is nothing wrong with natural gas, its one of the most eco friendly ways to heat stuff.
But in The Netherlands some government officials have taken the point of view that natural gas is Bad, and we should all pay lots of money to move to heat pumps and similar in order to get rid of it.
The sad thing is that most people in The Netherlands are also lied to by those same politicians about how "green energy" actually is created. For instance after years of planting thousands of windmills (both on land and on sea) the wind-energy electricity generated is still around 1% (I'm actually being generous).
Similarly many farming fields have been converted to now have solar panels, and many many houses have them by default. Same here, total energy created: about 1%.
What government still calls "renewables" is biomass. Which is actually the burning of trees. This is massively bad for nature because those trees are the one thing that actually converts that bad co2 to breathable air again.
Real renewable energy we get from imports from countries like Norway: water power. Around 8%.
But, here is the fun part: the vast majority of our electricity comes from, you guessed it, burning natural gas.
People that invest €10K to have a heat pump and solar power still use a very large amount of grid-electricity, which comes from burning natural gas.
But in The Netherlands some government officials have taken the point of view that natural gas is Bad, and we should all pay lots of money to move to heat pumps and similar in order to get rid of it.
The sad thing is that most people in The Netherlands are also lied to by those same politicians about how "green energy" actually is created. For instance after years of planting thousands of windmills (both on land and on sea) the wind-energy electricity generated is still around 1% (I'm actually being generous).
Similarly many farming fields have been converted to now have solar panels, and many many houses have them by default. Same here, total energy created: about 1%.
What government still calls "renewables" is biomass. Which is actually the burning of trees. This is massively bad for nature because those trees are the one thing that actually converts that bad co2 to breathable air again.
Real renewable energy we get from imports from countries like Norway: water power. Around 8%.
But, here is the fun part: the vast majority of our electricity comes from, you guessed it, burning natural gas.
People that invest €10K to have a heat pump and solar power still use a very large amount of grid-electricity, which comes from burning natural gas.
> we all know that there is nothing wrong with natural gas, its one of the most eco friendly ways to heat stuff.
What do you mean by this? Natural gas is another fossible fuel, it's far from being "eco friendly". It's better than coal or oil but that's about it.
What do you mean by this? Natural gas is another fossible fuel, it's far from being "eco friendly". It's better than coal or oil but that's about it.
Natural gas is the most eco friendly source of energy of the fossil fuels. The push for renewables is great, and those should become a bigger percentage of our usage.
But until the day that they are, natural gas is the best one we have. Pushing people to move away from it just because its Bad, doesn't make sense. That would simply move from you burning gas to some electricity company burning gas. With huge economic impact in the mean time for all those that have to buy really expensive heat pumps.
But until the day that they are, natural gas is the best one we have. Pushing people to move away from it just because its Bad, doesn't make sense. That would simply move from you burning gas to some electricity company burning gas. With huge economic impact in the mean time for all those that have to buy really expensive heat pumps.
This page states that in 2020 wind provided more than 11% of consumed energy in Netherlands.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_Netherland...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_Netherland...
As reported by a lobbying company. Not all numbers you read on the Internet are true.
Here is another lobbying company that has nice numbers too;
https://www.nvde.nl/nvdeblogs/hernieuwbare-energie-voor-het-...
> Het verbruik van hernieuwbare energie is in 2020 met bijna 20% gestegen. Daarmee is hernieuwbare energie nu goed voor ruim 11% van ons totale energieverbruik. De groei zit vooral in de sterke stijging van wind en zon, en in meer inzet van vaste biomassa.
Which states that the TOTAL renewable energy is 11%, with biomass being the majority.
Now, both sources can't be right, can they?
Here is another lobbying company that has nice numbers too;
https://www.nvde.nl/nvdeblogs/hernieuwbare-energie-voor-het-...
> Het verbruik van hernieuwbare energie is in 2020 met bijna 20% gestegen. Daarmee is hernieuwbare energie nu goed voor ruim 11% van ons totale energieverbruik. De groei zit vooral in de sterke stijging van wind en zon, en in meer inzet van vaste biomassa.
Which states that the TOTAL renewable energy is 11%, with biomass being the majority.
Now, both sources can't be right, can they?
It actually says renewable is over 11% of total energy. Total in this context often means "not just electricity generation" and the mention of biogas suggests they're talking about that but I don't read Dutch so hard to be sure. But jumping between those numbers is a common way to make a point seem stronger/weaker as required, the first link is very specifically talking about electrical energy consumed, so the two numbers are compatible depending on various definitions.
It lines up neatly with your initial 1% claim for example, except you specifically claim that it's 1% of electrical generation, not total energy.
Worth noting too that switching to renewables and electrifying actually reduce total energy, as more than half of it wasted as heat from combustion of fuels. Another popular statistical trick to make switching to renewables seem impossible.
It lines up neatly with your initial 1% claim for example, except you specifically claim that it's 1% of electrical generation, not total energy.
Worth noting too that switching to renewables and electrifying actually reduce total energy, as more than half of it wasted as heat from combustion of fuels. Another popular statistical trick to make switching to renewables seem impossible.
Wouldn't the lobbying company be incentivised to give lower numbers to show more money is needed?
Besides... Is CBD Statline really a lobbying group or are you just guessing that such groups are involved because it fits your narrative?
Besides... Is CBD Statline really a lobbying group or are you just guessing that such groups are involved because it fits your narrative?
Since heat pumps are over 100% efficient it still might be (is) better to burn natural gas to produce the electricity to power heat pump than to just burn gas for heat.
> Since heat pumps are over 100% efficient
You might want to check your numbers on that. Nothing is over 100% efficient.
You might want to check your numbers on that. Nothing is over 100% efficient.
You might want to read about heat pumps.
They pump the heat you know. From colder outside into warmer inside. And they use (electricity that is) the fraction of heat energy that they pump in.
So 100W electric heater gives you 100W of heat inside, but 100W heat pump can bring in 300W of heat from outside. So it's 300% more efficient at heating the inside of the house.
They pump the heat you know. From colder outside into warmer inside. And they use (electricity that is) the fraction of heat energy that they pump in.
So 100W electric heater gives you 100W of heat inside, but 100W heat pump can bring in 300W of heat from outside. So it's 300% more efficient at heating the inside of the house.
Well, there's also the issue that our national gas reserves lie beneath a city in which there are already many earthquakes thanks to the gas drilling.
Notice I talked about Natural gas, not national gas.
Gas is imported. Has been for decades.
Gas is imported. Has been for decades.
Nothing.
Nothing in the sense of personal decision.
I would happily sacrifice most things if they were enforced at high enough levels to actually make a difference.
I would happily accept a ban on single USA plastics. I would happily accept a ban a few years out on gas cars. I would happily accept mandatory changes in packaging laws.
But I'm not going to torture myself for no gain to anyone by enforcing strict standards on myself that are so marginal to be totally meaningless in the bigger picture. I don't expect anyone else to either.
I figure we'll get sensible rules when the pain to the average person is strong enough that it's easier to accept that than whatever else we are dealing with and not a minute sooner.
Nothing in the sense of personal decision.
I would happily sacrifice most things if they were enforced at high enough levels to actually make a difference.
I would happily accept a ban on single USA plastics. I would happily accept a ban a few years out on gas cars. I would happily accept mandatory changes in packaging laws.
But I'm not going to torture myself for no gain to anyone by enforcing strict standards on myself that are so marginal to be totally meaningless in the bigger picture. I don't expect anyone else to either.
I figure we'll get sensible rules when the pain to the average person is strong enough that it's easier to accept that than whatever else we are dealing with and not a minute sooner.
>"because the idea of a carbon tax is toxically unpopular".
Nice blame the voters....The solution for every problem (especially in the West) is a new tax. Why not just make some changes to existing laws to save the planet. Where you don't even need the voters. Firm up the building codes to create better and more efficient houses/condos/commercial properties. Encourage more work from home to cut down on the amount of traffic, outlaw coal power, no new drilling for oil unless you can capture the flare off, etc. I could think of 100 things that would make a bigger difference than a Bullshit Carbon Tax that our kakistocracy wants so they can get rich off of it. Do folks actually understand how little changes/tweaks to the stupid way most Americans live could make massive real world differences. Just discouraging lawns in places where they shouldn't be growing would reduce Carbon (mowing/care) and save 100's of billions of gallons of water (Texas, Arizona and any other hot dry state).
The arrogance of the following statement. Shifting the blame on us and constantly creating this Left vs Right bullshit.
>All of this leads to a difficult truth: The problem here lies not with the politicians, or even with the billionaires or oil companies. It lies with voters themselves, who recognize that climate change is a real problem but are not necessarily willing to sacrifice much of anything to tackle it.
Nice blame the voters....The solution for every problem (especially in the West) is a new tax. Why not just make some changes to existing laws to save the planet. Where you don't even need the voters. Firm up the building codes to create better and more efficient houses/condos/commercial properties. Encourage more work from home to cut down on the amount of traffic, outlaw coal power, no new drilling for oil unless you can capture the flare off, etc. I could think of 100 things that would make a bigger difference than a Bullshit Carbon Tax that our kakistocracy wants so they can get rich off of it. Do folks actually understand how little changes/tweaks to the stupid way most Americans live could make massive real world differences. Just discouraging lawns in places where they shouldn't be growing would reduce Carbon (mowing/care) and save 100's of billions of gallons of water (Texas, Arizona and any other hot dry state).
The arrogance of the following statement. Shifting the blame on us and constantly creating this Left vs Right bullshit.
>All of this leads to a difficult truth: The problem here lies not with the politicians, or even with the billionaires or oil companies. It lies with voters themselves, who recognize that climate change is a real problem but are not necessarily willing to sacrifice much of anything to tackle it.
Individuals can’t fix this problem. That people don’t understand this yet is not a good sign
[deleted]
Individuals do. By voting people in power who care and act.
The article states that a significant majority of voters don't support carbon taxation or any legislation that would impact their lifestyle.
> Democrats have looked at rigorous issue polling that presents pro and con arguments on both sides of various topics, I’m told.
The article also states this information is hearsay. I would want to see a more comprehensive and open look at voter preferences before drawing conclusions.
The article also states this information is hearsay. I would want to see a more comprehensive and open look at voter preferences before drawing conclusions.
Any and all aversion to widespread nuclear power development and adoption.
Buy used car instead of new one. This is easily better than buying a new electric car and it amazes me that no one advocates for it.
Avoid throwaway bags, packaging and utensils.
Avoid throwaway bags, packaging and utensils.
This is easily better than buying a new electric car
From what I can find it is far from clear and really depends on how old/inefficient the used car is and, most importantly, how much you drive.
From what I can find it is far from clear and really depends on how old/inefficient the used car is and, most importantly, how much you drive.
[deleted]
People are already doing it, and naturally it doesn't scale. Brand new cars are a necessary condition for the used car market. That doesn't mean it couldn't get better. But then again old cars are usually less energy efficient anyway, so who knows where to draw the line.
It does help. As used car price increase, it makes sense to fix up previously marginal cars. Anything that reduces the production of new cars is good.
He specifically said second hand vs new EV.
The carbon footprint of an ICE vehicle is heavily weighted towards burning its fuel (and transport/extraction of that fuel). The maintenance you mention during use is actually another area where EVs save both money, energy and carbon.
The carbon ratio tilts towards manufacturing as cars get better mpg, and EV have the equivalent mpg of 100+, but at the same time the total reduces since cars are on the road for about a decade on average.
At a societal level a shift to EVs (but also busses, bikes etc) is clearly better, but even at a personal level, a new car with better mpg than the existing one (so especially but not exclusively an EV) will pay off for that individual's carbon footprint.
So the best way to get there with market forces is predictably rising gas taxes and lowering incentives building up to a total ban. Which is what most countries are doing.
The carbon footprint of an ICE vehicle is heavily weighted towards burning its fuel (and transport/extraction of that fuel). The maintenance you mention during use is actually another area where EVs save both money, energy and carbon.
The carbon ratio tilts towards manufacturing as cars get better mpg, and EV have the equivalent mpg of 100+, but at the same time the total reduces since cars are on the road for about a decade on average.
At a societal level a shift to EVs (but also busses, bikes etc) is clearly better, but even at a personal level, a new car with better mpg than the existing one (so especially but not exclusively an EV) will pay off for that individual's carbon footprint.
So the best way to get there with market forces is predictably rising gas taxes and lowering incentives building up to a total ban. Which is what most countries are doing.
I don't think your car suggestion makes sense, I'll try and locate some numbers to demonstrate.
and throw responsibility on ordinary people to a completely unwarranted degree. Exxon Mobil, Saudi Aramco et al have plenty of reason to love the notion of hundreds of millions of individual millenials and others feeling guilty because they used a straw for their soft drink today, or asked for a plastic bag during their grocery shopping.
Because a great number of influencer, celebrity and media types also know that exhortations of this individual kind get them much more brownie points and media attention, they're complicit in the same misplaced guilt crusade. Posting on social media about how some oil corporation should dump 20% less carbon into the atmosphere doesn't have nearly the same level of pop culture trendiness or immediate satisfaction of making someone comment about how they'll change their ways.