I don't see the climate analogy. People live their plight. On a day to day basic they know where they stand. They have been watching costs rise and incomes not keeping pace. This is situation decades old but only breaking the narrative surface lately.
They're reminded of the power of The Fed. True, they might get the exact details wrong, but they have a solid enough grip on who. They also see others (i.e., 1%) doing better and better.
"I'm struggling to pay my bills" is all they need to understand. Because the people don't understand the nitty gritty doesn't make The Fed any less accountable.
The comments are revealing. People are having an emotional reaction that's preventing them from realizing any real way of addressing climate change will substantially change/reduce their living standards. I've had this conversation with people in real life and almost no one gets it at first.
This is precisely why climate change policy is so difficult to enact. Folks don’t understand the urgency until they experience it themselves, and by that point it’s gotten really bad.
There’s an analogy with tech debt or old software here somewhere.
People blaming governments and corporations are merely using faceless scapegoats because the truth is too terrible to behold.
Normal every day people don't really believe in climate change, don't really want to do anything and in fact don't have the dimmest clue as to what needs to be done, nor how to do that.
I think dealing with the above fact is too much for people, so instead we simplify using familiar models and tropes.
Well, here's an analogy: If you have $1000 salary and $900 of fixed expenses (+ $100 of disposable income), then a reduction of just 10% in your salary reduces your disposable income by 100%. A reduction of 20% in your salary puts you deep into the red and will eventually make you homeless.
Climate is like your budget. There's a lot of factors flowing into it, and even a very small change (e.g. 0.1% additional water vapor) can flip the sign on the total balance. Sorry, but your argument about the magnitude of the problem is just wrong.
I don't think consumers on the lower class strata could be blamed for climate change, but we have a series of massive industrial complexes and incentives which creates a lot of feedback.
Those without the means don't really have the leverage against this economic apparatus.
I think you're right, but we'll need to see a lot of empathy and humility exemplified in our societal power structures.
I don't like that we built those structures as pyramids, but I also don't think anyone likes the idea of the foundation collapsing.
Not that surprising. People tend to focus on their own personal/economic issuea rather than larger problems in the world as a whole. If you're struggling to pay rent, find a good job, keep up with others, get political representation etc, then stuff like global warming won't really register by comparison.
On the other hand, I suspect those with decent living conditions are probably more panicked about stuff like climate change. Feels you can focus more on big picture issues if your immediate lifestyle is going somewhat to plan.
I am painfully aware. The person I replied to is obviously not the only one with that mindset, which is what makes this such a tough sell. At the same time, this is an absurdly shortsighted way of looking at the problem. I get that paying taxes suck, but if the consequence is unmitigated climate change, then maybe taxes are the lesser evil?
To me this whole thing is absolutely absurd, most everyone agrees that we need to do something about climate change, as long as it isn’t them having to change. This isn’t going to get us out of this, at some point we’ll have to realize that “it’s only the big corporations at fault and I’m just a humble innocent cog in the machine” isn’t true and we are all complicit in this. That we all have to do something about this. But hey, finding a scapegoat is always the nice and easy solution. Now we can lean back, pat ourselves on the shoulder because we have identified the problem.
We, collectively as humans, are borderline insane.
So? What about the cliff? Isn't that more important than getting people out of debt? It's this kind of thing that makes reasonable people who do want to avert climate disaster wonder whether the cliff analogy isn't just a rallying cry to push an agenda of nationalization and redistribution of private property. In other words, just because we do swerve doesn't mean the socioeconomic upheaval is likely to work out in favor of people who want to eat the rich, or anything resembling justice either. More likely what will happen is everyone will get poorer in a somewhat linear fashion, meaning the rich will still be rich and the poor will be below water.
If the only way to cure the climate crisis is to prevent people from flying having tchotchkes, how naive is Corey to think that the rich will somehow stop those things before the middle class and poor do?
But it's dangerous and flawed to mix climate targets with social justice targets for this very reason. Hinging the swerve on a social/economic revolution means it will never happen.
Climate change is real, but taxing people and yelling at them has led to a lot of people disconnecting.
I’m not sure how else to explain this to folks passionate about climate change, but telling people the world is going to end, calling them stupid for asking “are you sure?” and telling them to pull out their wallet - is not effective policy.
For one they expected to be rich enough to not be impacted by climate change. If you can afford to move easily, climate change will not be a big deal for you. They can also play it both sides. You milk the current situation as much as possible while at the same time keeping an eye on alternatives. I think that's what's happening.
Also: those that have the resources to adjust to climate change ARE NOT the same as those who feel the heaviest weight of the stresses of drought, violent storms, water access, etc. Those with the most resources are also the least likely to be politically instabilized by the effects of climate change.
So you have a mismatch of effort: those who can don't have an incentive to fix the problem for those who can't.
(Or have a counter-incentive: I'm reminded of the anti-monsanto anti-gmo fad in the USA -- despite the fact that GMO foods are our best weapon in producing drought resistant crops for regions most heavily affected by those problems!)
Climate change is, in a sense, a massive store of value that you can take from without the consent of those who pay. Which makes it very hard for economics-minded thinking to overlook as a lazy way to thrive.
I think people's response to climate change shows that on average people would rather pass problems down to their children's generation than incur a mild inconvenience. It makes perfect sense if you assume people are self-interested.
The "never let a crisis go to waste" crowd seem more concerning. It isn't the status quo political class who want us to live in pods and eat bugs (metaphorically speaking). A lot of the rhetoric and policy proposals related to climate change seem designed to foist a reduced standard of living on the middle and lower classes in Western countries.
They're reminded of the power of The Fed. True, they might get the exact details wrong, but they have a solid enough grip on who. They also see others (i.e., 1%) doing better and better.
"I'm struggling to pay my bills" is all they need to understand. Because the people don't understand the nitty gritty doesn't make The Fed any less accountable.
reply