magnet
4813
I think I answered this in a follow up post. That quote refers to the fact that sometimes people who reduce their CO2 by some choice will use their personal experience to argue that everyone should make exact the same choice. It’s no longer about carbon reduction, it’s about self-validation.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution. There are many different ways to reduce your CO2 emissions, and you should choose the methods that are most practical and work best for you without expecting that others in different circumstances will choose the same ones.
Sorry, but I’m struggling to understand this. Do you think the problem is amenable to ‘solutions’ based on individual choice? That is, do you think that if we leave it to each person to reduce their own footprint in the way that suits them best, that will be effective? And, what will you do for your part?
CraigM
4815
I mean I made what changes I could. I drive a hybrid, bike to work frequently, am mindful of minimizing waste, and largely eat vegitarian.
It’s not enough, it’s never enough. Because you have jackasses on the opposite end ‘rolling coal’ and such.
Reposting this link since it goes into great detail on “how to decarbonize.” The heavy lifting is ag and industry. (Image posted is global emissions, for the US it’s a bit different.)
Our hardest climate problems – the ones that are both large and lack obvious solutions – are agriculture (and deforestation – its major side effect) and industry. Together these are 45% of global carbon emissions. And solutions are scarce.
Agriculture and land use account for 24% of all human emissions. That’s nearly as much as electricity, and twice as much all the world’s passenger cars combined.
Industry – steel, cement, and manufacturing – account for 21% of human emissions – one and a half times as much as all the world’s cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes combined.
Add industry, agriculture, and land use together and you have a very sticky, very difficult-to-improve 45% of carbon emissions.
magnet
4817
I think that climate change can be addressed by a combination of individual behavioral change and regulation.
I also think that regulation targeted directly at specific personal behaviors will fail. There isn’t enough popular support to ban meat, for instance. Nor for any of the other objectionable behaviors described here. Evenly applied laws, like carbon taxes that apply to almost everything you do, are more likely to successfully change behavior than those that clearly distinguish “winners” from “losers”.
On the hand, regulation can be more heavy-handed when applied to corporate behavior. So even if we can’t ban people from buying internal combustion engines, we could potentially ban UPS from buying them.
As for what I’m doing? Well, I’m definitely going to continue refusing to adopt a cat. Because as we all know, cat ownership significantly contributes to global warming. Cat owners are the real problem. Cat euthanasia is the only moral option. Just kidding, what I do is none of your business.
Can you describe another problem of similar size that was addressed that way? What particular changes of personal behavior do you think will be needed, and at what scale; and what gives you confidence that there will be sufficient adoption to achieve that scale?
Won’t carbon taxes at any reasonably effective rate be massively regressive? Which is to say, won’t they create winners and losers? It seems to me a way to shift the cost of addressing climate change down to the least wealthy, which is perhaps why Republicans were once so fond of it.
What a surprisingly asinine response. If you mean to convince people that personal action is the answer, I think you’re going to have to develop a better pitch than that.
Nesrie
4819
At least you didn’t call you useless and tell you to curl up and die. Definitely an improvement.
Dont put words in my mouth. I never asked anyone to curl up and die. I asked if you would volunteer to help the population problem that I don’t think we have.
Please don’t misquote me again.
Once again, people aren’t willing to be part of the solution.
Nesrie
4821
Haha. You won’t commit suicide. You’re not a team player!
Again, I don’t think we have a population problem. I am merely proposing a solution to the problem you and @magnet believe exists.
On that note, hopefully neither of you volunteer. You seem like upstanding people, even if you are both wrong.
magnet
4823
This largely depends on the degree to which we can be helped by technological innovation, which is very hard to predict. Some people think that various breakthroughs could allow us to decrease CO2 emissions with relatively small behavioral changes, others are less optimistic. I’m agnostic on that issue.
That depends on how they are implemented. For instance, some have suggested using the proceeds of the tax to eliminate other regressive taxes. You could even distribute the tax revenue equally to all households, ie use it to fund a progressive universal basic income.
The point is that you aren’t targeting specific behaviors. The “winners” are those who decrease CO2 emissions by any means they choose, and the “losers” those who don’t want to make any effort at all. That’s a feature, not a bug.
I’ve already described lots of personal choices people can make, and emphasized that it’s up to them to choose among them. The choices that I made are irrelevant, because I’m not trying to convince anyone that I should be their role model.
Apart from avoiding cats. Cats are bad and if you have one then you are bad.
If the carbon tax isn’t revenue neutral the gov’t can cut a check for lower income brackets (or eliminates taxes,etc.) There’s a host of academic papers on the subject now.
Indeed, but 1) how likely is it that a revenue-increasing carbon tax can be passed, and 2) isn’t it likely that the revenue from such a tax will end up being spent on mitigation efforts? I’m guessing that e.g. the National Flood Insurance program is going to need some serious funding.
No, but you are making an argument against behavioral mandates on the grounds that voluntary behavior change is better and would be more effective. It’s really not unreasonable to expect you to give some concrete examples (which you really haven’t). And if your argument is enough people will do these things, it’s also not unreasonable to ask if you’re doing them. Otherwise, what are you basing that judgement on?
Yeah, but that’s just a shell game. I’m saying we’ll need bigger government to meet the costs of mitigation, which means we’ll need more tax revenue and that there will be less money available for tax rebates. It won’t happen.
magnet
4828
Seriously? OK here it is again:
Take public transportation
Walk and bike
Eat less meat
Replace an ICE with an EV
Install solar panels
Telecommute
Move to the city
Limit the number of babies you make
Move to a warmer climate
Kill cats
My argument is that people will do some of these things, supported by the fact that people are already doing some of these things. Nobody knows how much is enough.
My other argument is that if the government tries to coerce people into doing specific things in this list, it will fail. But since they haven’t really tried, it’s not really an argument so much as an opinion. Although the fact that they can just barely coerce people into vaccinating children makes me pretty confident.
This is a weird one to take, because they have been amazingly successful at coercing people to vaccinate children.
In any event, which of those suggestions to you do?
magnet
4830
The ones that are easiest for me, obviously. Why do you ask?
Initially? To find out. Now? To make a point. I think you understand the point very well.
magnet
4832
The point that if you want to be judgmental, first you need to know something about the person you want to judge? Yes, you make that point all the time. I’m not falling for it, Scott.
When I want to watch people get called out for a purity test, I visit the other forum.
