Talking With Muggles About Climate Change

[former player]

However politely you suggest that people might like to stop flying to go on holiday the response from 70% or more of the population (even the educated and aware population on this forum: see the "no flight in 2019/2020 threads") will be a mixture of incomprehension, incredulity and anger that their freedom and happiness might be impeded in that way.

This misses the forest for the trees. Occasional flights aren't destroying the planet, it's the billion flights per year that are doing it. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers/

Not sure what your point is here?  Any flight for any purpose adds to the total.  Not flying for holidays should be the easiest win, not affecting people's livelihoods and economic status, but even that is something most people aren't (yet) willing to give up.

And giving up flying is only the start of what would be necessary to make human life on this planet sustainable and stop catastrophic change to the global climate.

You referenced the no flights thread. I'm saying the worst way to win the case with "muggles" is to suggest not flying at all because pollution is bad. Let's say this pressure results in a 5% reduction of people willing to fly (I'm being optimistic here); I'd be willing to bet that 90% of these people won't be of the true believer mentality, and they will quickly get jealous of everybody else who travels, because flights are still cheap and the average person has no desire to behave in the equivalent manner of a self-flagellating cultist.*

Rather, we need to simply push for a reduction of flights through appropriate taxation. Everybody would still be allowed to fly, but they may have to pay two or three or four times as much as they do now to do so. This will have a much better effect across the board than the insistence that anyone who flies is morally culpable for the destruction of the planet.

*May I use depleted fisheries as an analogy? Do you think it works to tell fishermen that catching fish in a depleted fishery is a moral hazard, therefore they need to stop fishing there, period? This is absurd, when they surely understand that by quitting fishing, it will do nothing for the problem at hand while hurting him or her economically. In the real world, the solution that works is for the government to step in and place a limit on the catch, and in turn the fishermen generally accept the level playing field and make a decision as to whether or not it is still economically viable to continue to fish that fishery.

Please see:

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/sweden-flight-shame-movement-arlanda-airport-gotherburg-climate-change-a9277936.html

[Davnasty]

However politely you suggest that people might like to stop flying to go on holiday the response from 70% or more of the population (even the educated and aware population on this forum: see the "no flight in 2019/2020 threads") will be a mixture of incomprehension, incredulity and anger that their freedom and happiness might be impeded in that way.

This misses the forest for the trees. Occasional flights aren't destroying the planet, it's the billion flights per year that are doing it. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers/

Not sure what your point is here?  Any flight for any purpose adds to the total.  Not flying for holidays should be the easiest win, not affecting people's livelihoods and economic status, but even that is something most people aren't (yet) willing to give up.

And giving up flying is only the start of what would be necessary to make human life on this planet sustainable and stop catastrophic change to the global climate.

You referenced the no flights thread. I'm saying the worst way to win the case with "muggles" is to suggest not flying at all because pollution is bad. Let's say this pressure results in a 5% reduction of people willing to fly (I'm being optimistic here); I'd be willing to bet that 90% of these people won't be of the true believer mentality, and they will quickly get jealous of everybody else who travels, because flights are still cheap and the average person has no desire to behave in the equivalent manner of a self-flagellating cultist.*

Rather, we need to simply push for a reduction of flights through appropriate taxation. Everybody would still be allowed to fly, but they may have to pay two or three or four times as much as they do now to do so. This will have a much better effect across the board than the insistence that anyone who flies is morally culpable for the destruction of the planet.

*May I use depleted fisheries as an analogy? Do you think it works to tell fishermen that catching fish in a depleted fishery is a moral hazard, therefore they need to stop fishing there, period? This is absurd, when they surely understand that by quitting fishing, it will do nothing for the problem at hand while hurting him or her economically. In the real world, the solution that works is for the government to step in and place a limit on the catch, and in turn the fishermen generally accept the level playing field and make a decision as to whether or not it is still economically viable to continue to fish that fishery.

While I agree that taxes would be more effective, I don't agree with the analogy.

In the fishing example you're asking people to completely change their profession and lifestyle which they likely have significant investment in with boats, equipment, relationships, and the location they've chosen to live. In the case of flying it's a much smaller sacrifice.

Another difference is that if someone chooses to make a sacrifice and not fish, it's likely that the fish they left behind will be caught by someone else as long as there is a demand for fish. When someone chooses not to fly, that doesn't make others more likely to fly. Choosing not to fish would be more like a pilot choosing not to fly or an airline shutting down. Choosing not to eat the fish would be more analogous to choosing not to fly.

[Shane]

It's interesting and a little surprising to me that some people seem to view, "muggles," as a derogatory term. I didn't mean it to be taken that way, at all. I used muggles in the title of this thread, not to disparage anyone, but just to describe "regular" non-Mustachians, i.e., non magical people.

When I tell muggles that my wife and I moved to Hawaii, back in the 90s, took very part-time, close to minimum wage jobs for the first 6 months, and that we still managed to save >50% of our income - in Hawaii!!! - they seem to have a hard time believing it. When I tell muggles that we have a completely paid for, almost brand new car sitting parked on the street, right in front of our paid off house but, yet, my wife regularly walks ~5 miles round trip to a small shop where she likes to buy certain specialty groceries, they seem to have a really hard time understanding why anyone would possibly do that. When I tell muggles that we haven't owned a TV since the 80s, their jaws literally drop wide open, and they just stare, incredulously, as they ask, "Why would you possibly not have a TV?" Recently, two acquaintances offered to give us their old TVs for free. They see us walking all over the neighborhood, so I guess they think we're poor and can't afford a television. I have a friend who works as a patent attorney in Beijing, making well into a six-figure income, who chooses to walk 10 kms, round trip, every day, from his apartment to his office and back, even though he has a perfectly good, almost new car sitting parked in the garage of the building where he lives. Muggles, especially in the US, can't imagine why anyone would possibly choose to do something like that, unless they were dirt poor and couldn't afford to drive by themselves in a car back and forth to work everyday.

Climate change would be easy to solve if everyone were Magical Mustachians. We could all just agree to walk/cycle/public transit to and from work everyday, quit flying around the world on vacations, do away with whole house heating/AC, quit buying a bunch of useless throw away crap that we don't need anyway, cut the world population by about 3/4, all move into cities, surrounded by farms within ~100kms radius, turn the rest of our countries into big national parks where people could enjoy cross country skiing, backpacking, canoeing, etc., and BOOM, problem solved. Unfortunately, if everyone lived the way we do, the stock market would be only a fraction of what it is now. Travel hacking? The only reason American Mustachians can easily get thousands of dollars a year in free travel using CC points is because the majority of our fellow Americans carry balances on their accounts and pay huge amounts of interest to the CC companies. If it weren't for muggles and their high consumption lifestyles, I'm pretty sure FIRE would be a lot more difficult, if not impossible...

[FINate]

It's interesting and a little surprising to me that some people seem to view, "muggles," as a derogatory term. I didn't mean it to be taken that way, at all. I used muggles in the title of this thread, not to disparage anyone, but just to describe "regular" non-Mustachians, i.e., non magical people.

When I tell muggles that my wife and I moved to Hawaii, back in the 90s, took very part-time, close to minimum wage jobs for the first 6 months, and that we still managed to save >50% of our income - in Hawaii!!! - they seem to have a hard time believing it. When I tell muggles that we have a completely paid for, almost brand new car sitting parked on the street, right in front of our paid off house but, yet, my wife regularly walks ~5 miles round trip to a small shop where she likes to buy certain specialty groceries, they seem to have a really hard time understanding why anyone would possibly do that. When I tell muggles that we haven't owned a TV since the 80s, their jaws literally drop wide open, and they just stare, incredulously, as they ask, "Why would you possibly not have a TV?" Recently, two acquaintances offered to give us their old TVs for free. They see us walking all over the neighborhood, so I guess they think we're poor and can't afford a television. I have a friend who works as a patent attorney in Beijing, making well into a six-figure income, who chooses to walk 10 kms, round trip, every day, from his apartment to his office and back, even though he has a perfectly good, almost new car sitting parked in the garage of the building where he lives. Muggles, especially in the US, can't imagine why anyone would possibly choose to do something like that, unless they were dirt poor and couldn't afford to drive by themselves in a car back and forth to work everyday.

Climate change would be easy to solve if everyone were Magical Mustachians. We could all just agree to walk/cycle/public transit to and from work everyday, quit flying around the world on vacations, do away with whole house heating/AC, quit buying a bunch of useless throw away crap that we don't need anyway, cut the world population by about 3/4, all move into cities, surrounded by farms within ~100kms radius, turn the rest of our countries into big national parks where people could enjoy cross country skiing, backpacking, canoeing, etc., and BOOM, problem solved. Unfortunately, if everyone lived the way we do, the stock market would be only a fraction of what it is now. Travel hacking? The only reason American Mustachians can easily get thousands of dollars a year in free travel using CC points is because the majority of our fellow Americans carry balances on their accounts and pay huge amounts of interest to the CC companies. If it weren't for muggles and their high consumption lifestyles, I'm pretty sure FIRE would be a lot more difficult, if not impossible...

I'm not offended by the term "muggle" in the least bit. Though I agree with others here that the premise of this thread is unhelpful because it veers into tribalism and scapegoating.

All the ideas you list for addressing CC are great. So let's do them where we already have agreement that CC is real and a problem. Instead of worrying about the "muggles" in red states, places like CA, WA, OR, CO and so on can in fact start doing these things now. Folks driving SUVs from McMansions to strip malls in OK shouldn't stop us from doing what is right and leading by example. But from what I observe in CA, we've totally dropped the ball as we continue to sprawl into farmland and the WUI, people continue to fly all over the globe for leisure, and wealthy (mostly older and white) folks continue to fight with everything they have to preserve  a suburban lifestyle.

Why waste time and effort on someone who doesn't think CO2 is a problem when a very large number of folks already agree on the science yet live lives that don't align with their beliefs? IMHO, it's more effective to spend time and effort on apostate wizards than muggles.

[StashingAway]

Cars for instance are only maybe 15% of our problem. And that is at a global scale. If you do want to phase out cars I think the infrastructure to avoid them simply has to be built up to make driving less desirable. As opposed to adding needless penalties on existing behavior.

Cities need to push hard and fast to improve green public transit. Existing cars need to move towards greener models. Electric, hybrid, fuel cell or any combination. The grid providing power for green cars needs to become more green. But we should have to sacrifice cultural staples like road trips and the easy ability to commute over long distances.

Encourage people to bike more is not a realistic solution in many cities where work and living areas are simply not in proximity to each other to create a desirable bike commute. Would it be healthy for me to bike 15 miles to and from work every day? Sure, but I don't want to have to do it and the road blocks to make that safer than driving are vast in my city. For a green future city planning probably needs an overhaul but again that involves a lot of challenging policy.

FWIW transportation is 29% of US green house gas emissions. How better to address this than to tax carbon and use the revenue to build green infrastructure?

As far as people who live too far out to be economically feasible to truly combat anthropic climate change, I don't care about them. My family lost our family farm because it was no longer economically feasible. I learned about man made climate change in 7th grade, and I'm 36 years old. Suck it up buttercup. A bunch of east coast real estate will soon be worth nothing, they should have seen that coming.

Perhaps it would be better to use that revenue as a flat dividend back to the people, then let the local markets figure out the best way to deal with climate change. It's impossible to proscribe solutions because it will be different in different locations. Coal would quickly be phased out. Efficiency and green energy would be incentivized. Local governments and individuals would automatically be drawn to the optimal solution to a problem with the price of carbon factored in.

[bacchi]

I'm not offended by the term "muggle" in the least bit. Though I agree with others here that the premise of this thread is unhelpful because it veers into tribalism and scapegoating.

All the ideas you list for addressing CC are great. So let's do them where we already have agreement that CC is real and a problem. Instead of worrying about the "muggles" in red states, places like CA, WA, OR, CO and so on can in fact start doing these things now. Folks driving SUVs from McMansions to strip malls in OK shouldn't stop us from doing what is right and leading by example. But from what I observe in CA, we've totally dropped the ball as we continue to sprawl into farmland and the WUI, people continue to fly all over the globe for leisure, and wealthy (mostly older and white) folks continue to fight with everything they have to preserve  a suburban lifestyle.

Why waste time and effort on someone who doesn't think CO2 is a problem when a very large number of folks already agree on the science yet live lives that don't align with their beliefs? IMHO, it's more effective to spend time and effort on apostate wizards than muggles.

Did you read the OP? The OP ended with,

I'm just feeling kinda hopeless. I mean, if 99% of Americans are unwilling to make even very small changes in their lives, what hope is there?

So instead of the dick eco measuring contest and the scapegoating, what can be done to encourage the 99% of Americans -- including urban Californians and rural Montanans -- to actually make changes?

Based on:

1) Follow-the-leader is great but it's going to be too slow. It also quickly degrades into "You're not being eco enough!" and "You're being a hypocrite for even using electricity to [get on the internet|dry your clothes|drive your EV]!"

2) Shaming is working in Sweden but I'm not convinced it'll work in the US or Canada or Australia.

I'm gonna go with Boofinator here. We need a carbon tax. It can be progressive or a rebate but it needs to have enough teeth to make an impact. Slap it on air travel and non-renewable electricity and petrol and even consumer goods. Make people think of the impact their consumer choices have on the environment.

How to avoid the French riots? Besides the fact that they love their riots, that's where the rebate comes in. Hell, make the rebate a partial auto-contribution to a retirement fund.

[FINate]

I'm not offended by the term "muggle" in the least bit. Though I agree with others here that the premise of this thread is unhelpful because it veers into tribalism and scapegoating.

All the ideas you list for addressing CC are great. So let's do them where we already have agreement that CC is real and a problem. Instead of worrying about the "muggles" in red states, places like CA, WA, OR, CO and so on can in fact start doing these things now. Folks driving SUVs from McMansions to strip malls in OK shouldn't stop us from doing what is right and leading by example. But from what I observe in CA, we've totally dropped the ball as we continue to sprawl into farmland and the WUI, people continue to fly all over the globe for leisure, and wealthy (mostly older and white) folks continue to fight with everything they have to preserve  a suburban lifestyle.

Why waste time and effort on someone who doesn't think CO2 is a problem when a very large number of folks already agree on the science yet live lives that don't align with their beliefs? IMHO, it's more effective to spend time and effort on apostate wizards than muggles.

Did you read the OP? The OP ended with,

I'm just feeling kinda hopeless. I mean, if 99% of Americans are unwilling to make even very small changes in their lives, what hope is there?

So instead of the dick eco measuring contest and the scapegoating, what can be done to encourage the 99% of Americans -- including urban Californians and rural Montanans -- to actually make changes?

Based on:

1) Follow-the-leader is great but it's going to be too slow. It also quickly degrades into "You're not being eco enough!" and "You're being a hypocrite for even using electricity to [get on the internet|dry your clothes|drive your EV]!"

2) Shaming is working in Sweden but I'm not convinced it'll work in the US or Canada or Australia.

I'm gonna go with Boofinator here. We need a carbon tax. It can be progressive or a rebate but it needs to have enough teeth to make an impact. Slap it on air travel and non-renewable electricity and petrol and even consumer goods. Make people think of the impact their consumer choices have on the environment.

How to avoid the French riots? Besides the fact that they love their riots, that's where the rebate comes in. Hell, make the rebate a partial auto-contribution to a retirement fund.

Fair enough.

But CA (which I'll pick on since I reside there) has the ability to pass a carbon tax. In fact, it kinda sorta already does with its cap and trade program, but has essentially gutted it by selling/grandfathering too many emission allowances. CA prides itself as having the world's 5th largest economy, so putting real teeth behind cap and trade would be significant. So why don't we do it already? The Dems have a legislative supermajority and the Governor's mansion.

I'm calling their bluff. They don't have the guts or the will to do it. Like single payer (which CA could also do if we really wanted it) state leaders are holding onto CC as a wedge issue for political purposes while giving cover to virtual signaling hypocrites rather than taking decisive action.

[bacchi]

But CA (which I'll pick on since I reside there) has the ability to pass a carbon tax. In fact, it kinda sorta already does with its cap and trade program, but has essentially gutted it by selling/grandfathering too many emission allowances. CA prides itself as having the world's 5th largest economy, so putting real teeth behind cap and trade would be significant. So why don't we do it already? The Dems have a legislative supermajority and the Governor's mansion.

I'm calling their bluff. They don't have the guts or the will to do it. Like single payer (which CA could also do if we really wanted it) state leaders are holding onto CC as a wedge issue for political purposes while giving cover to virtual signaling hypocrites rather than taking decisive action.

That's exactly the point. (And you're scapegoating those vile Democrats even after you called out scapegoating.)

No one wants to make changes. No one wants to "lower" their quality of life. How does one convince anyone, even purportedly environmentalists, to actually make changes?

Politicians are too timid, the well off have FOMO, the working-class and lower are trying to scrape by -- who's the hero? (Yeah, yeah, I'm the hero but see 1) above. We can measure our penises kwh but it's too little too slow and it's debatable whether it's influencing anyone.)

[PDXTabs]

Perhaps it would be better to use that revenue as a flat dividend back to the people, then let the local markets figure out the best way to deal with climate change.

Local markets aren't going to build rail lines, bike lanes, remove on street parking, or install more bus-only lanes. Local government might, but not local markets.

[FINate]

That's exactly the point. (And you're scapegoating those vile Democrats even after you called out scapegoating.)

No one wants to make changes. No one wants to "lower" their quality of life. How does one convince anyone, even purportedly environmentalists, to actually make changes?

Politicians are too timid, the well off have FOMO, the working-class and lower are trying to scrape by -- who's the hero? (Yeah, yeah, I'm the hero but see 1) above. We can measure our penises kwh but it's too little too slow and it's debatable whether it's influencing anyone.)

I live in CA, which is deep blue and has been for a long time. And the Democratic party purports to believe in climate change science. Is it scapegoating to hold voters and elected officials to stated beliefs and goals, and then point out where we are incongruent? Perhaps. But IMO it's fair game. Certainly more so than blaming other places and/or other political parties that effectively have zero political power here.

I don't particularly want apartment blocks towering over my house and quite enjoy having a smallish yard. But the results of our broken land use policies are evident all around me so I loudly advocate for dense housing in my city, in my neighborhood, and in my backyard. Things like showing up at city council meetings and voicing unpopular opinions. It's insane to me that saying we should build housing for people is controversial, but here we are. This makes me a pariah with neighbors who assume I must secretly be a developer. Now I don't think makes me some kind of saint, there are plenty areas where we're still making progress to reduce our carbon footprint. But dense walkable cities with good public transit by far have the highest positive impact on reducing climate change, and they also happen to be healthy for people as well. [ https://www.sierraclub.org/redwood/blog/2019/09/sierra-club-updates-urban-infill-policy ]

YIMBYs are a relatively small band of misfits, but we are seeing some modest success. A handful of pro-housing/pro-density bills were signed into law last year, however, the big one SB 50 failed. Voters can and should be vocal in holding politicians to account for their actions.

A carbon tax is fine and a necessary part of the solution, but a tax alone won't work. What's the point of making gasoline $6/gallon (or whatever) if this disproportionately falls on poor people that have been priced out of cities and are essentially forced to commute from the exurbs? Subsidizing poor people so they can continue to commute from far flung places where they can afford a roof overhead is silly and doesn't reduce CO2 emissions.

 

[bacchi]

I live in CA, which is deep blue and has been for a long time. And the Democratic party purports to believe in climate change science. Is it scapegoating to hold voters and elected officials to stated beliefs and goals, and then point out where we are incongruent? Perhaps. But IMO it's fair game. Certainly more so than blaming other places and/or other political parties that effectively have zero political power here.

California deserves blame and you can blame whomever you want. Just don't be surprised when someone else scapegoats Wyomites for driving more than Californians. Holy shit, they drive a lot and I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that it's not EV driving powered from solar panels.

A carbon tax is fine and a necessary part of the solution, but a tax alone won't work. What's the point of making gasoline $6/gallon (or whatever) if this disproportionately falls on poor people that have been priced out of cities and are essentially forced to commute from the exurbs? Subsidizing poor people so they can continue to commute from far flung places where they can afford a roof overhead is silly and doesn't reduce CO2 emissions.

Yeah, more diverse, dense, and affordable housing is definitely part of the solution. NIMBYism is strong, as you noted, even in blue cities.

Christopher Alexander long ago suggested "fingers" of farmland reaching into dense cities. You get the density needed for walkable neighborhoods but also the nature that city residents sometimes desire as well as the farmland that cities need to function. Meanwhile, farmers/ranchers are closer to cities too and don't have to drive 45 minutes to get to a hardware store (and can use city sewers). This might require some creative tax schemes and local push/pull but it can be done.

Compare that to our current system of a blob spreading outwards, consuming everything in its path.

[Wrenchturner]

"The climate crisis is not only the single greatest challenge facing our country; it is also our single greatest opportunity to build a more just and equitable future, but we must act immediately." - A guy who owns three houses with zero solar panels(Bernie Sanders).

I do believe climate change is a prisoner's dilemma, but the prisoners who are best positioned to make changes are not choosing to do so.  If the wealthy and political do not embrace efforts to improve the climate, the average citizen certainly will not.  Most average or below average people or families are simply trying to save their own world, not THE world.

[PDXTabs]

A guy who owns three houses with zero solar panels(Bernie Sanders).

If you think that individuals putting solar panels on their houses is the answer to climate change then I want you to sit down and start over at the beginning.

[FINate]

I live in CA, which is deep blue and has been for a long time. And the Democratic party purports to believe in climate change science. Is it scapegoating to hold voters and elected officials to stated beliefs and goals, and then point out where we are incongruent? Perhaps. But IMO it's fair game. Certainly more so than blaming other places and/or other political parties that effectively have zero political power here.

California deserves blame and you can blame whomever you want. Just don't be surprised when someone else scapegoats Wyomites for driving more than Californians. Holy shit, they drive a lot and I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that it's not EV driving powered from solar panels.

I have no doubt that Wyomites drive a lot, and probably in very inefficient vehicles as well. But population of Wyoming is around 600,000 compared to California's ~40,000,000. That's a 67x difference. So I view this like a premature optimization problem...don't bother optimizing the for-loop that's rarely executed, instead focus on fixing the n^2 algorithm that's executed in a tight loop.

That, and Californians drive a lot more than people realize. We have a growing number of super commuters driving huge distances every day which, if you think about it, is a rather sad state of affairs.

A carbon tax is fine and a necessary part of the solution, but a tax alone won't work. What's the point of making gasoline $6/gallon (or whatever) if this disproportionately falls on poor people that have been priced out of cities and are essentially forced to commute from the exurbs? Subsidizing poor people so they can continue to commute from far flung places where they can afford a roof overhead is silly and doesn't reduce CO2 emissions.

Yeah, more diverse, dense, and affordable housing is definitely part of the solution. NIMBYism is strong, as you noted, even in blue cities.

Christopher Alexander long ago suggested "fingers" of farmland reaching into dense cities. You get the density needed for walkable neighborhoods but also the nature that city residents sometimes desire as well as the farmland that cities need to function. Meanwhile, farmers/ranchers are closer to cities too and don't have to drive 45 minutes to get to a hardware store (and can use city sewers). This might require some creative tax schemes and local push/pull but it can be done.

Compare that to our current system of a blob spreading outwards, consuming everything in its path.

Interesting. Yes, blob is a good descriptor.

[Wrenchturner]

A guy who owns three houses with zero solar panels(Bernie Sanders).

If you think that individuals putting solar panels on their houses is the answer to climate change then I want you to sit down and start over at the beginning.

1. might as well not bother then, right?  We're back to a prisoner's dilemma.
2. Bernie likes solar panels, but he doesn't own any.  Pretty sure he doesn't own any geothermal or wind generators either, the three of which are selected explicitly in his Green New Deal:
https://berniesanders.com/en/issues/green-new-deal/

[PDXTabs]

might as well not bother then, right?  We're back to a prisoner's dilemma.

My home is 100% powered by renewable energy. But wait, I don't have any personal solar panels?!!? Why would I pay for my own personal solar panels when I can pay my utility to use theirs (along with wind, biomass, geothermal, and hydropower)? Surely there is an economy of scale that is possible with community solar that is not with personal solar.

[Kyle Schuant]

The big one for politicians wouldn't be their domestic electricity use, it'd be all their flights. If their house used double the 14kWh/day average and got all their electricity from coal, that's about 10 tonnes of CO2-equivalent annually.

That's 40 hours of flights, not counting that these guys don't fly economy and take a huge crew of flunkies with them. Either way, the presidential candidates probably each did 40 hours of flights last fortnight.

Now, since obviously they have to travel a lot to meet people in person and maximise their chances of winning, and doing less travel reduces their chances of winning - if a candidate talking about climate change takes the train on their campaign, then we'll know they're serious. They're willing to bet their candidacy on it! :)

[PDXTabs]

In Europe politicians are starting to get called out for ridiculous flights: Boris Johnson takes private jet to fly 25 minutes from Doncaster to Darlington, despite train taking just 53 minutes.

[Wrenchturner]

Surely there is an economy of scale that is possible with community solar that is not with personal solar.

I hope so, and I hope it gets adopted.  I don't have such an option.

[PDXTabs]

Surely there is an economy of scale that is possible with community solar that is not with personal solar.

I hope so, and I hope it gets adopted.  I don't have such an option.

This is something that you could raise a stink about at the local level. For reference, this is what my utility offers: PGE Green Source.

EDITed to add - and I think they have offered it for over 10 years. I believe that I originally signed it up for it 15 years ago.

[Boofinator]

CA (which I'll pick on since I reside there) has the ability to pass a carbon tax.

So did Washington. The "Ever-Green" state. Newsflash, it didn't pass. https://www.hcn.org/issues/51.1/energy-and-industry-what-killed-washingtons-carbon-tax

Two things that I think would have been helpful for the initiative: a national platform (since Washingtonians don't want to sacrifice when everybody else isn't), and a republican (not capital R) process rather than a democratic (not capital D) one (since I think it might be easier to get a majority of 538 to pass a bill than a majority of 300 million to pass a referendum). Though to be brutally honest with myself, Washington state's failure to pass the initiative by a large margin shows the challenges that reality faces.

[js82]

"The climate crisis is not only the single greatest challenge facing our country; it is also our single greatest opportunity to build a more just and equitable future, but we must act immediately." - A guy who owns three houses with zero solar panels(Bernie Sanders).

I do believe climate change is a prisoner's dilemma, but the prisoners who are best positioned to make changes are not choosing to do so.  If the wealthy and political do not embrace efforts to improve the climate, the average citizen certainly will not.  Most average or below average people or families are simply trying to save their own world, not THE world.

Agree with the last part of this(i.e. people who aren't wealthy are more concerned about getting buy than preventing global warming), but I still think the path has to lie with policy - based on your posts, I know that you believe that the overwhelming majority of people will respond to incentives.  The trick is you need a politician with the guts to incentivize greener policies in a way that works for families on an average working class income, and who is willing to fight through the astroturfed blowback that will inevitably come from Big Oil Money.

The "find some random thing about a liberal to turn into the next 'look at the liberal hypocrite' meme is pretty much a right-wing internet trope at this point.  It's a great way to avoid having a serious debate about policy.

[Shane]

None of the muggles I'm referring to are knuckle dragging, climate-change denying, Trump voters from red states. They're all highly educated, rich, privileged, woke folks, who claim to "believe" in anthropogenic climate change. Yet, when I suggest we make fossil fuels more expensive to induce people to use less, every. single. one. of. them. starts whining, "But, but, but, what about the poor people who *have* to drive 50 miles each way to work?" My guess is they aren't really as concerned about the *poor* people as they are about themselves. They don't want to give up their fun little ski weekends in Switzerland. They don't want to have to get rid of that new F-350 and the awesome RV they bought last year. They don't want to have to move out of their McMansion and into a smaller house or apartment, closer to work. TBH, I have zero interest in trying to persuade people who don't want to change to do anything. Muggles are expert at coming up with excuses for why they can't make any changes in their lives. I just feel like it's a waste of time arguing with them.

-"There's no way we could ever move into a smaller place, closer to town. We've got 5 dogs (or horses or llamas or guinea pigs or whatever), and they need a big yard to run around in, blah, blah, blah."

-"My wife is disabled from a car crash she got into two years ago, so we *have* to drive everywhere in a car. There's no way we could ride bikes or walk or take public transit."

I like the idea suggested in this thread of a carbon tax with a dividend that gets redistributed to everyone. That way, those of us who use much less fossil fuels than average would get a bonus. People who wanted to continue living in their 4000sqft McMansions in the suburbs and commuting alone in their Hummers would be free to do so. They'd just have to be able to pay for it. No arguments, no persuasion would be necessary.

Some people have suggested in this thread, and I've also heard it a lot IRL, that we should build bike lanes, increase buses, etc., *before* taxing the shit out of fossil fuels. I disagree. Humans are incredibly resourceful creatures. If the price of gasoline doubled, because of a carbon tax, people would come up with solutions on their own. Some people might start walking, riding bicycles or taking public transport. Others would come up with different solutions, like carpooling. Right now, the vast majority of commuters are riding alone in their vehicles. If the price of gasoline doubled, because of a carbon tax, it might spur some people to actually talk with their co-workers and to propose that they commute together. Someone who really likes driving his car to work everyday would only need to find one co-worker who lived nearby to split gasoline costs in order to halve his fuel bill and also his carbon footprint. Problem solved. No bike lanes and no extra buses necessary.

If enough people in a given community started cycling to work, they would have an incentive to band together to lobby their local government to get separate bike lanes built. If buses started getting to standing room only capacity, the bus company would recognize that and, hopefully, come to the logical conclusion that it needed to add more buses to meet demand. Why not put the pressure on fossil fuel users first and then see what directions people start to move in. If lots of people started abandoning their McMansions in the suburbs in favor of apartments in the city, then local governments could maybe start giving developers incentives to encourage them to build denser developments to accommodate the increased demand for housing. It just seems to me that building a bunch of bike lanes or adding more public transit or building denser housing in the city, first, before taxing fossil fuels, would be putting the cart before the horse.

[PDXTabs]

Some people have suggested in this thread, and I've also heard it a lot IRL, that we should build bike lanes, increase buses, etc., *before* taxing the shit out of fossil fuels. I disagree.

Especially since there will never been public support to build all those bike lanes and buy all those buses until after driving is expensive. Otherwise you won't have the public support, especially if you need to remove a car lane or car parking.

[Fru-Gal]

I'm not against a carbon tax or dividend, I think it's a good idea. I get tired of debating the order in which things ought to happen. That may just be my personality. At some point I just want to DO something and since I can't pass a tax that won't be what I do.

I will say that talking about taxes, which many environmentalists around the world do, seems a lack of imagination to me. It's so dull. Death and taxes dull. And it's too abstract. And so often, we see taxes pilfered and frittered away to no good use. You can say that's bad of me but let's remember the idea of behavior change, and the best way to achieve it. I say leave the taxes to the bureaucrats. Or make the corporations pay them. (Maybe that's what the cap and trade system is, dunno.)

Dividend is better, maybe. Yang has gotten a lot of mileage with his Freedom Dividend.

I'm also not overly impressed by the Green New Deal, which I have read (albeit a while ago). I think there was a lot of extra political stuff put in there that just serves to fuel "religious" wars, while the really practical ideas and incentives to invent green tech may have been left out.

The name was great (at least, for those who think the first New Deal sounded like a good idea).

The idea about flight shaming was very interesting, though I'm not convinced based on one article and one year's data that that was what was happening. But it is reassuring that Greta is having such an effect, especially in her home country. Shame is probably part of the mix, just like taxes.

Martin Luther King did not lead with shame and guilt. He painted a picture in our minds of a better world.

Right now there's a vast fossil fuel coalition that is working hard to paint a picture of a world where we can burn all this gas. And global warming is advantageous to certain countries in terms of oil exploration and passage.

Interestingly, the auto industry itself is not convinced, and has already planned end of life for ICE cars.

[Fru-Gal]

OTOH I'm down with some shaming of celebrities and politicians for eco-hypocrisy, if it changes their actions.

[PDXTabs]

I'm also not overly impressed by the Green New Deal, which I have read (albeit a while ago). I think there was a lot of extra political stuff put in there that just serves to fuel "religious" wars, while the really practical ideas and incentives to invent green tech may have been left out.

That's pretty much why the carbon tax is so popular with economists. It's much harder to politicize a carbon tax than any other option. That said, in the sense that we need a national (or international) mobilization, I'm not opposed to a green new deal, per se.

[FINate]

At the risk of coming across as a total housing zealot crazy person: High density housing addresses a lot of the issues you mentioned.

Remove parking requirements and it becomes difficult to keep vehicles in the city. Charging for for street parking is even better (and can be done under the guise of mitigating traffic).

Housing with off-street parking/garages becomes much more expensive relative to car-free dwellings.

The true cost of parking an RV becomes a lot more apparent when the space premium increases dramatically.

Urban infill removes parking around job centers, especially surface parking lots. Good luck navigating a F350 in a subterranean parking garage.

As people in an area start to walk and bike more, spending priorities change. Why make roads better for those commuting from far away when we can spend our limited transportation dollars improving walking/biking for residents?

As cities densify and make room for bike lanes it takes longer to drive in from the burbs so this becomes an even less attractive option.

The really great news is that many of the younger generation get it. They aren't that interested in cars. They want to walk and bike. They want to live in dense, efficient cities. One of the main things holding back progress, however, are the older generations who happen to have a lot of the political power.

[Wrenchturner]

Agree with the last part of this(i.e. people who aren't wealthy are more concerned about getting buy than preventing global warming), but I still think the path has to lie with policy - based on your posts, I know that you believe that the overwhelming majority of people will respond to incentives.  The trick is you need a politician with the guts to incentivize greener policies in a way that works for families on an average working class income, and who is willing to fight through the astroturfed blowback that will inevitably come from Big Oil Money.

You got me.  And it's a tall order to expect a roughly-libertarian solution to climate change; a weakness in my position.  But given the scale of the problem, it's going to require the participation of individuals.  Hopefully enough innovation can create affordable green products and services in the near future to make the choice easier. 

The "find some random thing about a liberal to turn into the next 'look at the liberal hypocrite' meme is pretty much a right-wing internet trope at this point.  It's a great way to avoid having a serious debate about policy.

It's a consistent idea because it's true.  And owning three houses is not a random thing, it's relevant and a great example of a prominent politician saying one thing and doing another.  The Green New Deal is a big part of Bernie's platform and the houses he owns are a clear indication of his priorities. 

The more I think about it, though, the more I realize that this issue seems like more of an economic one.  The middle class and below haven't seen enough standard of living increase to embrace this kind of activism, whereas the upper middle and upper class have seen plenty of wealth growth in the last ten years and might feel sympathetic to the cause.  I don't think this divergence of sentiment is limited to climate change.  You can see it in immigration discussions, and separatist ideas like brexit, etc.

[PDXTabs]

At the risk of coming across as a total housing zealot crazy person: High density housing addresses a lot of the issues you mentioned.

I'm pretty sure that housing zealots are welcome in this thread, and I agree with you.

As cities densify and make room for bike lanes it takes longer to drive in from the burbs so this becomes an even less attractive option.

Yes, there are plenty of places that it is equally fast for me to get to on my bicycle as in my car because of urban traffic, and when I get there I don't have to fight for parking.

[RetiredAt63]

I remember when gasoline went over $1.00/l. Everyone slowed down until they got used to it, and then speeds picked back up. It's more expensive in Australia and way more expensive in New Zealand.   I'm seeing lots of smaller SUVs but not nearly as many really big trucks.  So high gas prices may help a little, but not a lot. Making it hard to drive vehicles and especially big vehicles will help.  So cut back on freeways and lots of parking, and start the alternative infrastructure because it takes time to implement and have ready for increased demand.

Efficient houses will help more, because the savings are so obvious. A well insulated house needs less heat in the winter and less AC in the summer.  That includes public housing, which is usually crappy, costs a lot to run, and is most easily upgraded because it is public. They are doing that in parts of New Zealand.   Much stricter standards for rental housing than they used to have.

[Kyle Schuant]

“The kind of SUV environmentalism that waxes rhapsodic about all the things everybody else ought to do for the environment, while doing few or none of them, is not a viable response to the crisis of our time.”
― John Michael Greer, Green Wizardry: Conservation, Solar Power, Organic Gardening, and Other Hands-On Skills From the Appropriate Tech Toolkit

[Boofinator]

I remember when gasoline went over $1.00/l. Everyone slowed down until they got used to it, and then speeds picked back up.

$1 per liter (about $4 per gallon) is still way too cheap to induce the amount of behavioral change that is needed. But carbon taxes are effective (as long as the policy can get passed), as indicated by the results from Vancouver's modest tax: https://grist.org/climate-energy/heres-why-b-c-s-carbon-tax-is-super-popular-and-effective/.

[LennStar]

A guy who owns three houses with zero solar panels(Bernie Sanders).

If you think that individuals putting solar panels on their houses is the answer to climate change then I want you to sit down and start over at the beginning.

1. might as well not bother then, right?  We're back to a prisoner's dilemma.
2. Bernie likes solar panels, but he doesn't own any.  Pretty sure he doesn't own any geothermal or wind generators either, the three of which are selected explicitly in his Green New Deal:
https://berniesanders.com/en/issues/green-new-deal/

Maybe it is simply not the best solution?

Solar on roofs are fairly often in more denser areas, especially from the time you got a lot of money for it.
But now that the solar panels are dirt cheap compared to 20 years ago, putting them on roofs is actually a bad decision. Because for the same money you could put 2 or 3 times more on level ground. Like former industry areas where nobody wants to live and nothing can be grown because of old waste and poison.

Wind is even worse for position.

Geothermal is generally possible everywhere, but here also there are different factors, and it surely is not the cheapest variant. Also not everybody in denser areas could do geothermal, because it would become geoicy.
Example: for low depth geothermal (the affordable sort) the area you need to heat a house is generally a bit bigger than the house and garden the people have in typical suburban (EU standards). Old style villages, where you can't throw a stone through the window of your neighbor from your own house are okay, but modern with 3-4 times the density are not.

[Boofinator]

Solar on roofs are fairly often in more denser areas, especially from the time you got a lot of money for it.
But now that the solar panels are dirt cheap compared to 20 years ago, putting them on roofs is actually a bad decision. Because for the same money you could put 2 or 3 times more on level ground. Like former industry areas where nobody wants to live and nothing can be grown because of old waste and poison.

I don't disagree with your cost figures, but I question whether the monetary aspect is the only aspect that should be considered. Solar farms take up huge amounts of land area (with the associated environmental degradation), relative to rooftop solar which does not take up any.

[Wrenchturner]

Solar on roofs are fairly often in more denser areas, especially from the time you got a lot of money for it.
But now that the solar panels are dirt cheap compared to 20 years ago, putting them on roofs is actually a bad decision. Because for the same money you could put 2 or 3 times more on level ground. Like former industry areas where nobody wants to live and nothing can be grown because of old waste and poison.

I don't disagree with your cost figures, but I question whether the monetary aspect is the only aspect that should be considered. Solar farms take up huge amounts of land area (with the associated environmental degradation), relative to rooftop solar which does not take up any.

Not to mention - aren't we supposed to be avoiding idealistic thinking?  Sounds like @LennStar should be directing their concerns at Bernies green deal.  The point I'm making is the hypocrisy, not the precise specifics.  You'd think someone as wealthy as him and as politically visible would be interested in walking the walk, so to speak.  If it's not within Bernies grasp to install some panels, it's not within my grasp to drive less.

[roomtempmayo]

I'm also not overly impressed by the Green New Deal, which I have read (albeit a while ago). I think there was a lot of extra political stuff put in there that just serves to fuel "religious" wars, while the really practical ideas and incentives to invent green tech may have been left out.

That's pretty much why the carbon tax is so popular with economists. It's much harder to politicize a carbon tax than any other option. That said, in the sense that we need a national (or international) mobilization, I'm not opposed to a green new deal, per se.

A carbon tax that's big enough to change the core behaviors of society - where we live, how much we drive, and what we buy - is going to become very, very toxic with people who have a large carbon footprint.  I would suspect it'll be toxic enough to become a voting issue, and likely a protests-in-the-streets issue.

The reason it would likely work in spite of the blowback is that if you run it on a revenue neutral basis the dividend creates its own constituency to fight for it.  People who are seeing a substantial chunk of change ($100+?) deposited in their account every month are going to become fond of the dividend in a hurry.

But, a government that tries to move where people live en masse is still going to be called Stalinist, dividend or not.

[Fru-Gal]

Relevant to this dividend idea is my experience using OhmConnect to save electricity. It's brilliant, it's easy, it's gratifying, you can make some small change doing it, and kids love it (after the first one, mine asked when we were doing it again -- they wanted an Ohm Hour every night!).

I'm excited to see this as the first wave (?) of consumer apps built off of smart meter data.

http://ohmconnect.com/

https://www.ohmconnect.com/faq/en/articles/1056428-how-does-it-work

There is so much energy optimization possible!

[roomtempmayo]

For those talking about eliminating on-street parking, what are you envisioning becoming of that space?

Where I am at least, the roadway is a perpetual right of way easement on top of private property.  The lot extends all the way to the centerline of the street.  So, if you dig up the street and make it narrower, the use of the property would revert to the property owner.

What I expect would happen in lots of cases where parking is in short supply, is that the property owners would just put up their own private, now "off street", parking in the spot that used to be public parking.

Maybe that's not an awful shift since it alleviates the public responsibility to pay for that parking, but it wouldn't be some sort of landscape-level transformation.

I do think that a lot of neighborhoods on grids with both alley access and road frontage could do without the road frontage.  Rip up a good share of the city streets while maintaining alley access, and run sidewalks where the roads used to be.  Let the remaining roadway space revert to front lawns.

[FINate]

Protected bike lanes. Wider sidewalks.

[bacchi]

For those talking about eliminating on-street parking, what are you envisioning becoming of that space?

Where I am at least, the roadway is a perpetual right of way easement on top of private property.  The lot extends all the way to the centerline of the street.  So, if you dig up the street and make it narrower, the use of the property would revert to the property owner.

Would the city easement go away if there wasn't a paved street? The city still has to run underground utilities and bike lanes and sidewalks would still be city maintained uses.

I'd expect there to be a narrow lane left for delivery vehicles. In my neighborhood, 2 car families don't want to switch cars in the morning so one car sits in the street. It's a waste of space.

My parents live in a typical 90s suburb and the streets are 35 feet wide. It's not like there's heavy traffic and every house has a 2 car wide driveway.

[PDXTabs]

For those talking about eliminating on-street parking, what are you envisioning becoming of that space?

Protected bike lanes or bus only lanes.

[Kyle Schuant]

For those talking about eliminating on-street parking, what are you envisioning becoming of that space?

In my neighbourhood it'd just be roads, still. Long ago it was factories and market gardens. Then the market gardens got broken up into quarter-acre blocks with 2-3 bedroom houses which each had at most 1 car, they generally parked on their own driveway. So the street could be relatively narrow.

Now many of the quarter-acre blocks have been subdivided into 3-4 units or townhouses, each with 1-2 cars. For each house-wide piece of street frontage we've gone from 1 to 3-6 cars in some cases. Because of parked cars, the street is one-way in many parts, you have to pull over to let oncoming traffic pass.

Increasing housing density means either allowing lots of street parking, or increasing public transport. Unfortunately, local council areas are largely responsible for deciding housing density, but the state is entirely responsible for deciding public transport.

Where decent public transport is available, people can and do choose to use it. There's no way my wife would drive to the CBD, but she takes the train there.

Of course, with intelligent zoning laws people wouldn't have to travel 20+km to work. This thing of having one massive residential area, one massive commercial area, one massive industrial area - it's like some communist playing SimCity. "Let us build One Big Facility, comrade!" It's stupid.

[Wrenchturner]

Of course, with intelligent zoning laws people wouldn't have to travel 20+km to work. This thing of having one massive residential area, one massive commercial area, one massive industrial area - it's like some communist playing SimCity. "Let us build One Big Facility, comrade!" It's stupid.

This really bugs me.  The industrial area I work in is completely bike-nonfriendly.

[Chris22]

"The climate crisis is not only the single greatest challenge facing our country; it is also our single greatest opportunity to build a more just and equitable future, but we must act immediately." - A guy who owns three houses with zero solar panels(Bernie Sanders).

I do believe climate change is a prisoner's dilemma, but the prisoners who are best positioned to make changes are not choosing to do so.  If the wealthy and political do not embrace efforts to improve the climate, the average citizen certainly will not.  Most average or below average people or families are simply trying to save their own world, not THE world.

It’s amazing to think that lots of righties see global warming climate change as something the left exaggerates/hystericalizes to push a lefty agenda given what people like Sanders and AOC say.

[Kyle Schuant]

A friend of mine was asking how he could do his daily walk for his health. He has to drive more than 30km to his work along highways, and works in an industrial warehousing area. In that 7am-6pm time there's no real chance for him to safely do a walk, let alone a cycle. And he has a desk job.

"It may be," I said, "that your chosen work is not good for your health."

If he worked closer to home in an area with less roads, trucks and concrete, that'd be good for his carbon impact - but good for his physical and mental health, too. Now, there are reasons he makes this choice, but whether his reasons are good or bad makes no difference to his physical or mental health, which are hurt somewhat by his current work. That's why I say it's better to present the carbon changes needed in terms of their other benefits.

More relevant for this discussion, my friend's good reasons for his poor (for his health) choices do nothing to cause government to want to change zoning laws and road-building and the like.

The way I see it, the government is like corporations: it will adjust to our choices and demands over time. If more and more people work closer to home, use public transport or walk, policies and options will slowly change. Government's just slower than corporations are to respond to demand, that's all. But it does eventually get it.

And that's why the first question I asked the OP was what he'd personally done to reduce his impact. A while back in Australia we had a national vote on whether to allow same-sex marriage. Both before and after that people were polled on their opinions about it. And the interesting thing was, the more gay people a person knew, the more likely they were to support same-sex marriage. Obviously they didn't become gay themselves, but they decided they didn't want to stand in the way of other people living like that. If you actually know someone living a lifestyle, you come to see its value. But if every gay person were in the closet, then straight people wouldn't realise they know anyway. It took the courage of many gay people to come out and let people know who they were before straight people could know them and support their having the same rights as them.

If people see you living a lower-impact lifestyle, they will come to see its value; even if they don't change themselves, they'll support changes to make it easier for you to live like that. The first step isn't talking to people about how they should live, it's living that way yourself.

[GuitarStv]

If people see you living a lower-impact lifestyle, they will come to see its value; even if they don't change themselves, they'll support changes to make it easier for you to live like that. The first step isn't talking to people about how they should live, it's living that way yourself.

I'm guessing you've not spent much time bike commuting?  :P

[Kyle Schuant]

Oh, everyone hates the lycra-clad greybeards.

Now, cycling in normal clothes on a cheap bike - well, you get a different response.

[Michael in ABQ]

Of course, with intelligent zoning laws people wouldn't have to travel 20+km to work. This thing of having one massive residential area, one massive commercial area, one massive industrial area - it's like some communist playing SimCity. "Let us build One Big Facility, comrade!" It's stupid.

This really bugs me.  The industrial area I work in is completely bike-nonfriendly.

There are legitimate reasons for separating industrial and residential/commercial areas. Most people probably don't want to back up to a warehouse with semi-trucks coming and going all day. Those same semi-trucks cannot easily maneuver and back into loading docks on narrow streets. Most zoning laws restrict the amount of noise or air pollution that can travel off the property. Take something like metalwork. The sound of grinding metal and the smell of welding are not necessarily pleasant but might only extend for 100-200 feet or so before dissipating. If that manufacturing is occurring in an industrial area surrounded by other similar businesses, it's expected and no one complains. If it's done surrounded by residential, there will be lots of complaints.


Land prices will always be higher in more desirable areas, i.e. closer to jobs and other amenities. Short of massive subsidies, you can't build an $800-per month two-bedroom apartment in Manhattan. The underlying land cost is simply too high. The reason that land is so expensive is because there are so many high-paying jobs and other desirable amenities. Some of those jobs are so specialized that they can only exist in very large markets where there is a large enough talent pool to find someone with that level of specialization.


It's difficult to fight basic economics. Supply and demand. Those can and are certainly affected by government regulation, zoning being one prominent example. But if lots of people want to live in walkable neighborhoods with tree-line streets and still have a yard - those homes will be very expensive. If land prices are very high, the only thing that will be financially feasible to build is a tower that maximizes that land and might be filled with hundreds of small apartments.

[ministashy]

Oh, everyone hates the lycra-clad greybeards.

Now, cycling in normal clothes on a cheap bike - well, you get a different response.

That definitely has not been my experience.  Unless you count a 'different response' being honked at, cursed at, and the occasional far-too-close pass in order to try and intimidate me off the road.