Talking With Muggles About Climate Change

[LennStar]

The problem is that all logical and long-time viewing people have already subscribed to anti-climate (putting aside how much they do).

But to solve such a big problem you need the vast mayority of people actually changing their way.

That cannot be feasibly done on an individual level. Most people (and no doubt that includes me) need a leader to change their ways (that is why Greta is so loved/hated right now in Europe) or they will fail in most cases or take ages to change. All big changes need a culmination point. There may be a vast potential bioling underground but it must be used.
Tesla did it for electric cars. Now every car maker needs to build them.
Or take Martin Luther King. His dead may be tragic, but it was the best that could happen to his cause.

People need an emotional anchor to change.

(If you were a Norwegian, maybe this would help https://www.nrk.no/chasing-climate-change-1.14859595)

That said, of course you can nudge them to do the right thing. But you need ot make it a win-win situation. And that is really hard. If they drive cars, of course they don't see (feel) the point of bike lanes, even if it would make their driving experience better if more people bike even when they are still sitting in the car! (Because of less other cars, less traffic, less bad air)

If you have to convinve people who are still not, don't use "the world" as reason. Use something they can personally experience or have. Like "Didn't you say just yesterday that you had to drive farer to find snow to ski? That is because climate change makes it warmer."


edit: Since I have just seen this (the headline at least), it is a perfect example of my last point. Don't talk about how dangerous (or not) the virus is, how the spread is going technically or whatever.
Make something like this: Video diary of Wuhan man whose wife is infected with Coronavirus
That is the way to get the gut people. Most of them have someone they care for close to them.

[marty998]

This whole thread is depressing.

Can someone explain to me how the conservatives in the UK have not only managed to accept the science of climate change, but propose and enact policies to actually do something about it (like the banning of sales of ICE motor vehicles by 2035)?

It would be nice to understand how that has happened, and the likelihood of Australian and US conservatives following suit.

We had the extraordinary exchange on a popular TV show last week with a conservative politician, who said that he doesn't believe man influences the climate, but he has an open mind*. When asked what evidence there was to support his view he said "I'm not relying on evidence".

He did not seem to understand the stupidity of that statement.

*The response to that statement from an actual climate scientist on the panel was that it is important to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.

[Bloop Bloop]

If you want people to use less carbon and use less petrol, tax the bejesus out of it. Like what we do with cigarettes.

The problem is that politicians don't have the guts to do this and the populace yells out about having to pay more tax. Here in Australia we were forced to (when we introduced the aborted carbon tax) compensate low and middle income earners, which just offsets the whole point of having a coercive system designed to get people to change their habits. If you have to compensate, do it via public transport concessions rather than handouts.

You can't just ask for rich people and large corporations to reduce their emissions. It has to be a societal thing.

[scottish]

Does anyone know how much carbon dioxide production can the world handle without triggering climate change?   I'm really asking how much stuff would we have to stop doing to address the climate change forecasts.

For example, would it be necessary to eliminate all personal motor vehicles?      Do we need to shut down travel?    Or would a hefty gasoline tax worldwide do the job?

[Hirondelle]

Where we live now, there is a great bike path along the river, just a couple blocks from our house. Pretty much nobody uses it, though. Recently, there were public meetings to discuss the renovation of a major road that runs through our neighborhood. Residents were given several different scenarios to vote on. One scenario would have reduced some parking spots and limited car lanes in some places, in exchange for a new bike path, which would have been separated from cars by a physical barrier. Residents voted overwhelmingly for the plan that nixed the bike path in favor of more parking spots and more lanes for cars.

There are a couple things here:

1.  Bike infrastructure needs to meed needs of people before they'll use it.  I've seen plenty of 'great bike paths along the river' that were designed by people who don't cycle for transport.  They tend to be nice for walking the dog, or taking the kid out on Saturday . . . but useless to get from place to place.  It's like building a 20 mile loop of freeway with a single on/off ramp just outside of town to address traffic congestion, and then being shocked that nobody seems to be using it.

That doesn't mean that people don't want to ride bikes, but it's frustratingly often used to shoot down bike infrastructure.

2.  People are notoriously bad at judging usage of cycle paths.  I wouldn't believe 'hardly used' claims if the bike path is in a sensible location though unless a proper study has been done.  There are several bike routes that folks argued were "hardly used" and should be removed here in Toronto.  Studies showed that they averaged about a thousand cyclists an hour.  They just seem empty all the time when compared to lines of cars in bumper to bumper gridlock next to 'em.

Agreed on both points. There is a world of difference between good and poor bike infrastructure, for both the cyclists and auto drivers.

That being said, I'm going to propose a third point: Until there is a severe economic penalty for driving a car relative to riding a bike, then riding a bike is going to be seen by most as frivolous. The corollary is that when such an economic penalty occurs, the demand for bike infrastructure should rise accordingly, as it will become generally accepted as a legitimate mode of transportation.

Economic penalty isn't the only option. What my city did when they saw the center getting clogged with cars was to make the city center less attractive for cars and more attractive for bikes/pedestrians. They redesigned roads in a way that made  most of them one-way and if you want to go from "rest of town" to "city center" it's actually faster to go by bike than to go by car. Not even counting parking yet.

At first shop owners were afraid that it would damage their sales, but the city got actually much more walkable, resulting in more people going shopping and better sales for shop owners. It did take some active remodeling of the roads though.

It's still totally doable to get to the city center by car, but for people who live <1 mile away it is more of a hassle compared to biking/walking (not even taking into account parking costs).

[Boofinator]

Economic penalty isn't the only option. What my city did when they saw the center getting clogged with cars was to make the city center less attractive for cars and more attractive for bikes/pedestrians. They redesigned roads in a way that made  most of them one-way and if you want to go from "rest of town" to "city center" it's actually faster to go by bike than to go by car. Not even counting parking yet.

At first shop owners were afraid that it would damage their sales, but the city got actually much more walkable, resulting in more people going shopping and better sales for shop owners. It did take some active remodeling of the roads though.

It's still totally doable to get to the city center by car, but for people who live <1 mile away it is more of a hassle compared to biking/walking (not even taking into account parking costs).

I agree that such suggestions could work on the local scale, though I'm doubtful that that approach can work on a large scale (and of course climate change is the largest scale problem we have at the moment).

[PDXTabs]

- It's difficult to say definitively whether any one flood, storm, unusually hot summer, etc. was caused by climate change

The reality is that climate change does not *cause* disasters, but it makes them worse.  Warmer temperatures increase moisture turnover, which make droughts *AND* floods worse.

It might not today, but one day it will. Or to be specific, over the next 1000 years we are on course for 160 feet of sea level rise. At that point you can't keeps saying that climate change "made flooding worse."

[Hirondelle]

Economic penalty isn't the only option. What my city did when they saw the center getting clogged with cars was to make the city center less attractive for cars and more attractive for bikes/pedestrians. They redesigned roads in a way that made  most of them one-way and if you want to go from "rest of town" to "city center" it's actually faster to go by bike than to go by car. Not even counting parking yet.

At first shop owners were afraid that it would damage their sales, but the city got actually much more walkable, resulting in more people going shopping and better sales for shop owners. It did take some active remodeling of the roads though.

It's still totally doable to get to the city center by car, but for people who live <1 mile away it is more of a hassle compared to biking/walking (not even taking into account parking costs).

I agree that such suggestions could work on the local scale, though I'm doubtful that that approach can work on a large scale (and of course climate change is the largest scale problem we have at the moment).

I 100% agree with you and yes, we definitely need more action. That doesn't make local scale action worthless though. Especially as it can snowball to other places once they realize they are succesful.

I live in a small country so by definition every action we do is 'meaningless', but that's the whole problem with climate change, ALL countries need to be on board to get stuff done. Even if the USA would cut 100% of its emissions that's only 15ish% of the world.

[Buffaloski Boris]

The problem is that all logical and long-time viewing people have already subscribed to anti-climate (putting aside how much they do).

But to solve such a big problem you need the vast mayority of people actually changing their way.

That cannot be feasibly done on an individual level. Most people (and no doubt that includes me) need a leader to change their ways (that is why Greta is so loved/hated right now in Europe) or they will fail in most cases or take ages to change. All big changes need a culmination point. There may be a vast potential bioling underground but it must be used.
Tesla did it for electric cars. Now every car maker needs to build them.
Or take Martin Luther King. His dead may be tragic, but it was the best that could happen to his cause.

People need an emotional anchor to change.

(If you were a Norwegian, maybe this would help https://www.nrk.no/chasing-climate-change-1.14859595)

That said, of course you can nudge them to do the right thing. But you need ot make it a win-win situation. And that is really hard. If they drive cars, of course they don't see (feel) the point of bike lanes, even if it would make their driving experience better if more people bike even when they are still sitting in the car! (Because of less other cars, less traffic, less bad air)

If you have to convinve people who are still not, don't use "the world" as reason. Use something they can personally experience or have. Like "Didn't you say just yesterday that you had to drive farer to find snow to ski? That is because climate change makes it warmer."


edit: Since I have just seen this (the headline at least), it is a perfect example of my last point. Don't talk about how dangerous (or not) the virus is, how the spread is going technically or whatever.
Make something like this: Video diary of Wuhan man whose wife is infected with Coronavirus
That is the way to get the gut people. Most of them have someone they care for close to them.

A good post. I disagree that personal action isn’t the way to go. If you’re waiting for a consensus to evolve on X issue, you’re going to be waiting for a long time.

This isn’t my charism, but if it were I would be looking more at root causes. Folks don’t want to give up a carbon lifestyle. Why? What makes someone want that over other alternatives? How does adoption of a more carbon neutral blueprint address other unmet needs?

Now this is just the opinion of one Russian Bot*, but I think a great issue to look into is loneliness. It is a huge social problem. People want tribe, they want to belong and this atomization of communities and culture is devastating. Both on people and the planet. OK. So how does a more carbon neutral lifestyle address that? I can think of several practical things. How about organizing a bike brewery crawl? And here’s the important part; get folks outside the usual converted to come along. Have extra bikes. Buy the first round. Is it going to change things massively in a week? Of course not. But leadership is how things change. Instill pleasant habits that help to change hearts and minds on a micro scale and watch where that leads.

Major revolutions are usually the result of a lot of smaller, less visible revolutions.

The important thing in my view is LEADERS need to stow their egos In a lockbox, listen, and look for creative opportunities.

*(Don’t listen to Russian Bots. They lie.)

[LennStar]

Does anyone know how much carbon dioxide production can the world handle without triggering climate change?   I'm really asking how much stuff would we have to stop doing to address the climate change forecasts.

For example, would it be necessary to eliminate all personal motor vehicles?      Do we need to shut down travel?    Or would a hefty gasoline tax worldwide do the job?

You are asking the wrong question. Climate Change is already happening - at an alarming rate even. If you mean the "tipping points" where self-increasing bad things happen.... well, those already start to happen.
The scientific target to not let it go totally devastating is the 1.5° C goal. We already have +1C.
For this, as always, the IPPC has estimates for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Global_Warming_of_1.5_%C2%B0C#Limiting_the_temperature_increase

I disagree that personal action isn’t the way to go.

I think you have misunderstood me.
When I said not feasable on an individual elvel I meant you cannot go around trying to convince everyone one after the other. There is no longer time for this. Exactly because of your lacking consensus ;)

The important thing in my view is LEADERS need to stow their egos In a lockbox, listen, and look for creative opportunities.

The important thing is to make it too costly for leaders to not do anything.
It is not (only) their ego that keeps leaders from doing things they want or need to, but all those people who make a lot of money with the status quo. They have the power, not the leader. Any leader that goes up against them will be kicked out. Why do you think there were that many "nonsense" titles made by kings? It created mutual dependence. The king assured loyality but had to give up something (so kings got creative).
(Really, read the dictator's handbook!)

When Ceasar gave to the poor masses, he had to take it from somewhere. He took it from the influentials. The rest is well known history. He was murdered by his closest, in front of the senators (the main influentials) who watched happily.

If you don't understand that - politics - you will forever wonder why Obama didn't shut down Guantanamo Bay for example. Or why after the big crash banking regulations still are more or less a joke.

[Leisured]

I'm a proponent of the carbon tax dividend. Tax the hell* out of carbon pollution, then provide a per capita dividend to every U.S. citizen equal to the total tax receipts (and in fact, give it out at the beginning of program implementation, and maybe every three months like Vanguard distributes dividends).

I agree. Such a scheme is similar to the state of Alaska receiving royalties on oil produced, then paying Alaskan residents a dividend. If carbon were taxed, everyone pays the tax on carbon, then receive the same dividend, but rich people use more energy, and so pay more carbon tax, than poor people.

The colder regions of the world will benefit from global warming, at the expense of tropical regions.

The irony is that Greta Thunberg comes from a cold country, Sweden, which will benefit from global warming. Same for all Northern Europe, Russia and Canada.

[GuitarStv]

The thing about taxing carbon is - it is not a solution.  It might help a bit . . . maybe even a fair amount.  But I don't ever see taxes on carbon being high enough to actually halt climate change because they would need to be priced at business-cripplingly high levels.  There's no country that will ever take the first step in that direction, it's political suicide.  If they're not priced high enough, then all we're doing in effect is saying that the rich can keep polluting as much as they want.

I'm not saying that they're bad . . . but carbon taxing is at best a first step.  Not a solution.

[js82]

The thing about taxing carbon is - it is not a solution.  It might help a bit . . . maybe even a fair amount.  But I don't ever see taxes on carbon being high enough to actually halt climate change because they would need to be priced at business-cripplingly high levels.  There's no country that will ever take the first step in that direction, it's political suicide.  If they're not priced high enough, then all we're doing in effect is saying that the rich can keep polluting as much as they want.

I'm not saying that they're bad . . . but carbon taxing is at best a first step.  Not a solution.

I don't necessarily disagree with the part in bold, but what are alternatives you see as *not* being political suicide?

Ultimately any viable solution needs to have the wealthy bear the bulk of the costs, whether that solution is a redistributive carbon tax or an aggressive program to build out renewable energy infrastructure.  It'll never get off the ground if people who are living paycheck-to-paycheck have to bear the burden.  To me the key to winning the battle is an effective strategy for fighting and winning against the disinformation campaign that will inevitably come from wealthy plutocrats masquerading as right-wing populists.  Because that's exactly how this(and so many other things in our society) plays out - the ultra-wealthy stifle positive change by pitting the poor against the working class against the middle class.

[sixwings]

Where we live now, there is a great bike path along the river, just a couple blocks from our house. Pretty much nobody uses it, though. Recently, there were public meetings to discuss the renovation of a major road that runs through our neighborhood. Residents were given several different scenarios to vote on. One scenario would have reduced some parking spots and limited car lanes in some places, in exchange for a new bike path, which would have been separated from cars by a physical barrier. Residents voted overwhelmingly for the plan that nixed the bike path in favor of more parking spots and more lanes for cars.

There are a couple things here:

1.  Bike infrastructure needs to meed needs of people before they'll use it.  I've seen plenty of 'great bike paths along the river' that were designed by people who don't cycle for transport.  They tend to be nice for walking the dog, or taking the kid out on Saturday . . . but useless to get from place to place.  It's like building a 20 mile loop of freeway with a single on/off ramp just outside of town to address traffic congestion, and then being shocked that nobody seems to be using it.

That doesn't mean that people don't want to ride bikes, but it's frustratingly often used to shoot down bike infrastructure.

2.  People are notoriously bad at judging usage of cycle paths.  I wouldn't believe 'hardly used' claims if the bike path is in a sensible location though unless a proper study has been done.  There are several bike routes that folks argued were "hardly used" and should be removed here in Toronto.  Studies showed that they averaged about a thousand cyclists an hour.  They just seem empty all the time when compared to lines of cars in bumper to bumper gridlock next to 'em.

Agreed on both points. There is a world of difference between good and poor bike infrastructure, for both the cyclists and auto drivers.

That being said, I'm going to propose a third point: Until there is a severe economic penalty for driving a car relative to riding a bike, then riding a bike is going to be seen by most as frivolous. The corollary is that when such an economic penalty occurs, the demand for bike infrastructure should rise accordingly, as it will become generally accepted as a legitimate mode of transportation.

Economic penalty isn't the only option. What my city did when they saw the center getting clogged with cars was to make the city center less attractive for cars and more attractive for bikes/pedestrians. They redesigned roads in a way that made  most of them one-way and if you want to go from "rest of town" to "city center" it's actually faster to go by bike than to go by car. Not even counting parking yet.

At first shop owners were afraid that it would damage their sales, but the city got actually much more walkable, resulting in more people going shopping and better sales for shop owners. It did take some active remodeling of the roads though.

It's still totally doable to get to the city center by car, but for people who live <1 mile away it is more of a hassle compared to biking/walking (not even taking into account parking costs).

this is basically what my city did too. They dramatically reduced the amount of parkades and increased the bike infrastructure. Biking has sky rocketed.

IMO, not to be a downer, but there isn't going to be a massive global lifestyle restructure in a short enough time frame to matter (like the next 10 years). Really the only path forward are long term adjustments to create sustainable lifestyles and create technology that allows us to geoengineer the planet.

I do think that lab grown meat though could be a potential game changer. If most meat is grown in labs for really cheap then most animal farming operations will cease and the land could be given back to forests, grasslands etc. Farmers could then become stewards of the land.

Basically I think the only way out of this is through significant technology developments.

[freya]

I would LOVE for most of the country to move to a limited-car lifestyle, because that means people would be living in the kind of walkable neighborhoods that used to exist before the 1950s (when the car companies did things like destroy the Los Angeles trolley system in order to force more people to buy cars).   Now we have sprawling suburbs, and it would be prohibitively expensive to undo all that.  I really don't know the answer. 

I think the first thing to do here is:  BUY LOCAL.  As much as you can.  Energy, produce and other foods, appliances etc.  And put tariffs on international imports. No one thinks about the pollution produced by giant cargo ships bringing our cheap crap from China, Vietnam, Thailand etc, but just one of those ships produces more greenhouse gas than the entire US auto fleet. So messing around with reducing gasoline use is basically rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, compared to shifting consumer goods production to the US.  (And btw that cheap crap from overseas makes only a brief stop in your home on its way to the landfill - yet another problem.)

The bolded is nowhere close to true.  Total global cargo ship CO2 emissions are about 1 billion tons.¹  The US auto fleet is twice that at 2 billion tons per year.²  Manufacturing, by the way, produces about 6.5 billion tons of CO₂ per year.³  Unfortunately, buying local is not the panacea you wish it to be.

Please check your facts before you spout nonsense.

1. https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Global-shipping-GHG-emissions-2013-2015_ICCT-Report_17102017_vF.pdf
2.https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jan/01/vehicles-climate-change-emissions-trump-administration
3.https://www.statista.com/statistics/276480/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-sector/

Depends which articles you read.  Here's a contrary view:

https://www.industrytap.com/worlds-15-biggest-ships-create-more-pollution-than-all-the-cars-in-the-world/8182

...just one of the world’s largest container ships can emit about as much pollution as 50 million cars. Further, the 15 largest ships in the world emit as much nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide as the world’s 760 million cars.

Last I checked, both nitrous oxide and sulphur oxide are greenhouse gases.  The problem is that the ships burn #6 oil which is very inefficient and dirty (but cheap), and there's no emissions standard that they need to adhere to.

[GuitarStv]

Those are greenhouse gasses, and they're worse per ppm than carbon dioxide.  My understanding though, is that pollution of those gases is so dwarfed by carbon dioxide emissions that they're effectively rounding errors to the climate change problem.

[freya]

Those are greenhouse gasses, and they're worse per ppm than carbon dioxide.  My understanding though, is that pollution of those gases is so dwarfed by carbon dioxide emissions that they're effectively rounding errors to the climate change problem.

That's correct, but I remember reading that CO2, pound for pound, has much less impact than these other gases.  You spurred me to look though, and I found some useful info online:

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases

CO2 is 82% of emissions compared to 6% for nitrous oxide and 3% for fluorinated gases - and CO2 lasts longer.  BUT:

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials

The Global Warming Potential (GWP) was developed to allow comparisons of the global warming impacts of different gases. Specifically, it is a measure of how much energy the emissions of 1 ton of a gas will absorb over a given period of time, relative to the emissions of 1 ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The larger the GWP, the more that a given gas warms the Earth compared to CO2 over that time period.

GWP of CO2 is 1 (by definition)
GWP of methane is 28-36
for nitrous oxide it's 265 - 298, meaning that gas functions like almost 300x as much CO2(!!)
for fluorinated gases the GWP is in the thousands

I think the virulent responses to my post about the cargo ships is an indicator of just how under-appreciated the problem is.  Also, gotta remember that these products are traveling several thousand miles further to get here from East Asia, South America etc than would be the case if they were made in the US.

As I said, I try really hard not to buy produce from overseas that's out of season (my main exception is avocados from Mexico) and I also opt for US made products where the option exists.  I'm aware that even those almost certainly include imported parts, but you do what you can.  It is nice to see that with a lot of products on Amazon, there are always questions asking where it's made/sourced if it's not already in the description.  So perhaps there is increasing awareness that buying local really is a sound principle for many reasons not limited to climate change concerns.

[LennStar]

Meanwhile in the Netherlands...

Someone invented a Cyclo-Knitter; a pedal-powered machine that weaves a scarf in the 5 minutes you are waiting for a train.
https://t.co/9Zod5C0QtM

Admit it, that guy totally owned you at Mustachianism ;)

[lost_in_the_endless_aisle]

Last I checked, both nitrous oxide and sulphur oxide are greenhouse gases.  The problem is that the ships burn #6 oil which is very inefficient and dirty (but cheap), and there's no emissions standard that they need to adhere to.

There are emission standards for shipping.

[PDXTabs]

Last I checked, both nitrous oxide and sulphur oxide are greenhouse gases.  The problem is that the ships burn #6 oil which is very inefficient and dirty (but cheap), and there's no emissions standard that they need to adhere to.

Sulfur dioxide is actually the #1 chemical that they talk about using for geoengineering to lower planetary temperatures. As SO2 has a tendancy to favorize the formation of low coulds, in addition to the contribution of sulphate particles to light reflexion, it is considered as a “climate cooler”. - What gases are greenhouse gases?

[Boofinator]

The thing about taxing carbon is - it is not a solution.  It might help a bit . . . maybe even a fair amount.  But I don't ever see taxes on carbon being high enough to actually halt climate change because they would need to be priced at business-cripplingly high levels.  There's no country that will ever take the first step in that direction, it's political suicide.  If they're not priced high enough, then all we're doing in effect is saying that the rich can keep polluting as much as they want.

I'm not saying that they're bad . . . but carbon taxing is at best a first step.  Not a solution.

I disagree. I think high, gradually (though at a fairly high rate) increasing prices on carbon pollution is the #1 way to get people to stop polluting. First off, as others have said, a tax with per capita dividends acts as a progressive tax, since the rich pollute more. Second, as the price of carbon grows, people will quickly shift activities that were performed using fossil fuels toward using alternative energy sources. There are some industries right now that do not have an acceptable alternate solution to fossil fuels, but the price of those products are going to need to reflect their actual costs if you want people to reduce their use.

I agree that it isn't the only solution, but is a huge first step.

[Shane]

The thing about taxing carbon is - it is not a solution.  It might help a bit . . . maybe even a fair amount.  But I don't ever see taxes on carbon being high enough to actually halt climate change because they would need to be priced at business-cripplingly high levels.  There's no country that will ever take the first step in that direction, it's political suicide.  If they're not priced high enough, then all we're doing in effect is saying that the rich can keep polluting as much as they want.

I'm not saying that they're bad . . . but carbon taxing is at best a first step.  Not a solution.

I disagree. I think high, gradually (though at a fairly high rate) increasing prices on carbon pollution is the #1 way to get people to stop polluting. First off, as others have said, a tax with per capita dividends acts as a progressive tax, since the rich pollute more. Second, as the price of carbon grows, people will quickly shift activities that were performed using fossil fuels toward using alternative energy sources. There are some industries right now that do not have an acceptable alternate solution to fossil fuels, but the price of those products are going to need to reflect their actual costs if you want people to reduce their use.

I agree that it isn't the only solution, but is a huge first step.

Steve's right. Taxing carbon at a rate that would actually make a difference would be hugely politically unpopular and, thus, is extremely unlikely to happen. It *could* be done, but probably won't happen, because any politician who tried it would get voted out of office at the next election.

To me, talking with people about individual actions that might work to slow down climate change feels very similar to talking with non-mustachians about how they might pay off their debts and start saving money. Muggles get that same glazed over look in their eyes, before insisting that it's impossible. Then, we spend the next hour and a half going back and forth, round and round, with them shutting down every. single. suggestion on how they *could* do it. Muggles already know ahead of time that it can't be done, so there's really no sense in wasting any time trying to persuade them, because they've already made up their minds that it's impossible.

Many people on this forum get it. That's why I posted this thread here. You guys know it's possible to save 50% or 60% or 70% of your income, invest that money, build up a big enough nest egg of FU money and, eventually, reach FI and retire early if you feel like it. 99% of humans on the planet don't believe that's possible, and they'll argue with you till you're blue in the fact that it can't be done. If all humans were badass Mustachians, solving climate change would be simple. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

Recently, I've been thinking the only realistic solution is for us to put everything we've got into researching, basically, a silver bullet. We need a source of energy that doesn't emit any greenhouse gases, no pollution, is cheap and 100% renewable, so that humans can continue living the way they want to live, without making any changes.

Bill Gates' TerraPower sounds interesting. We need a government or governments that will take an idea like TerraPower's Traveling Wave Reactor and run with it, investing whatever it takes to make clean, safe nuclear power a reality.

[beltim]

I would LOVE for most of the country to move to a limited-car lifestyle, because that means people would be living in the kind of walkable neighborhoods that used to exist before the 1950s (when the car companies did things like destroy the Los Angeles trolley system in order to force more people to buy cars).   Now we have sprawling suburbs, and it would be prohibitively expensive to undo all that.  I really don't know the answer. 

I think the first thing to do here is:  BUY LOCAL.  As much as you can.  Energy, produce and other foods, appliances etc.  And put tariffs on international imports. No one thinks about the pollution produced by giant cargo ships bringing our cheap crap from China, Vietnam, Thailand etc, but just one of those ships produces more greenhouse gas than the entire US auto fleet. So messing around with reducing gasoline use is basically rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, compared to shifting consumer goods production to the US.  (And btw that cheap crap from overseas makes only a brief stop in your home on its way to the landfill - yet another problem.)

The bolded is nowhere close to true.  Total global cargo ship CO2 emissions are about 1 billion tons.¹  The US auto fleet is twice that at 2 billion tons per year.²  Manufacturing, by the way, produces about 6.5 billion tons of CO₂ per year.³  Unfortunately, buying local is not the panacea you wish it to be.

Please check your facts before you spout nonsense.

1. https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Global-shipping-GHG-emissions-2013-2015_ICCT-Report_17102017_vF.pdf
2.https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jan/01/vehicles-climate-change-emissions-trump-administration
3.https://www.statista.com/statistics/276480/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-sector/

Depends which articles you read.  Here's a contrary view:

https://www.industrytap.com/worlds-15-biggest-ships-create-more-pollution-than-all-the-cars-in-the-world/8182

...just one of the world’s largest container ships can emit about as much pollution as 50 million cars. Further, the 15 largest ships in the world emit as much nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide as the world’s 760 million cars.

Last I checked, both nitrous oxide and sulphur oxide are greenhouse gases.  The problem is that the ships burn #6 oil which is very inefficient and dirty (but cheap), and there's no emissions standard that they need to adhere to.

Your link talks about "pollution" not greenhouse gases.  It's true that NOx are greenhouse gases, but sulfur oxide is not generally considered one (it contributes to the formation of aerosols, which have complex effects, but sulfur oxides are generally considered to be moderately cooling).  The first link I included above reported on all greenhouse gases from this shipping industry, reported in CO₂ equivalent units.

I think the virulent responses to my post about the cargo ships is an indicator of just how under-appreciated the problem is.  Also, gotta remember that these products are traveling several thousand miles further to get here from East Asia, South America etc than would be the case if they were made in the US.

No, the virulent responses to your post are because your post is factually incorrect, and you have provided no evidence that supports your claim.

[Boofinator]

Steve's right. Taxing carbon at a rate that would actually make a difference would be hugely politically unpopular and, thus, is extremely unlikely to happen. It *could* be done, but probably won't happen, because any politician who tried it would get voted out of office at the next election.

I'm going to have to disagree. Taxing carbon with a dividend rebate would be very popular* with people who don't pollute much, because they would be making more money, and they will be getting their dividend checks (people like big fat checks). Now, certain industries that are highly dependent on carbon pollution are going to bitch and complain, but I think those industries are simply going to have to suffer a decline, just like the coal industry currently is. The important thing is that those industries are small enough that it won't be political suicide to propose policies that adversely affect them.

*To caveat, I don't think it is politically feasible with Trump in the White House.

[GuitarStv]

Steve's right. Taxing carbon at a rate that would actually make a difference would be hugely politically unpopular and, thus, is extremely unlikely to happen. It *could* be done, but probably won't happen, because any politician who tried it would get voted out of office at the next election.

I'm going to have to disagree. Taxing carbon with a dividend rebate would be very popular* with people who don't pollute much, because they would be making more money, and they will be getting their dividend checks (people like big fat checks). Now, certain industries that are highly dependent on carbon pollution are going to bitch and complain, but I think those industries are simply going to have to suffer a decline, just like the coal industry currently is. The important thing is that those industries are small enough that it won't be political suicide to propose policies that adversely affect them.

*To caveat, I don't think it is politically feasible with Trump in the White House.

Some of the impacts of a high enough to help carbon tax:
- Food prices will certainly go up significantly.  The Agriculture industry is one of the largest producers of CO2, and there really isn't any way around it.
- Personal air travel will need to end (or at least go back to 1950s levels).
- Cement will no longer be viable to use as a building material.
- Steel, iron, and aluminum prices will increase significantly.
- The cost of paper (and paper products) will increase significantly.
- Cost of personal electronics will go up as the manufacture of electrical components will be much more expensive.
- Textile manufacture will become significantly more expensive, so the price of clothing, bedding, drapes will increase a lot.
- Heating costs for residential and commercial buildings will be increased significantly (the majority of people use oil or gas for heating - around here it's less than half the price of heating with electricity).
- production of internal combustion engine as used for personal automobiles will need to completely stop.
- Electricity costs will rise significantly.
- All plastics will become more expensive . . . with wide reaching implications as virtually everything we use and own today has plastic in it.

Not all of these are bad, but there's a lot of stuff that's going to cost a lot more all at once . . . and many of them have either much more expensive alternatives, or no good alternative.  It's not even a Trump thing (although, obviously Trump's policy of increasing waste is just making things worse for the future) but I don't see the people of any country accepting this - which means it's politically dead in the water before it starts no matter who is in power.  I mean, look at what happened to Jimmy Carter when he told people to turn down their heating in the winter.

[LennStar]

It probably doesn't help. but we could start naming a "carbon tax" a "real price indicator", since that is what is does.

And maybe such a graph helps too:


Two European cities (left: Helsinki; right: Oslo) have zero children, pedestrians &amp; cyclists dying in traffic.

https://twitter.com/fietsprofessor/status/1226805967888814080

[Kris]

A first step to convincing people is to stop hypocrisy. When middle Americans think of the climate change issue, the first thing that comes to mind are the politicians and Hollywood actors who are most vocal about it. These people talking about carbon emissions are the same people flying in private jets around the country/world and and/or living in mega mansions.

It is hard to take Al Gore seriously when his house consumes 21 times more energy than the average US home.

That may be unfair (after all, everyone is a hypocrite in some way or another), but the more vocal people are going to have to practice what they preach before skeptics will take them seriously.

This "anyone who has ever consumed a fossil fuel is a hypocrite if they talk about climate change" BS is such lazy thinking and so typical of the right-wing diversionary propaganda to get people to focus on "elite hatred" rather than the actual problem that we are ALL contributing to.

[Kris]

A first step to convincing people is to stop hypocrisy. When middle Americans think of the climate change issue, the first thing that comes to mind are the politicians and Hollywood actors who are most vocal about it. These people talking about carbon emissions are the same people flying in private jets around the country/world and and/or living in mega mansions.

It is hard to take Al Gore seriously when his house consumes 21 times more energy than the average US home.

That may be unfair (after all, everyone is a hypocrite in some way or another), but the more vocal people are going to have to practice what they preach before skeptics will take them seriously.

This "anyone who has ever consumed a fossil fuel is a hypocrite if they talk about climate change" BS is such lazy thinking and so typical of the right-wing diversionary propaganda to get people to focus on "elite hatred" rather than the actual problem that we are ALL contributing to.

Straw man much?

I didn't say "anyone who has ever consumed a fossil fuel." I specified people who consume far more than the average American while preaching to Americans about climate change.

The inability to have a civil debate with the other side pretty much guarantees that nothing is going to change.

Why is it that “middle America” thinks of Hollywood actors flying on jets first when they think of climate change, and not the fossil fuel industry and their lobbyists who do anything and everything in their power to divert the question away from them, do you think?

[John Galt incarnate!]

I honestly think our only hope is adaptation to adjust to harsher weather and rising sea levels.

Agree.

I predict that greenhouse gas reduction targets will not be met so  humans will have to adapt.

[nessness]

- It's difficult to say definitively whether any one flood, storm, unusually hot summer, etc. was caused by climate change

The reality is that climate change does not *cause* disasters, but it makes them worse.  Warmer temperatures increase moisture turnover, which make droughts *AND* floods worse.

The problem is, saying that climate change makes each hurricane/flood/drought a bit worse(largely true) versus *causing* a disaster that would not have otherwise happened(unprovable, at best) doesn't make for a terribly persuasive argument on the impacts of climate change, even if the cumulative magnitude of its effects are massive

I think arguments against air pollution(which causes a wide range of negative health effects) are far more personal and persuasive when it comes to advancing the cause of environmental advocacy.  No one wants to breath filthy air that gives them lung cancer/other respiratory issues.

I think the difference between causing a disaster and making it worse is mostly a semantics difference when talking about things like droughts and floods.

But I agree that it is hard to construct a narrative around climate change that inspires people to make changes. In California, where I live, the main disasters we worry about are floods, droughts, wildfires (all of which are influenced by climate change), and earthquakes (which largely aren't*).

"There will probably be a M7.5+ earthquake in your lifetime, so you should make an emergency kit" is an easy narrative for people to understand and take action on. So is, "there is currently a drought (or there may be a drought this year) so you should conserve water."

But "climate change will increase both flood risk and drought risk" is already difficult for a lot of people to grasp, and "so you should drive your car less and heat your house less" feels far removed from the consequence.

* There is evidence that earthquake rates are influenced by climate in some parts of the world, but not, to my knowledge, in California.

[GuitarStv]

A first step to convincing people is to stop hypocrisy. When middle Americans think of the climate change issue, the first thing that comes to mind are the politicians and Hollywood actors who are most vocal about it. These people talking about carbon emissions are the same people flying in private jets around the country/world and and/or living in mega mansions.

It is hard to take Al Gore seriously when his house consumes 21 times more energy than the average US home.

That may be unfair (after all, everyone is a hypocrite in some way or another), but the more vocal people are going to have to practice what they preach before skeptics will take them seriously.

Where does the energy that Gore consumes come from?  Is he buying it from green sources, or from a coal powered electrical grid?

[John Galt incarnate!]

 there isn't going to be a massive global lifestyle restructure in a short enough time frame to matter (like the next 10 years).

That's right.

Furthermore, as  billions of people climb out of poverty the lifestyle change the world will undergo is one of increasing consumption that will  inevitably be accompanied by more and more negative environmental impacts.



princeton.edu 2015/10/12 › angus-deaton-receives-no...
Angus Deaton receives Nobel Prize in ... - Princeton University
Oct 12, 2015 - Deaton was honored with the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work in “consumption, poverty and welfare,” the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences noted in announcing the award today. “The consumption of goods and services is a fundamental part of people's welfare.

[PDXTabs]

there isn't going to be a massive global lifestyle restructure in a short enough time frame to matter (like the next 10 years).

That's right.

Define "to matter?" 2.5C is better than 3.5C is better than 4.5C. All are bad, but some are much more bad that others.

[Boofinator]

Steve's right. Taxing carbon at a rate that would actually make a difference would be hugely politically unpopular and, thus, is extremely unlikely to happen. It *could* be done, but probably won't happen, because any politician who tried it would get voted out of office at the next election.

I'm going to have to disagree. Taxing carbon with a dividend rebate would be very popular* with people who don't pollute much, because they would be making more money, and they will be getting their dividend checks (people like big fat checks). Now, certain industries that are highly dependent on carbon pollution are going to bitch and complain, but I think those industries are simply going to have to suffer a decline, just like the coal industry currently is. The important thing is that those industries are small enough that it won't be political suicide to propose policies that adversely affect them.

*To caveat, I don't think it is politically feasible with Trump in the White House.

Some of the impacts of a high enough to help carbon tax:
- Food prices will certainly go up significantly.  The Agriculture industry is one of the largest producers of CO2, and there really isn't any way around it.
- Personal air travel will need to end (or at least go back to 1950s levels).
- Cement will no longer be viable to use as a building material.
- Steel, iron, and aluminum prices will increase significantly.
- The cost of paper (and paper products) will increase significantly.
- Cost of personal electronics will go up as the manufacture of electrical components will be much more expensive.
- Textile manufacture will become significantly more expensive, so the price of clothing, bedding, drapes will increase a lot.
- Heating costs for residential and commercial buildings will be increased significantly (the majority of people use oil or gas for heating - around here it's less than half the price of heating with electricity).
- production of internal combustion engine as used for personal automobiles will need to completely stop.
- Electricity costs will rise significantly.
- All plastics will become more expensive . . . with wide reaching implications as virtually everything we use and own today has plastic in it.

Not all of these are bad, but there's a lot of stuff that's going to cost a lot more all at once . . . and many of them have either much more expensive alternatives, or no good alternative.  It's not even a Trump thing (although, obviously Trump's policy of increasing waste is just making things worse for the future) but I don't see the people of any country accepting this - which means it's politically dead in the water before it starts no matter who is in power.  I mean, look at what happened to Jimmy Carter when he told people to turn down their heating in the winter.

I'm not sure your point. We need to reduce carbon pollution, therefore we need to reduce our consumption in areas that contribute to carbon pollution. A tax is a good way to reduce this type of consumption, and a revenue-neutral one with per capita dividends would result in the same amount of money in the economy, but just less going to these types of goods as they become progressively more expensive.

The reason Jimmy Carter failed is because he was dealing with a very short-term energy shock. We are currently at 30+ years of being told we need to do something about this. I believe the tide will turn one of these days.

[GuitarStv]

Steve's right. Taxing carbon at a rate that would actually make a difference would be hugely politically unpopular and, thus, is extremely unlikely to happen. It *could* be done, but probably won't happen, because any politician who tried it would get voted out of office at the next election.

I'm going to have to disagree. Taxing carbon with a dividend rebate would be very popular* with people who don't pollute much, because they would be making more money, and they will be getting their dividend checks (people like big fat checks). Now, certain industries that are highly dependent on carbon pollution are going to bitch and complain, but I think those industries are simply going to have to suffer a decline, just like the coal industry currently is. The important thing is that those industries are small enough that it won't be political suicide to propose policies that adversely affect them.

*To caveat, I don't think it is politically feasible with Trump in the White House.

Some of the impacts of a high enough to help carbon tax:
- Food prices will certainly go up significantly.  The Agriculture industry is one of the largest producers of CO2, and there really isn't any way around it.
- Personal air travel will need to end (or at least go back to 1950s levels).
- Cement will no longer be viable to use as a building material.
- Steel, iron, and aluminum prices will increase significantly.
- The cost of paper (and paper products) will increase significantly.
- Cost of personal electronics will go up as the manufacture of electrical components will be much more expensive.
- Textile manufacture will become significantly more expensive, so the price of clothing, bedding, drapes will increase a lot.
- Heating costs for residential and commercial buildings will be increased significantly (the majority of people use oil or gas for heating - around here it's less than half the price of heating with electricity).
- production of internal combustion engine as used for personal automobiles will need to completely stop.
- Electricity costs will rise significantly.
- All plastics will become more expensive . . . with wide reaching implications as virtually everything we use and own today has plastic in it.

Not all of these are bad, but there's a lot of stuff that's going to cost a lot more all at once . . . and many of them have either much more expensive alternatives, or no good alternative.  It's not even a Trump thing (although, obviously Trump's policy of increasing waste is just making things worse for the future) but I don't see the people of any country accepting this - which means it's politically dead in the water before it starts no matter who is in power.  I mean, look at what happened to Jimmy Carter when he told people to turn down their heating in the winter.

I'm not sure your point. We need to reduce carbon pollution, therefore we need to reduce our consumption in areas that contribute to carbon pollution. A tax is a good way to reduce this type of consumption, and a revenue-neutral one with per capita dividends would result in the same amount of money in the economy, but just less going to these types of goods as they become progressively more expensive.

The reason Jimmy Carter failed is because he was dealing with a very short-term energy shock. We are currently at 30+ years of being told we need to do something about this. I believe the tide will turn one of these days.

I guess my concern is that since the carbon tax at rates necessary to make a significant difference will never be implemented, it seems destined to fail.  It's easy to implement a small, insignificant carbon tax and kick back saying 'Good enough'.  But it really won't be good enough.

We're at a weird point now.  We don't want to do something because the immediate cost is so high.  But every day we don't do something, the immediate cost to fix the problem becomes higher.  It's a positive feedback loop . . . and those have a habit of catastrophically failing in nature.

I admire your optimism tide will turn one of these days, but don't share it.

[Duchess of Stratosphear]

I'm past the stage of thinking that money will save me from climate change, what will save me is that I am old enough that I will be dead before it gets really bad and I don't have children or grandchildren to worry about.

Ditto.

Same, sadly.

[Boofinator]

I guess my concern is that since the carbon tax at rates necessary to make a significant difference will never be implemented, it seems destined to fail.  It's easy to implement a small, insignificant carbon tax and kick back saying 'Good enough'.  But it really won't be good enough.

We're at a weird point now.  We don't want to do something because the immediate cost is so high.  But every day we don't do something, the immediate cost to fix the problem becomes higher.  It's a positive feedback loop . . . and those have a habit of catastrophically failing in nature.

I admire your optimism tide will turn one of these days, but don't share it.

In my opinion, we have the necessary alternatives to cut out, perhaps not easily but not impossibly, 50% of our carbon pollution in the next ten years. Many of those things are as simple as moving closer to work. The right incentives just need to be put into place, with the consent of the people. I continue to hope....

[John Galt incarnate!]

 We are currently at 30+ years of being told we need to do something about this. I believe the tide will turn one of these days.

I remain pessimistic.

I believe rising tides attributable to melted ice will outpace a turning  tide of public opinion.

[scottish]

A first step to convincing people is to stop hypocrisy. When middle Americans think of the climate change issue, the first thing that comes to mind are the politicians and Hollywood actors who are most vocal about it. These people talking about carbon emissions are the same people flying in private jets around the country/world and and/or living in mega mansions.

It is hard to take Al Gore seriously when his house consumes 21 times more energy than the average US home.

That may be unfair (after all, everyone is a hypocrite in some way or another), but the more vocal people are going to have to practice what they preach before skeptics will take them seriously.

Where does the energy that Gore consumes come from?  Is he buying it from green sources, or from a coal powered electrical grid?

Snopes says he buys green electricity...

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/al-gores-energy-use/

[lost_in_the_endless_aisle]

A first step to convincing people is to stop hypocrisy. When middle Americans think of the climate change issue, the first thing that comes to mind are the politicians and Hollywood actors who are most vocal about it. These people talking about carbon emissions are the same people flying in private jets around the country/world and and/or living in mega mansions.

It is hard to take Al Gore seriously when his house consumes 21 times more energy than the average US home.

That may be unfair (after all, everyone is a hypocrite in some way or another), but the more vocal people are going to have to practice what they preach before skeptics will take them seriously.

Where does the energy that Gore consumes come from?  Is he buying it from green sources, or from a coal powered electrical grid?

Snopes says he buys green electricity...

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/al-gores-energy-use/

That's an oversimplification. From that same link:

The Tennessean also noted that the Gores had been paying a $432 per month premium on their monthly electricity bills in order to obtain some of their electricity from “green” sources (i.e., solar or other renewable energy sources).

Some is not all. And that only accounts for their electricity. It doesn't note natural gas used, which is also much higher than those of us who don't live in mega mansions.

Why does this matter? The house Al Gore lives in has nothing to do with climate science. In addition to (maybe) being a hypocrite, Al Gore could have a sex dungeon in the basement of his house; however, none of that should change our assessment of the risks associated with climate change. If the worst problem facing humanity was hypocrisy we should consider ourselves fortunate.

[GuitarStv]

A first step to convincing people is to stop hypocrisy. When middle Americans think of the climate change issue, the first thing that comes to mind are the politicians and Hollywood actors who are most vocal about it. These people talking about carbon emissions are the same people flying in private jets around the country/world and and/or living in mega mansions.

It is hard to take Al Gore seriously when his house consumes 21 times more energy than the average US home.

That may be unfair (after all, everyone is a hypocrite in some way or another), but the more vocal people are going to have to practice what they preach before skeptics will take them seriously.

Where does the energy that Gore consumes come from?  Is he buying it from green sources, or from a coal powered electrical grid?

Snopes says he buys green electricity...

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/al-gores-energy-use/

That's an oversimplification. From that same link:

The Tennessean also noted that the Gores had been paying a $432 per month premium on their monthly electricity bills in order to obtain some of their electricity from “green” sources (i.e., solar or other renewable energy sources).

Some is not all. And that only accounts for their electricity. It doesn't note natural gas used, which is also much higher than those of us who don't live in mega mansions.

Why does this matter? The house Al Gore lives in has nothing to do with climate science. In addition to (maybe) being a hypocrite, Al Gore could have a sex dungeon in the basement of his house; however, none of that should change our assessment of the risks associated with climate change. If the worst problem facing humanity was hypocrisy we should consider ourselves fortunate.

Also, studies have shown that sex dungeons naturally require higher heating levels to minimize shrinkage.



Seriously though . . . from that article:

"Al Gore, who was criticized for high electric bills at his Tennessee mansion, has completed a host of improvements to make the home more energy efficient, and a building-industry group has praised the house as one of the nation’s most environmentally friendly.

The former vice president has installed solar panels, a rainwater-collection system and geothermal heating. He also replaced all incandescent lights with compact fluorescent or light-emitting diode bulbs.

“Short of tearing it down and staring anew, I don’t know how it could have been rated any higher,” said Kim Shinn of the U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design.

Gore’s improvements cut the home’s summer electrical consumption by 11 percent compared with a year ago, according to utility records reviewed by The Associated Press. Most Nashville homes used 20 percent to 30 percent more electricity during the same period because of a record heat wave."


Between that and buying green energy, it sounds like Gore has pretty thoroughly addressed the concerns raised.  (One could certainly argue that Gore should live in a smaller home . . . and that using the home as his business office doesn't require that the house be four times the size of the average house, and I think that's fair.  Everyone has their own wasteful habits/tendencies that certainly sounds like one of Gore's.)

[FINate]

It's easy to scapegoat Trump supporters and climate change deniers, much harder yet more effective to own our own complicity in the problem.

Consider the following:
  -Somewhere around 80% of the US population lives in urban areas.
  -Urban areas tend to vote Democratic.
  -The number one thing we can do to reduce our carbon footprint is build compact walkable cities that greatly reduce vehicle miles traveled and overall consumption.

Doing these things would require, among other things:
  -Revamping regulations to eliminate setbacks, parking requirements, density limits, height limits, and so on.
  -Significant streamlining of the review process for building high density housing.
  -Substantial increases in local taxes along with substantial investment in mass transit.
  -Greatly expand walking and biking infrastructure.

And yet, from where I sit in Coastal California with a raging housing shortage and rampant houselessness, all I see are people claiming to be progressives fighting tooth and nail to preserve car centric suburban level density. Why? They found their little paradise when they moved here and now they want to preserve their mid-20th century "California Dream."

There are huge metro areas that already have the political power to make substantial progress on climate change, but they choose not to because doing so is unacceptable to their constituents. So we're left with virtual signaling and blaming those other guys over there. Stop blaming Trump and get on with it already.

[former player]

I guess my concern is that since the carbon tax at rates necessary to make a significant difference will never be implemented, it seems destined to fail.  It's easy to implement a small, insignificant carbon tax and kick back saying 'Good enough'.  But it really won't be good enough.

We're at a weird point now.  We don't want to do something because the immediate cost is so high.  But every day we don't do something, the immediate cost to fix the problem becomes higher.  It's a positive feedback loop . . . and those have a habit of catastrophically failing in nature.

I admire your optimism tide will turn one of these days, but don't share it.

In my opinion, we have the necessary alternatives to cut out, perhaps not easily but not impossibly, 50% of our carbon pollution in the next ten years. Many of those things are as simple as moving closer to work. The right incentives just need to be put into place, with the consent of the people. I continue to hope....

It's easy to scapegoat Trump supporters and climate change deniers, much harder yet more effective to own our own complicity in the problem.

Consider the following:
  -Somewhere around 80% of the US population lives in urban areas.
  -Urban areas tend to vote Democratic.
  -The number one thing we can do to reduce our carbon footprint is build compact walkable cities that greatly reduce vehicle miles traveled and overall consumption.

Doing these things would require, among other things:
  -Revamping regulations to eliminate setbacks, parking requirements, density limits, height limits, and so on.
  -Significant streamlining of the review process for building high density housing.
  -Substantial increases in local taxes along with substantial investment in mass transit.
  -Greatly expand walking and biking infrastructure.

And yet, from where I sit in Coastal California with a raging housing shortage and rampant houselessness, all I see are people claiming to be progressives fighting tooth and nail to preserve car centric suburban level density. Why? They found their little paradise when they moved here and now they want to preserve their mid-20th century "California Dream."

There are huge metro areas that already have the political power to make substantial progress on climate change, but they choose not to because doing so is unacceptable to their constituents. So we're left with virtual signaling and blaming those other guys over there. Stop blaming Trump and get on with it already.

I used to work in central London.  We had a satellite office in the suburbs, and a proposal was hatched to expand that office so that commutes from that quarter of London could be reduced.  A study was undertaken, and found that if this was done the result would be that a significant proportion of workers would use it as an opportunity to move even further out of London and keep the same length of commute.  The projected savings in commuting would not materialise and the project was scrapped.  "Just get on with it" sadly doesn't accord with the perversity, selfishness and short-sightedness of human nature.

[Kyle Schuant]

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?

What changes have you made in your life?

You may find that your actions speak louder and clearly than your words.

[ministashy]

This issue is something that I've thought extensively about, consider myself pretty knowledgeable, and am not shy in talking at/with other people about.  I'm not a climate scientist, biologist, etc., but I think I'm about as educated as a layperson can be on climate change (though I remain always interested in new data points/ideas).

That said, I've come to the conclusion that we have two near-insurmountable problems when it comes to the problem of climate change.

One is that humanity as a whole has spent the last 150-200 years building modern civilization off of the back of fossil fuels.  Absolutely everything in the modern age--from tech to transportation to agriculture to (insert thing here)--is supported by or heavily influenced by fossil fuels.  Which means every possible solution to getting off of fossil fuels is, by default, a huge infrastructure issue.  Absent someone coming up with a miracle 'clean energy' solution, to solve it would require all of humanity to do a pivot-turn on a worldwide scale on how we live our lives--at least, if we want to preserve our existing civilization without catastrophic consequences to both ourselves (widespread famine, shortages in medicine, etc.) and the biome.

Quite frankly, in all of history I cannot think of a single example where humans have managed to do this.

The other insurmountable problem I've found is summed up by this quote:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

Per the first point above--when people's livelihoods depend on fossil fuels, they have a profound incentive NOT to believe in climate change, or if they do believe it, to downplay their own contributions and lump it all on the shoulders of 'those other people'.

It sounds really defeatist, but I think those of us who are fighting for a response to climate change have to accept that reality.  And then much like a 'debt snowball', try and get a 'climate snowball' rolling--encourage tiny, win-win-win changes in ourselves and our neighbors and our politicians, and once they've achieved those, push for the next, slightly harder step.  And so on.  First get people talking about how there would be more money in their pocket if they reduced their electrical bill by doing XYZ (and helping combat climate change!).  Then get them talking about how, for only X dollars more on their now-reduced bill, they could ensure all their electricity was renewable (and help combat climate change!).  Encourage bikeable/walkable infrastructure by talking about how awful it is to have cars roaring by day and night, endangering kids and the elderly (and help combat climate change!).  Then talk about banning cars entirely from some chunks of neighborhoods/investing in more transit (and help combat climate change!).  And so on and so on.

The Nature Conservancy (https://www.nature.org/en-us/) has a pretty good action plan for things humanity can do, on both an individual level and a structural one, to combat climate change.  I encourage those who are truly interested in what can be done to check it out.

[Kyle Schuant]

Absolutely everything in the modern age--from tech to transportation to agriculture to (insert thing here)--is supported by or heavily influenced by fossil fuels.  Which means every possible solution to getting off of fossil fuels is, by default, a huge infrastructure issue. 

Not in the beginning. Reducing consumption will be a big first step. The West could essentially halve energy consumption - and thus fossil fuel consumption - without changing lifestyles hugely, and without much investment in infrastructure. A lot of it would just be people moving house or work so they're closer. The average driver spends 90' a day in their car, and for the urban driver at least half of that the car isn't moving - they're burning energy but going nowhere. Which really is symbolic of the whole issue.

Infrastructure's just an excuse to keep consuming. All that concrete and steel and aluminium causes emissions in construction and maintenance, too.

Of course, with 2/3 of the West overweight or obese, reducing consumption is obviously an alien concept to most.

It's interesting, about a decade back I was involved in the peak oil scene. Funny thing is: they were mostly climate change denialists. Then I went and talked to the climate change guys, and they were peak oil denialists. It's like humans can only hold one problem in their head at a time. Anyway, one difference between the peak oilers and the climate changers was - and remains - the peak oilers were willing to do immediate reductions in their personal contributions to the problem by leading a lower-consumption life, whereas the climate changers were convinced that some combination of technologies and taxes would mean that someone else, somewhere else, would reduce contributions for them.

And that's why climate change scientists continue flying to climate change conferences. If we judge by actions rather than words, most climate change scientists and activists are climate change denialists.

Doesn't bother me, I've still reduced my contribution to the problem. Still, it's funny.

[Leisured]

I too like the idea of climate denialists as muggles. This inspired name only appears on this website, which muggles do not read.

The same goes for people who find it impossible to save and invest, or people who believe that economic and population growth can continue indefinitely in a finite world. Muggles. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Hilary Clinton famously described Trump supporters as the 'deplorables'. She was forced to apologise, but she was still right.

To misquote Tennyson, Charge of the Light Brigade:
'Muggles to the left, muggles to the right, muggles in front.
Into the valley of muggles rode the six hundred.'

[ministashy]

Absolutely everything in the modern age--from tech to transportation to agriculture to (insert thing here)--is supported by or heavily influenced by fossil fuels.  Which means every possible solution to getting off of fossil fuels is, by default, a huge infrastructure issue. 

Not in the beginning. Reducing consumption will be a big first step. The West could essentially halve energy consumption - and thus fossil fuel consumption - without changing lifestyles hugely, and without much investment in infrastructure. A lot of it would just be people moving house or work so they're closer. The average driver spends 90' a day in their car, and for the urban driver at least half of that the car isn't moving - they're burning energy but going nowhere. Which really is symbolic of the whole issue.

Infrastructure's just an excuse to keep consuming. All that concrete and steel and aluminium causes emissions in construction and maintenance, too.

Ah yes, consuming less, it's so easy!  Anyone could do it, and everyone should do it!  (end sarcasm)

Like anything, the devil is in the details.  I biked/used mass transit to and from work for about six years--first to Redmond, then to Seattle.  Then I switched jobs, got put on the night shift (low person on the totem pole), and now biking is no longer a possibility when I live 25 miles away from work and there are no transit options that wouldn't add 2-3 hours to my commute time.  So now I drive to and from work, while working from home as much as my corporate overlord allows.

But I should just move closer to my work, you say?  Given the current market in Seattle, my current housing costs would go from a little less than 1/3 my income to over half (or more, depending on how close I get).  Commuting doesn't cost nearly as much as that--so that's a big financial hit I would have to take, and sacrifice a lot of other priorities (like retirement, or any chance at FIRE) to do it.  The same equation works in reverse for getting a new job closer to home--anything I could find more local, I would have to take a significant pay cut on.

So I don't like it, and feel like a hypocrite for doing it, but I drive.  Because the U.S. has spent the last 100 years or so prioritizing roads and suburbs over affordable city housing and mass transit.  Hence, infrastructure problem.  Will I go back to biking as soon as I'm able?  Definitely.  But until then, I don't think it's reasonable to people to sacrifice their personal well-being/future on the altar of climate change--humans aren't wired that way.

I see the same equation almost wherever you look.  Don't like how much agriculture contributes to climate change?  Eat less/no meat!  Except then you're still eating a ton of grain which has been extensively fertilized with nitrogen and likely shipped hundreds if not thousands of miles.  And out of season veggies that require a ton of irrigation and fertilizers/pesticides and ALSO have to be shipped!  So you should only eat local, they say.  Which means anyone living in the northern climates can forget about eating any kind of fresh greens in the fall/winter, and will have to rely exclusively on canned/dried stuff, like the good ol' days!  For that matter, how 'local' are you going to be when most farmland is often hundreds of miles from the city in which you (and most of us) live?  Are you going to protect nearby farmland, no matter how desirable it gets for development?  How popular do you think any of these changes are going to be for the average person? 

Hence, infrastructure problem.  Which requires infrastructure changes--decentralized and renewable energy grid, decentralized, less nitrogen- and irrigation-hungry agriculture, etc--in addition to any personal changes we can (and should) make.

[GuitarStv]

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?

What changes have you made in your life?

You may find that your actions speak louder and clearly than your words.

I think I've done a fair amount to be honest.
- Line dry my laundry
- Haven't used incandescent light bulbs anywhere in the house for more than fifteen years
- Keep the house at 15 degrees in the winter, and 28 degrees in the summer.
- We walk or bike whenever possible to avoid using the car - including for most errands (going to the library, going to the bank, getting groceries)
- Installed grid tied solar panels on my house as part of Ontario's microFIT program eight years ago.
- Cycle to work 2-3 times a week year round (our family had a single car because of this for more than 10 years, but after I ended up changing jobs and our son started going to school we ended up needing a second car to make things work)
- Have two days a week where we eat vegan, and at least one more that is meatless
- Haven't used plastic bags from the grocery store for more than 15 years (granted, we could do better as we still occasionally put fruit in those clear bags . . . but then tend to use the clear bags to bring lunch to work/keep clothing waterproof in backpacks while cycling in the rain/snow)
- Have a compost in our back yard which we use in the garden
- Have a rain barrel hooked up to the eaves-trough which we use in lieu of running the hose to water plants in the summer
- Don't buy stuff unless we need it.  Clothing is replaced when it wears out, but not until.  We try to buy used clothing rather than new (so far about 90% of my son's clothes have been used - and he's six now).  Our furniture was all purchased used.  We don't have too many electronic devices, and those we do have get used until they stop working (We're the only people I know who have a fifteen year old television for example).
- Don't go on vacations involving flight/air travel.


This is seen as some sort of radical deprivation by many people I know . . . even though they're pretty minimal and I'm know that there's lots of other stuff we could do.  When are my actions supposed to start speaking loudly?

[FINate]

I used to work in central London.  We had a satellite office in the suburbs, and a proposal was hatched to expand that office so that commutes from that quarter of London could be reduced.  A study was undertaken, and found that if this was done the result would be that a significant proportion of workers would use it as an opportunity to move even further out of London and keep the same length of commute.  The projected savings in commuting would not materialise and the project was scrapped.  "Just get on with it" sadly doesn't accord with the perversity, selfishness and short-sightedness of human nature.

When I say "just get on with it" I don't mean making changes for the sake of change. No, I mean get on with making cities denser and more walkable. Your story is interesting because it demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about: Instead of solving affordability and transit issues that encourage people to commuting long distances, your company was considering changes that would further promoted sprawl. This is not the kind of problem an individual person or company can solve, but rather something that requires collective action, in other words, government intervention.

It's fascinating to me that the Left here in the US, the party that more than anyone believes in the ability of the government to solve problems (which I largely agree with!), suddenly throws up its collective hands and says it's an impossible problem when things begin to challenge the sacred: some historic districts/buildings need to make way for high density housing, no room for a backyard garden, buildings may cast a shadow on your property, rich techies and outsiders will move in, and so on.

Let's think about this from another angle. This thread is about how to talk with Muggles about climate change. Why should they believe climate change is real and serious when Blue cities in Blue states refuse to prioritize densification over aesthetic concerns such as "neighborhood character" which itself has long been a dog whistle for keeping certain people out? Why should the Muggles give up things they find aesthetically pleasing like large SUVs and strip malls with lots of parking, when places like the San Francisco Bay Area continue to resist new development which then pushes poorer people to longer and longer commutes in places with no mass transit? Red state people are not dumb, like all people they can spot hypocrisy from a mile away.