I think you've gotten the two values confused a bit. Value #1 is correct. Getting rich through frugality is a huge part of this. But I'd say that value #2 is actually 'Stop destroying our environment by reducing consumption'. And with that simple addition, the two values are back in alignment with one another again. By reducing your consumption, you not only enhance frugality, but you also help the environment.
You can clean up consumption (which is what EVs and solar panels and heat pumps do), but all of those things have an up front environmental cost that takes a whole lot of consumption to overcome before they become a net benefit. And if you consume very little in the first place, then making all of those green, efficient new products takes a lifetime to pay off.
I agree, 100%. But here's the problem. Reducing our use of fossil fuels is not enough. Only getting rid of fossil fuels completely solves the problem (CO2 emissions). That's not free.
So, in this case, saving the environment cannot be done by reducing consumption. Only by switching from one system (fossil fuels) to a different system (renewable) can it be solved. And that switch is not free.
I like EVs because they improve air quality from a lack of tailpipe emissions, and that helps people (no smog/particulates). I like that theoretically, they could last longer, and require less maintenance/replacement than the ICEs that we've had for a very long time (financial and environmental benefits). But I find it really hard to feel compelled to switch completely for climate reasons when the leaders of our society aren't really doing so.
- It's 2024, and many of us have Zoom calls all the time, but our political leaders all take private jets with huge security/support teams to in-person meetings in Davos or wherever to have these climate summits. And while they're rubbing elbows they try to figure out ways clean up our consumption by making/selling us new products instead of simply incentivizing less consumption, because that might hurt the economy of wherever they're from.
- Elon's private jet flies across LA to avoid traffic, or between his multiple homes in LA/TX. And instead of making more, cheaper EVs to increase adoption he's selling dystopian, bulletproof trucks with enormous batteries or developing flamethrowers while he demands the highest payday in human history.
- Taylor Swift has 50+ semis hauling her tour equipment around the world 24/7 while she does hundreds of thousands of miles of private air travel each year. Sometimes just to see her boyfriend's sports event which can simply be watched on TV.
- The world's militaries only seem to be escalating, and they're not particularly concerned with any of this climate business as they battle over resources.
Nobody at the top seems to really care enough about this climate emergency to truly change their behavior. None of them seem serious about making the situation better. There's too much money to be made.
It's fine if anybody here does feel like they need to make a change for the better good. But I hope that they actually consider that all of these clean technologies actively make the climate problem worse when they're manufactured, packaged, shipped, installed, and maintained. They only begin to help after they've been used, and they often have to be used quite a lot before their initial footprint can be offset.
I agree with the above, but come to a different conclusion. With the exception about the military caring, but that's an entirely separate tangent. The pool of people that will change individual behavior for a nebulous public good (of which most don't understand) is pretty small.
Climate change can only be dealt with when there's systematic change. Things like pricing emissions, banning certain technologies, subsidies, and various regulatory regimes can all be used. I'm personally a fan of carbon pricing, but I recognize reality will involve a mixture of different approaches.
But you can't go out on Day #1, legislate zero emissions by 2050 and be done with public policy.
That's not how public policy works. You also can't really tell a whole country they have to get rid of their cars and force people to ride bikes. Infrastructure design can be changed to encourage such behavior though.
The path to systematic change involves intermediate steps and various inflection points. Getting to these points will make bigger things possible, and is consistent with the path that public policy actually follows. The "big solution" type public policy is out of reach for now. Here's a few things that are in reach, and individuals can influence to some degree:
1. Make people less afraid of climate solutions. Most climate solutions involve changes to commercial/industrial behavior. Most people vote against climate solutions because they're afraid environmentalists will force them to drive an eco-weinie vehicle (their words) and take away their gas stove. People that get over these fears will no longer advocate against broader solutions. This is why it's so important to talk to people outside of your normal demographic circle.
2. Broaden the groups of people that care about climate change. We don't really need more upper middle class college educated voters to get engaged about climate change. We need farmers and ranchers to care. We need the people with homes in disaster-prone areas to care. Getting a broader set of groups on board will make solutions easier to come by.
3. Public policy largely follows employment. Find ways to increase employment in areas of climate solutions, while decreasing employment in the hydrocarbon industries. This is where consumer dollars matter. In particular, if we could reduce the number of congressional districts with heavy oil & gas employment by maybe 10%ish, that would make a huge difference for public policy. If we could increase the number of congressional districts with major climate-solution employment (particularly manufacturing) by maybe 20%, that would make a huge difference.
Topic: Electric Cars: Can they finally become popular in the United States? (Read 567562 times)
