What climate action to people favor or be willing to accept?

[TagliatelliMonster]

I may not have used the same words, but his point is sound. Compulsion of the innocent is the hallmark of evil.

Was it a hallmark of evil when the world made it illegal to use ozon-layer destroying gasses in products like spray cans?
Was it a hallmark of evil when it was made illegal to use asbestos in new construction?
Or lead pipes for water in new buildings / renovations?

How is it different to put an expiration date on fossil fuel operated machinery?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Only a massive project will turn society away from fossil fuels.
The economy literally runs on oil today. These are the economic fundamentals of our modern society.
When you are going to replace the roots, it's going to be a massive project..

No .. it will happen whether we like it or not .. it is more about the pace of change.
..too fast and we have chaos .. too slow, and..

It's not just a country that is being threatened. It's a planet.
A planetary threat / problem requires a planetary response.

I couldn't agree more..
..but do not agree with replacing one problem with another.

As I see it, we need to move away from industrialisation and large cities.

 

[Pete in Panama]

I may not have used the same words, but his point is sound. Compulsion of the innocent is the hallmark of evil.

Screw any policy that is antithesis to people's freedoms.

All you end up with is pushback and an even worse problem than before.

It's better suited to incentive rather than force.

There's a possibility that I'm missing something here so someone please help me out on what it is.

It's my understanding that we're talking about climate action and how it should be implemented. Climate is a function of atmosphere and ocean. These resources are world wide and the entire population of the earth is affecting it. You guys are talking about incentives to get folks to volunteer action. What I see is that incentives cost money, and that money will be taken from me by force. Taxes are not optional. The result of few volunteers improving the air and water will be insignificant if the vast majority continues polluting. I am forced to pay extra for nothing happening. I don't see why I should want that.

My preferred option is to first to determine what is needed for humankind's survival, secondly figure out what kind of international legal agreement is possible, then third to put it into law. I see this as a choice between results and waste and I prefer results.

The rest of the world is doing plenty. It is nice to see the USA has stopped dragging its feet.

Our difference is that you see nations like China and India --more than a third of the planet's population-- doing more to improve the environment than the U.S./Europe. We can look into that if you are willing to put your beliefs at risk.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As I see it, we need to move away from industrialisation and large cities.

That's going to be near impossible.

 

[Altfish]

I wish that were true. Unfortunately I represented a "recycling company" during the early 2000's, for about eight years. Very few "recycled" items are re-used. Almost all of them go into landfill or are incinerated. There's really not much of an end-user taker. It's mostly a "feel-good" action that lets us pretend we're being environmentally conscious.


You still need backup power that works 24-7-265 so again it's "pretend environmentalism." That backup power can't just be cranked up when the wind goes quiet or the skies go overcast.

I know that there are plastic bag laws all over the place but most of those seem designed to make us uncomfortable. On Saturday, September 23, 2023 I was leaving the Acme supermarket. I purchased more than I expected. I had to run out to my car to get reusable bags in the driving, Ophelia-whipped rain to load my bags in the shelter of the store. I arrived home thoroughly drenched and chilled. The reason; people in India dispose of bags in the Ganges so we are being punished. We are giving up first-world convenience.

This is done in New York City, except the "better public transport" part. As part of "vision zero" the City administration had taken the following actions, which I wonder if they are designed to deliberately create traffic jams and make motorists' lives miserable?

1. Shrinking five-lane avenues, such as 9th Avenue in NYC (with happens to lead to a major tunnel) to effectively two lanes when the bike lane and the bus lane aren't counted;
2. Traffic lights which restrict left turns from and to one-way streets;
3. Two bus lanes, 24/7, on Madison Avenue, creating middle-of-the-night traffic jams;
4. Blanket 25 mph speed limits;
5. Massive Citibike racks taking up a lane of traffic for almost the length of a block;
6. Traffic flow constriction on Third Avenue leading north to Queensboro Bridge;
7. Traffic flow constriction on Second Avenue leading to Queens Midtown Tunnel; and
8. The worst, concrete blocks reducing 43rd Street between Third and Lexington Avenues to one lane on the south side of the street for half the block, and the north side of the street for the other half?

Are they creating the "congestion" to allow for the "congestion pricing"?

As far as "better public transport" this is largely impractical at any reasonable cost. The "East Side Access" project to bring LIRR trains into Grand Central was at least ten years late, and a multiple of the original cost. The creation of the "Second Avenue Subway" has created a vestigial stump of a line, basically a train to nowhere. And look at the California "High Speed Rail" boondoggle. Need I say more?


Look at the California "High Speed Rail" boondoggle. Need I say more?


Nothing is simple except that you are advocating a system that doesn't work in replacement for a system that works.

These things all work in UK apart from High Speed Rail and due to government ineptitude it is failing.
I fully support making driving less convenient by restricting lanes SO LONG as you provide good alternatives. Good public transport = less cars.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That's going to be near impossible.

Why?

 

[metis]

I may not have used the same words, but his point is sound. Compulsion of the innocent is the hallmark of evil.

Then best not to live in any society because this is what ALL societies do.

 

[Unfettered]

Then best not to live in any society because this is what ALL societies do.

Or we could stand up for, and work for, a better society—for what is right. Is it wrong for me to do that?

 

[metis]

Or we could stand up for, and work for, a better society—for what is right. Is it wrong for me to do that?

Letting people die because of self-centered carelessness will not make "a better society".

 

[Shaul]

All climate actions should be done voluntarily by individuals and never put upon them by coercion or force.

 

[Unfettered]

Letting people die because of self-centered carelessness will not make "a better society".

I agree.

 

[Pete in Panama]

All climate actions should be done voluntarily by individuals and never put upon them by coercion or force.

My concern is that somehow I'll be forced to pay the nice people for their willingness to volunteer.

 

[Shaul]

My concern is that somehow I'll be forced to pay the nice people for their willingness to volunteer.

If you have a valid case all that is needed is to communicate it.

 

[crossfire]

Screw any policy that is antithesis to people's freedoms.

All you end up with is pushback and an even worse problem than before.

It's better suited to incentive rather than force.

Hey, I'm all for incentivizing individuals to put in solar panels, plant trees, and such.
I'm more worried about getting a handle on the corporate polluters, and carbon credit trading is not going to cut the muster, imo.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Hey, I'm all for incentivizing individuals to put in solar panels and such.
I'm more worried about getting a handle on the corporate polluters.

Well tax credits for corporate installation of green technology might be a fair place to start.

 

[crossfire]

Well tax credits for corporate installation of green technology might be a fair place to start.

So you are saying that carbon credits are a good thing?

 

[Twilight Hue]

So you are saying that carbon credits are a good thing?

As long as it remains elective, yes.

 

[Pete in Panama]

If you have a valid case all that is needed is to communicate it.

The EPA's tax income for 2023 just got increased by $41B (from here) on top of their current $12B (from here) comes up to about $53B. I'm personally paying a dollar for every billion so that's $53 out of my pocket. I'd prefer to keep my $53 thank you.

 

[jbg]

Bear in mind the change in climate is already costing us trillions of dollars per year in damage from fire, flood, hurricanes etc. - and the resulting inexorable climb in insurance premia. The costs of climate control measures should be seen as mitigating further rises in such costs. Which is why the big insurers are fully behind climate countermeasures.

There are a few problems. The biggest one is that no one has any idea if "mitigation" will do anything at all. This is about control, not the environment. How do you know that if we take lemming-like measures it will accomplish anything?

 

[Heyo]

carbon credit trading is not going to cut the muster, imo.

Carbon credit trading is a good idea. But the best idea is worthless if the implementation counteracts the idea.