And what I was talking about was that the US does not actually want to decarbonize
— Olivier5

Which is irrelevant. — Xtrix

I think it is the reason we are in this mess.

There is no reason to believe that labor unions will help reduce global warming.
— Olivier5

There’s every reason to believe it in fact.

You mind giving us a few examples?

and then the green revolution will be much easier and will largely take care of itself — unenlightened

The Soylent Green revolution?

No. Great film, but why would one bother to confine humanity in these vast self-sufficient prisons, when you can just send them to war to kill each other off?

The point is that you're missing the point. Energy networks are complex and balancing in- and output is an issue that goes far beyond putting different cables in the ground and tweaking power stations.

I have a hamster that drives a little turbine that I use to heat my tea. He's getting old, so my tea is usually luke warm.

I think we could use hamsters to generate the 4000 volts necessary to smelt iron. We just to get them motivated. A motivational speaker maybe?

That’s really not true. — Xtrix

Really? I did caveat the claim with 'in the Western world'. Do I move in such restricted circles. I can't think of a single person I meet who would look at me with puzzlement if I asked what we ought do about climate change. If there are exceptions they're few and far between.

Of those who do, I think the problem is powerlessness and hopelessness. — Xtrix

OK, interesting. Can you say more about what makes you think that?

Energy networks are complex and balancing in- and output is an issue that goes far beyond putting different cables in the ground and tweaking power stations. — Benkei

Not tweaking— building new ones. Building new transmission lines as well. A major undertaking, but doable. (I’m talking here about electricity, by the way.) Plenty of information out there about this.

It’s far from missing the point — it is the point. At least the one I was making. If you’re talking about something else, fine.

I think it is the reason we are in this mess. — Olivier5

I think so too.

You mind giving us a few examples? — Olivier5

Plenty of examples— but let’s be clear about what I’m saying: if the government is essentially controlled by corporate America, then the best chance we have of moving them is by getting corporate America to give the OK. That’ll only happen through public pressure, especially in the form of unions. There’s a lot of history worth reviewing from the 1930s, etc.

I’m not talking exclusively about fossil fuel companies. Although that’s a key industry, of course.

Really? I did caveat the claim with 'in the Western world'. — Isaac

Where climate denial is rampant, as you know.

OK, interesting. Can you say more about what makes you think that? — Isaac

Sure — I’ll respond later though.

I think it is the reason we are in this mess.
— Olivier5

I think so too. — Xtrix

Why would you say it's irrelevant, then? The US has been and remain the stumbling block to serious emission reductions. That's relevant. Your polity is fucked up, it's the best democracy money can buy. Corporations rule you. That's in essence why we're all doomed.

That's a little myopic. We have this problem because we started using fossil fuels. The problem isn't that we're gluttonous. It's not a problem with the northwestern hemisphere. It's a problem the human species will have for the rest of its time on Earth.

A technological shift put us here. That's what it will take to stop it.

Historically speaking, the US has been and remains the main stumbling block to any reasonable solution. That's a fact. It's not about technology as much as about political influence.

What kind of reasonable solution were you thinking of?

Define 'reasonable'.

Define 'reasonable'. — Olivier5

It was your wording.

Because I’m not talking about history, I’m talking about solutions to climate change — which was what was asked for. Read it through again if you like.

The US’s responsibility in all this has nothing to do with available solutions, of which there are plenty. Whether they get implemented — yes indeed. But the question was about solutions.

Refresher:

Why don't you get a go at it? What are these real actions and solutions? — Olivier5

Building strong unions, for one. In strategic industries, with strike-ready supermajorities. All that's required in that case is people talking to each other, finding common ground, and using a little empathy. And it's happening all across the US and the world, all the time. — Xtrix

Otherwise I could give a rundown of possible governmental actions that would be very useful. But we have less control over those things. I suggest instead to focus on local energy commissions, city councils, budget commissions, town councils, local and regional utility companies, etc. Bring it to the state and local level, since the federal government has been crippled. — Xtrix

I stand by all of that, and am in fact involved in them.

Because the problem seems overwhelming, for one. But mostly because those in power seem immovable and remote— that this is just the way if things. It’s been beaten into our heads that we can’t change anything, that we’re alone, that we shouldn’t bother and look after ourselves— rugged individualism, natural law, human nature, etc.

All complete bullshit, sure. But if you ask people what they think can be done, you’ll get variations of this theme. It’s just feeling powerless. I see it when talking to workers too — they internalize the feeling that to ask for more is greedy and that they’re undeserving — and probably don’t understand the decisions being made anyway.

Where climate denial is rampant, as you know. — Xtrix

Denial is not the same as not knowing.

It’s been beaten into our heads that we can’t change anything, that we’re alone, that we shouldn’t bother and look after ourselves — Xtrix

Has it? If I turn on the TV and flick to some current affairs, or chat show, or even a soap opera do you honestly think the message I'd be getting on climate change is "don't bother, you can't do anything, you're all alone"? It doesn't seem that way to me (I must admit thought I don't have a TV, but I do read the news - I'm extrapolating). It seems to me that the message about climate change and what we can do to help is literally everywhere. I'm not reading this fatalist, or nihilist message that you seem to think is everywhere beaten into people.

Or are you talking about a deeper psychological 'beating'? Kind of 'beaten into us by life'? If so then it seems that, if you want mass mobilisation, you need to fix that problem first otherwise no one will do anything no matter how much you wave your placard.

Ah yes, sorry. What I had in mind was a policy-driven reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the US. The kind of things Obama tried to do and Trump undid. Or prior, Clinton tried to do and Bush undid. Given the dominent position of the US geopolitically and in terms of their huge greenhouse gas emissions, the lack of serious, sustained effort and support from Washington sends a message to other nations that they don't need to make any effort, and worse, that they efforts if they decide to make them will amount to nought because the biggest world polluter is not doing its share.

Because I’m not talking about history, I’m talking about solutions to climate change — which was what was asked for. Read it through again if you like.

The US’s responsibility in all this has nothing to do with available solutions, of which there are plenty. Whether they get implemented — yes indeed. But the question was about solutions. — Xtrix

Alright, there does exist technical and economic solution, such as degrowth, or renewables, or nuclear power, or taxing fossil fuels prohibitively.

Now if only American politicians would care, they could try and apply these solutions and save civilization as we know it. That'd be nice. Any moment now....

Your polity is fucked up, it's the best democracy money can buy. Corporations rule you. That's in essence why we're all doomed. — Olivier5

That's a little myopic. ... A technological shift put us here. That's what it will take to stop it. — Tate

Due to cost of catastrophic failures of several early design nuclear facilities that destroyed their surrounding communities for at least 50 years to come nuclear energy companies (the "corporations") have retrenched from developing safer more efficient facilities. If you ran one of those companies you would also be obliged to be sure to avoid another Chernobyl or Fukushima of your making. The savior fusion reactor research has so far proven to be too impractical and has fallen out of realistic consideration.

If whatever technology was ripe the "corporations" would jump at the opportunity to grab it.

Now if only American politicians would care, they could try and apply these solutions and save civilization as we know it. — Olivier5

As you all said, the "corporations" rule America.

Now if only American politicians would care, they could try and apply these solutions and save civilization as we know it. That'd be nice. Any moment now.... — Olivier5

According to the senator from West Virginia, whether or not civilization as we know it is saved solely depends on next month's CPI report.

Washington sends a message to other nations that they don't need to make any effort, and worse, that they efforts if they decide to make them will amount to nought because the biggest world polluter is not doing its share. — Olivier5

I see what you mean, although China is presently the largest producer of CO2.

I don't believe the US has ever been in a position to solve the problem. It's a global, long-term problem.

Denial is not the same as not knowing. — Isaac

I can't think of a single person I meet who would look at me with puzzlement if I asked what we ought do about climate change. — Isaac

And the answer for many is “nothing, because it’s a hoax.” But somehow this counts as “knowing” about it? Then yes, everyone in the world has most likely heard the words “climate change.” Was that really your point?

Also, you didn’t mention simply “knowing,” you stated that everyone knows both about climate change and what we should do about climate change. That’s not the case in the West. Climate denial is rampant.

But keep arguing it, by all means.

It’s been beaten into our heads that we can’t change anything, that we’re alone, that we shouldn’t bother and look after ourselves
— Xtrix — Isaac

Has it? — Isaac

Yes.

If you don’t see it, that’s OK.

I don't believe the US has ever been in a position to solve the problem. It's a global, long-term problem. — Tate

That's what it means for a problem to be global; that no one group can solve it. As in a global pandemic, that could have been quickly halted by global cooperation to isolate and compensate, but only by every country working cooperatively to the same end. It didn't happen with that either. But to the extent that the US is the leading power, and the leading per capita producer of CO2, and a leading technological innovator, it does have the power to influence by example and encourage compliance with a strategy by economic means, and hugely contribute to the solution instead of hugely contributing to the failure to tackle the problem at all.

And the answer for many is “nothing, because it’s a hoax.” But somehow this counts as “knowing” about it? Then yes, everyone in the world has most likely heard the words “climate change.” Was that really your point? — Xtrix

Yes. If people hear all about climate change and what they ought to do about but their response is "it's a hoax" then telling them again isn't going to do anything, is it?

The point I'm making is that you keep talking about solutions which have already been tried and failed and you're not addressing the reasons why they failed.

We've tried coming up with technological solutions. No one cared. We tried campaigns and messaging. No one joined. We tried more urgent messaging. People reckoned it was a hoax. We tried politics. The politicians were corrupted. We tried unionising. The corporations were able to put too many barriers in the way.

etc.

If we're to make progress we need to look at the barriers, the reasons why campaigns are failing. all we tend to do is have another campaign instead. And that itself is another barrier. Why do we prefer campaigns to actually working out what needs doing?

It’s been beaten into our heads that we can’t change anything, that we’re alone, that we shouldn’t bother and look after ourselves
— Xtrix — Isaac

Has it? — Isaac


Yes. — Xtrix

By whom, how, why have they succeed but climate campaigners have failed?

But to the extent that the US is the leading power, and the leading per capita producer of CO2, and a leading technological innovator, it does have the power to influence by example and encourage compliance with a strategy by economic means, and hugely contribute to the solution instead of hugely contributing to the failure to tackle the problem at all. — unenlightened

I agree. My focus tends to be on the scale of centuries. The US won't exist in a thousand years, so I tend to ignore it. Maybe I should pay more attention to the contribution my generation makes.

And the answer for many is “nothing, because it’s a hoax.” But somehow this counts as “knowing” about it? Then yes, everyone in the world has most likely heard the words “climate change.” Was that really your point?
— Xtrix

Yes. — Isaac

So the point is that nearly everywhere has heard the words. Fine. Completely irrelevant to anything I was talking about. But then again, that really wasn’t the point:

I doubt there's a single person in the Western world who doesn't know about climate change and what they ought to do to help. Yet they're not doing it. So knowing what to do to help clearly isn't the problem. People already know and are not doing it. — Isaac

No, people don’t know what they ought to do to help, because they think it’s a hoax.

Why do we prefer campaigns to actually working out what needs doing? — Isaac

I was asked about solutions. If what you’re asking is how we make progress towards those ends, overcoming barriers, etc., there’s plenty to be said about it.

If you want my personal opinion, I think that because progress requires people, and lots of them, coming together in solidarity— the answer ultimately involves things like awareness, empathy, listening, finding common ground, and genuine respect for working people. That could be my psychotherapy background talking, but these are the factors involved in any growth and change I’ve ever witnessed. People don’t change by being lectured.

Jane McAlevey has written extensively on this, and comes to similar conclusions— focusing on labor unions, but the principles are the same. She’s had win after win. Worth reading.

the answer ultimately involves things like awareness, empathy, listening, finding common ground, and genuine respect for working people. — Xtrix

Right. That's very similar to where I was headed. What's the point in rehashing the solutions whilst you know full well the barriers to achieving them are as firm as ever.

It's like going over and over the plan to hitchhike to Mexico once you're out of prison without having a clue how you're going to get out.

I'll add that this is all the more true when one considers the impact of those factors on consumerism.

What's the point in rehashing the solutions whilst you know full well the barriers to achieving them are as firm as ever. — Isaac

Because I was asked.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/720896

Because I was asked.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/720896 — Xtrix

So you don't see removal of barriers as part of the solution? What distinguishes the two for you?