The point of the research is that a lot of policies that seem economically effective, like tradeable carbon credits, are hated because people consider them unfair.. — Benkei
People have no problems with making sacrifices as long as everybody does. — Benkei
There's a huge difference on what kind of subsidy one wants for a negative outcome than with the tax one would pay for there be no negative outcome.people respond better to subsidies than taxes, no surprise there but there's still a majority for making sacrifices also in the form of taxes. — Benkei
Did you look at the research I shared? Your reaction seems to indicate you haven't. A ban on combustion engines is an actual proposed climate policy in the survey of the top most research paper. So people are prepared to do this, provided rich people are under the same ban. — Benkei
Maybe next time just say you haven't read it, or better yet, don't reply as if you have, instead of this nonsense where you're now pretending it's my fault for you not having read it. — Benkei
Your reaction seems to indicate you haven't. — Benkei
If you want to make a point of argument, then quote the referenced paper. — Janus
Your reply was a blanket denial of the conclusion of the research. — Benkei
Most people do the best they can for themselves within the rules they live under from time to time. — God
At about 1.5°C some tipping points may be reached, including for the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, accelerated thawing of boreal permafrost, and die-off of tropical coral reefs. But the authors “cannot rule out” that ice-sheet tipping points have already been passed and that some other tipping elements have minimum thresholds in range of 1.1°C to 1.5°C of warming.
Is it already too late?
If so, will we reach tipping points no matter what policies we enact?
Will we actually turn ourselves into Venus? — Mikie
This is not an issue of individual morals or even of national politics, but largely because of game theory tending towards tragedy of the commons — ChatteringMonkey
On the contrary it is and only ever has been a case of individual morals. Most countries are democracies. So every vote counts. By changing the individual opinion we thus slowly but surely change the general opinion. Democratic politicians want to appeal to the masses, and if an individual opinion has "gone viral" through logic and reason and ethical imperative, then politicians take that on board.
It's foolish to think one individual opinion doesn't count when it's highly agreeable. If it's highly agreeable then it's likely to become the opinion of many. And the opinion of many has clout. It makes a difference. — Benj96
You cannot force others to change, you can only live and breathe your beliefs and if others accept such beliefs as sensible then well, your beliefs "catch fire" and spread far and wide. — Benj96
The only thing you have to do to change the world is think thoroughly and in a measured/balanced way and trust that others will do the talking for you. If that wasn't the case how would anyone's ideas (artistic, innovative, technological, religious, educative, etc) ever spread beyond themselves? — Benj96
but only in a couple of countries, Brazil doesn't matter that much. — ChatteringMonkey
Sure you can, the barrel of a gun is probably one of the most effective ways to make people do what you want — ChatteringMonkey
Because implementing those idea's can give you some kind of advantage? Do you think they get taken on just because they are measured and balanced, or true? — ChatteringMonkey
Yeah as I said. You can't force people to do what you want as it's unethical. Hence why holding a barrel of a gun to someone's head (trying to force them to do what you want for fear of their lives) is generally accepted as illegal/criminal in most countries. You can try to force someone but your shouldn't - is what I'm saying. — Benj96
Yes I believe beliefs that aren't extremely biased or one sided (not measured) tend to not be favoured over one's that are more balanced and consider multiple viewpoints and opinions. Secondly again yes - I think beliefs or observations that people think are true and honest tend to be taken on board more than blind random lying and unjustified ideation. — Benj96
My original point was not about morality, but about geo-political dynamics which is about nations, and not individuals and so not about morals really. — ChatteringMonkey
The US and China should (and are the only geopolitical powers that could) force other nations to follow their lead in phasing out carbon-based fuels otherwise it's not going to happen, because other nations trying to phase them out at an increased speed will suffer in a global market. — ChatteringMonkey
But if everyone is waiting for everyone else to be the first one (if they are scared and distrusting of one another) to start then nothing happens. As a matter of fact Denmark, Costa Rica, Scotland and Iceland have all just gone ahead and beyond, and managed to up their renewables to pretty much the large majority of their energy sources. And they havent collapsed economically. So there is a way. — Benj96
It's ironic that an obvious and needed reform in our power supply is being ignored because of a power struggle between nations. We are fiercely competitive with eachother trying to gain the upper hand meanwhile what we are competing over is an addictive yet toxic substance (oil). — Benj96
National geopolitics should reflect a collective morality. — Benj96
No there isn't, no way that isn't very costly anyway. They don't produce the majority of their energy with renewables, but the majority of their electricity, and that is typically only 20% of total energy consumption. First you need to electrify everything and then you need to up your electricity production without fossil fuels times 5 to get to the same levels of energy consumption.... never mind the pre-supposed continual growth (which implies even more energy) that is deemed necessarily to keep our economies running.
And no, Iceland (with warm water springing out of the ground), Denmark (surrounded by windy seas) and Costa Rica (no industry because their economy is tourism) are not representative at all for the rest of the world. — ChatteringMonkey
It just so happens that up till recent we were not that numerous and nature was resilient enough to carry those costs for the most part. — ChatteringMonkey
They should but they don't, never have in the geopolitical arena... stamping your feet about the immorality of it won't get us closer to solving the problem — ChatteringMonkey
No, not with me, with the overwhelming scientific consensus and the undeniable evidence. — Mikie
People believe in a flat earth and deny the holocaust -- I have no interest in engaging with them either. — Mikie
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.