Teenage Climate Change Activist "I want you to panic"

[Yukaphile]

@clearspira That is probably precisely what I do. But then again, I probably have the excuse of being poor. And you literally can't change the world. It's like an ocean. It's going to do what it's going to do all on its own. You just gotta ride along with it. That's the Zen of Yukaphile, now available for $99.99. Call now!

[AllanO]

The issue is beyond individual speculation. Establishing possibility does nothing to assess the situation well because possibility can apply to the rock bottom of personal conditions for the collective good, and literally nobody ever agrees on the appropriate level of individual sacrifice or the appropriate means of enforcing such a vague standard.

Mainly though, treating even representational agents as directly corresponding to a collective problem on their individual basis is completely detached from occurence of the problem.

You don't look at the person who skips going to the gym one day and charge them with skipping the gym day 98% of the time. You can only realistically say that, over time, they didn't go to the gym 98% of the time.

I am not sure what you mean by individual speculation, but to me the point is that those arguing for no change in behaviour will argue impossibility, so a person act that proves possibility is at least a response to such naysayers. Also fairly or not people (including ones in this thread) clearly feel that you have to model the action you want to enforce on others to be convincing in advocating for enforcing those standards. Those advocating for a ban on incandescent light bulbs are far less rhetorically effective if they continue to use incandescents and even less so if they put up a million incandescent Christmas lights on their house in December even if such actions do nothing to effect incandescent light bulb consumption. The fact that the moral standard being applied is vague and nebulous makes it no different from every other standard of public argument. What is convincing to one audience is unconvincing to the next, but that does not mean one gives up on make arguments and advocacy, I hope.

Just to be clear I am not arguing that any one person's individual actions would be sufficient, I am just saying that individual action is necessary for any collective action, so that people who say individual actions are irrelevant are wrong. Collective action usually has other conditions that induce or otherwise combine with individual action to be jointly sufficient to create the desired effect. As a corollary in order to motivate a collective action you must have reasons that motivate the individual actions that make it up. So yeah you have to pass laws, change society, invent stuff and so on to motivate collective action, but such action if if succeeds is predicated on motivating changes in individual behaviour as part and parcel of it. So while it fails to deal with the total occurrence of the problem, it is a component of the solution that was my point.

Not sure I understand your point about the gym, but my point about the gym is not to make a generalization about how often someone will go to the gym, my point was whether one can find sufficient reason to go to the gym...

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

The issue is beyond individual speculation. Establishing possibility does nothing to assess the situation well because possibility can apply to the rock bottom of personal conditions for the collective good, and literally nobody ever agrees on the appropriate level of individual sacrifice or the appropriate means of enforcing such a vague standard.

Mainly though, treating even representational agents as directly corresponding to a collective problem on their individual basis is completely detached from occurence of the problem.

You don't look at the person who skips going to the gym one day and charge them with skipping the gym day 98% of the time. You can only realistically say that, over time, they didn't go to the gym 98% of the time.

I am not sure what you mean by individual speculation, but to me the point is that those arguing for no change in behaviour will argue impossibility, so a person act that proves possibility is at least a response to such naysayers. Also fairly or not people (including ones in this thread) clearly feel that you have to model the action you want to enforce on others to be convincing in advocating for enforcing those standards. Those advocating for a ban on incandescent light bulbs are far less rhetorically effective if they continue to use incandescents and even less so if they put up a million incandescent Christmas lights on their house in December even if such actions do nothing to effect incandescent light bulb consumption. The fact that the moral standard being applied is vague and nebulous makes it no different from every other standard of public argument. What is convincing to one audience is unconvincing to the next, but that does not mean one gives up on make arguments and advocacy, I hope.

Just to be clear I am not arguing that any one person's individual actions would be sufficient, I am just saying that individual action is necessary for any collective action, so that people who say individual actions are irrelevant are wrong. Collective action usually has other conditions that induce or otherwise combine with individual action to be jointly sufficient to create the desired effect. As a corollary in order to motivate a collective action you must have reasons that motivate the individual actions that make it up. So yeah you have to pass laws, change society, invent stuff and so on to motivate collective action, but such action if if succeeds is predicated on motivating changes in individual behaviour as part and parcel of it. So while it fails to deal with the total occurrence of the problem, it is a component of the solution that was my point.

Not sure I understand your point about the gym, but my point about the gym is not to make a generalization about how often someone will go to the gym, my point was whether one can find sufficient reason to go to the gym...

I actually don't disagree with you about anything you replied to me with, just to set forth. I was just kinda interjecting personal thoughts on the complication of enacting collective policy. It's pretty important to lead by example, but I'm weary of overtly symbolic measures when judging the issue itself.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Consumer choices are not a viable way to stop or reduce climate change.

A few rich people are causing it by pushing for laws that subsidize fossil fuels and slashing pollution regulation. A few rich people are doing it because it's easier to dump mercury in the drinking water than it is to take a profit cut. A few rich people are doing it by breeding pesticide-resistant cash crops instead of pest-resistant cash crops, because that way you can still make more money selling pesticides. A few rich people are doing it by appointing EPAs who say radiation is good for you and the air is too clean.

She never claimed there's some secret water-powered engine, nor did I, but if you think that pollution and climate change have nothing to do with a few powerful, rich people deciding that they would rather decrease the quality of life for everyone else than make a little less money, then you are a fool.

Sure consumer choices can fight climate change. Consumers could choose not to consume. Consumers could all buy hybrid cars, or, for those unable to afford those, could share them. Consumers can refuse to use artificial lighting. Cooperative utilities could go all-solar. The reason none of this happens isn't because some rich dudes with all the power are trying to get a role on Captain Planet, it's because of the tragedy of the commons. Sure, the rich and powerful have a disproportionate effect, but in most cases the consumers are the ones with the actual power, spent one dollar at a time.

We won't fight global warming by demanding someone else do it for us. But we like our air conditioners on, we like SUVs, and we like our suburbs.

And my comments didn't address mercury, radiation, or any form of air pollution other than greenhouse gases. If you want to try breeding pest-resistant crops that's fine, but the efforts I've heard of didn't work so well.

Voting with your wallet is meaningless when I have five votes and less than 1% of the population has a fucktillion.

Me eating vegan and using reusable bags and recycling won't change that most pollution and contributors to climate change happen on an Industrial Scale. No amount of me living green will get Big Agriculture to use more sustainable farming practices, or reduce their carbon output, or anything like that.

It's a matter of scale. I'm not asking for other people to "do it for me", we're saying that the people who do the biggest contributions to global warming should do less of that and that a problem of this scale requires action on a large scale.

The fact that this has no impact on your opinion or even your feelings is something I struggle to comprehend.

[Darth Wedgius]

Consumer choices are not a viable way to stop or reduce climate change.

A few rich people are causing it by pushing for laws that subsidize fossil fuels and slashing pollution regulation. A few rich people are doing it because it's easier to dump mercury in the drinking water than it is to take a profit cut. A few rich people are doing it by breeding pesticide-resistant cash crops instead of pest-resistant cash crops, because that way you can still make more money selling pesticides. A few rich people are doing it by appointing EPAs who say radiation is good for you and the air is too clean.

She never claimed there's some secret water-powered engine, nor did I, but if you think that pollution and climate change have nothing to do with a few powerful, rich people deciding that they would rather decrease the quality of life for everyone else than make a little less money, then you are a fool.

Sure consumer choices can fight climate change. Consumers could choose not to consume. Consumers could all buy hybrid cars, or, for those unable to afford those, could share them. Consumers can refuse to use artificial lighting. Cooperative utilities could go all-solar. The reason none of this happens isn't because some rich dudes with all the power are trying to get a role on Captain Planet, it's because of the tragedy of the commons. Sure, the rich and powerful have a disproportionate effect, but in most cases the consumers are the ones with the actual power, spent one dollar at a time.

We won't fight global warming by demanding someone else do it for us. But we like our air conditioners on, we like SUVs, and we like our suburbs.

And my comments didn't address mercury, radiation, or any form of air pollution other than greenhouse gases. If you want to try breeding pest-resistant crops that's fine, but the efforts I've heard of didn't work so well.

Voting with your wallet is meaningless when I have five votes and less than 1% of the population has a fucktillion.

Me eating vegan and using reusable bags and recycling won't change that most pollution and contributors to climate change happen on an Industrial Scale. No amount of me living green will get Big Agriculture to use more sustainable farming practices, or reduce their carbon output, or anything like that.

It's a matter of scale. I'm not asking for other people to "do it for me", we're saying that the people who do the biggest contributions to global warming should do less of that and that a problem of this scale requires action on a large scale.

The fact that this has no impact on your opinion or even your feelings is something I struggle to comprehend.

Where do you think that 1% gets their fucktillion dollars from? I'm not saying you yourself can stop global warming, but the billions of people out there have to do it.

How much CO2 do you think Jeff Bezos puts out? How much do you think he drives? How much air conditioning does he use, personally? If you think of the CO2 his company puts out (Amazon), that's driven by people ordering through them. If you ask people if they know offhand how much of Amazon is powered by renewable energy, how many do you think will have that answer?

If you're blaming the 1% for offering people the choice of cheaper goods vs. more expensive, sustainable ones, that's your right. I'm of a more individualist bent, and would rather blame individuals making those choices.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Voting with your wallet is meaningless when I have five votes and less than 1% of the population has a fucktillion.

Me eating vegan and using reusable bags and recycling won't change that most pollution and contributors to climate change happen on an Industrial Scale. No amount of me living green will get Big Agriculture to use more sustainable farming practices, or reduce their carbon output, or anything like that.

It's a matter of scale. I'm not asking for other people to "do it for me", we're saying that the people who do the biggest contributions to global warming should do less of that and that a problem of this scale requires action on a large scale.

The fact that this has no impact on your opinion or even your feelings is something I struggle to comprehend.

System action, not large scale.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Consumer choices are not a viable way to stop or reduce climate change.

A few rich people are causing it by pushing for laws that subsidize fossil fuels and slashing pollution regulation. A few rich people are doing it because it's easier to dump mercury in the drinking water than it is to take a profit cut. A few rich people are doing it by breeding pesticide-resistant cash crops instead of pest-resistant cash crops, because that way you can still make more money selling pesticides. A few rich people are doing it by appointing EPAs who say radiation is good for you and the air is too clean.

She never claimed there's some secret water-powered engine, nor did I, but if you think that pollution and climate change have nothing to do with a few powerful, rich people deciding that they would rather decrease the quality of life for everyone else than make a little less money, then you are a fool.

Sure consumer choices can fight climate change. Consumers could choose not to consume. Consumers could all buy hybrid cars, or, for those unable to afford those, could share them. Consumers can refuse to use artificial lighting. Cooperative utilities could go all-solar. The reason none of this happens isn't because some rich dudes with all the power are trying to get a role on Captain Planet, it's because of the tragedy of the commons. Sure, the rich and powerful have a disproportionate effect, but in most cases the consumers are the ones with the actual power, spent one dollar at a time.

We won't fight global warming by demanding someone else do it for us. But we like our air conditioners on, we like SUVs, and we like our suburbs.

And my comments didn't address mercury, radiation, or any form of air pollution other than greenhouse gases. If you want to try breeding pest-resistant crops that's fine, but the efforts I've heard of didn't work so well.

Voting with your wallet is meaningless when I have five votes and less than 1% of the population has a fucktillion.

Me eating vegan and using reusable bags and recycling won't change that most pollution and contributors to climate change happen on an Industrial Scale. No amount of me living green will get Big Agriculture to use more sustainable farming practices, or reduce their carbon output, or anything like that.

It's a matter of scale. I'm not asking for other people to "do it for me", we're saying that the people who do the biggest contributions to global warming should do less of that and that a problem of this scale requires action on a large scale.

The fact that this has no impact on your opinion or even your feelings is something I struggle to comprehend.

Where do you think that 1% gets their fucktillion dollars from? I'm not saying you yourself can stop global warming, but the billions of people out there have to do it.

How much CO2 do you think Jeff Bezos puts out? How much do you think he drives? How much air conditioning does he use, personally? If you think of the CO2 his company puts out (Amazon), that's driven by people ordering through them. If you ask people if they know offhand how much of Amazon is powered by renewable energy, how many do you think will have that answer?

If you're blaming the 1% for offering people the choice of cheaper goods vs. more expensive, sustainable ones, that's your right. I'm of a more individualist bent, and would rather blame individuals making those choices.

You don't see any of this being on their shoulders? You blame individuals who buy things rather than industry-wide practices, lobbying against more ecologically sustainable practices, etc.?

It's the spider man maxim. With great power comes great responsibility, and people like Bezos choose something that will make the planet less habitable to human life because they want to make $2,569 per minute instead of $2,496.

Just look at the power industry. That's an area where many states offer ZERO consumer choice. I'm lucky to live in a state and city where I can choose my electricity plans, but some people aren't.

I know the magical hydrogen call cars are a crackpot theory, and there are problems with current forms of clean energy, but don't you think that oil magnates are using their considerable power to lobby for the government to artificially reduce the price of gas, and lobbying against any tax breaks or research grants for cleaner alternatives, because they would rather have more oil money?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Fuzzy it's well known that Bezos drives a Prius. Are you gonna keep telling me that he contributes more to pollution than someone that drives a mustang?

[Darth Wedgius]

You don't see any of this being on their shoulders? You blame individuals who buy things rather than industry-wide practices, lobbying against more ecologically sustainable practices, etc.?

It's the spider man maxim. With great power comes great responsibility, and people like Bezos choose something that will make the planet less habitable to human life because they want to make $2,569 per minute instead of $2,496.

Just look at the power industry. That's an area where many states offer ZERO consumer choice. I'm lucky to live in a state and city where I can choose my electricity plans, but some people aren't.

I know the magical hydrogen call cars are a crackpot theory, and there are problems with current forms of clean energy, but don't you think that oil magnates are using their considerable power to lobby for the government to artificially reduce the price of gas, and lobbying against any tax breaks or research grants for cleaner alternatives, because they would rather have more oil money?

Are they lobbying against more sustainable practices, or against regulation requiring more sustainable practices? And what is stopping consumers from exercising their choices to buy more sustainably?

For utilities you have a point, but a lot of those are non-profit community utilities. People like Bezos don't reap a lot of reward there. And people do have a choice -- solar panels on the roof can help quite a bit (at least during the daytime in clear weather).

For lobbying against research, sure, if they are doing that. You potentially have me there, in that they could be having a disproportionate effect. But renewables have been getting government aid for a while now, and I think the public is the ones who have killed nuclear power in the U.S.

But it sounds as though you're largely blaming the 1% for giving consumers choices that you don't approve of.

[AllanO]

I actually don't disagree with you about anything you replied to me with, just to set forth. I was just kinda interjecting personal thoughts on the complication of enacting collective policy. It's pretty important to lead by example, but I'm weary of overtly symbolic measures when judging the issue itself.

Sorry I guess I am a bit defensive.

An interesting inverse case of this sort of thing, is our suspicion of those with a conflict of interest. In principle an expert paid large sums by the company whose product is being scrutinized can give as sound an argument as anyone, but we are more liable to suspect problems with the argument if such sums have been paid. There is the internal logic, facts and merit of an argument and then there are the external causes that predispose it to error, dishonesty etc. Our informal reasonings about such thing have a certain merit even if they are not cashed out in the cold internal logic of a debate.