Teenage Climate Change Activist "I want you to panic"

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

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.

Well it's not impossible to have a provision of checks and balances through not only a third party, but a regulated one at that. For instance, after the financial crisis, house appraisers can have no associative ties with mortgage banks or something. Of course post 2016 we are seeing not only an apathy for empirical analysis as we always have, but an active defiance of it.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

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.

"Giving consumers choices that you don't approve of".

No, I'm blaming them for DOING things which hurt the population of the planet as a whole. You talk as if large-scale industrial practices weren't a thing! You talk as if the average minimum-wage mother-of-four has enough buying power to make choices when she's trying to stretch $50 a week of food stamps and not get fired for being late. You talk as if all the blame for this situation rests on people with basic needs, and none of it falls on people who make hundreds of dollars a minute but will dump CO2 into the atmosphere and poison into the water and soil and air just because they want to make slightly more.

How can you assign all the blame to wage-slaves and people who are nearly powerless and none of it to the rich and powerful?

[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.

"Giving consumers choices that you don't approve of".

No, I'm blaming them for DOING things which hurt the population of the planet as a whole. You talk as if large-scale industrial practices weren't a thing! You talk as if the average minimum-wage mother-of-four has enough buying power to make choices when she's trying to stretch $50 a week of food stamps and not get fired for being late. You talk as if all the blame for this situation rests on people with basic needs, and none of it falls on people who make hundreds of dollars a minute but will dump CO2 into the atmosphere and poison into the water and soil and air just because they want to make slightly more.

How can you assign all the blame to wage-slaves and people who are nearly powerless and none of it to the rich and powerful?

Most people aren't minimum-wage mothers of four, are they? Most consumers can make choices, can't they? We see dolphin-safe tuna and hybrids around, and roof-top solar, right?

And I do not assign all the blame to people who are nearly powerless and none of it to the rich and powerful. I said that the rich and powerful are not responsible for most of the causes of anthropogenic climate change.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

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.

"Giving consumers choices that you don't approve of".

No, I'm blaming them for DOING things which hurt the population of the planet as a whole. You talk as if large-scale industrial practices weren't a thing! You talk as if the average minimum-wage mother-of-four has enough buying power to make choices when she's trying to stretch $50 a week of food stamps and not get fired for being late. You talk as if all the blame for this situation rests on people with basic needs, and none of it falls on people who make hundreds of dollars a minute but will dump CO2 into the atmosphere and poison into the water and soil and air just because they want to make slightly more.

How can you assign all the blame to wage-slaves and people who are nearly powerless and none of it to the rich and powerful?

Most people aren't minimum-wage mothers of four, are they? Most consumers can make choices, can't they? We see dolphin-safe tuna and hybrids around, and roof-top solar, right?

And I do not assign all the blame to people who are nearly powerless and none of it to the rich and powerful. I said that the rich and powerful are not responsible for most of the causes of anthropogenic climate change.

Let me put it this way.

In most parts of the USA, you need to travel to get to work. You can get a Prius or a Tesla, which is hellishly expensive and beyond the means of the majority of citizens, or you can get a polluting oldschool car.

Sure, you could use public transportation, which has a lower impact. But most public transportation in the USA is utter shit. There are entire states that lack passenger rail services. This is because, a long time ago, gas companies realized that functional trains mean they get less money, so they bought up most of the trolleys and trains, then trashed them, and forced local governments to replace them with nice, gas-using bus services.

Choice, in this society, is a function of wealth. If you are really rich and prosperous, you can buy all the eco-friendly options. If you are middle class, you can choose between vegan lifestyles or owning a Prius. If you are poor, you have to take what you can get.

Does this make sense to you?

[Darth Wedgius]

Yes, poor people have fewer choices. Yes, that makes sense to me. Yes, it can make it harder for them to have a lower carbon footprint. But most can ease up on the carbon a lot more than they do. That poor people have fewer choices does not make a few rich people responsible for them.

Fuzzy, people moved to the suburbs when automobiles became affordable and roads more decent. If people had stayed in the cities then cars would not have been nearly as popular. But people like lawns, privacy, and less crime.

People could also take the bus, which uses gas (or natural gas or diesel) and is quite passenger-mile-per-gallon efficient if it has a lot of people on it. It's a lot less convenient, but it's a personal choice.

Vegan food consumption doesn't have to be expensive. Vegetables are not especially expensive; trust me, I'm vegetarian and I'm cheap. Meat is expensive. Meat substitutes can be expensive, and organic anything can be expensive, but potatoes, brussels sprouts, broccoli, legumes, rice, those aren't especially costly.

[Draco Dracul]

Yes, poor people have fewer choices. Yes, that makes sense to me. Yes, it can make it harder for them to have a lower carbon footprint. But most can ease up on the carbon a lot more than they do. That poor people have fewer choices does not make a few rich people responsible for them.

Fuzzy, people moved to the suburbs when automobiles became affordable and roads more decent. If people had stayed in the cities then cars would not have been nearly as popular. But people like lawns, privacy, and less crime.

People could also take the bus, which uses gas (or natural gas or diesel) and is quite passenger-mile-per-gallon efficient if it has a lot of people on it. It's a lot less convenient, but it's a personal choice.

Vegan food consumption doesn't have to be expensive. Vegetables are not especially expensive; trust me, I'm vegetarian and I'm cheap. Meat is expensive. Meat substitutes can be expensive, and organic anything can be expensive, but potatoes, brussels sprouts, broccoli, legumes, rice, those aren't especially costly.

It does when the rich spend billions of dollars to prevent legislation that could do more to fix the issue than any number choice the sum totality of poor people in the US could make.

[clearspira]

Yes, poor people have fewer choices. Yes, that makes sense to me. Yes, it can make it harder for them to have a lower carbon footprint. But most can ease up on the carbon a lot more than they do. That poor people have fewer choices does not make a few rich people responsible for them.

Fuzzy, people moved to the suburbs when automobiles became affordable and roads more decent. If people had stayed in the cities then cars would not have been nearly as popular. But people like lawns, privacy, and less crime.

People could also take the bus, which uses gas (or natural gas or diesel) and is quite passenger-mile-per-gallon efficient if it has a lot of people on it. It's a lot less convenient, but it's a personal choice.

Vegan food consumption doesn't have to be expensive. Vegetables are not especially expensive; trust me, I'm vegetarian and I'm cheap. Meat is expensive. Meat substitutes can be expensive, and organic anything can be expensive, but potatoes, brussels sprouts, broccoli, legumes, rice, those aren't especially costly.

It does when the rich spend billions of dollars to prevent legislation that could do more to fix the issue than any number choice the sum totality of poor people in the US could make.

Yep. At this point we should also bring up the petrodollar as a serious conversation, because to put it simply, the last thing the US needs is for no one to use oil and many parties will actively fight against renewables. I'm sorry to make this a Trump conversation, but what is more in his interest? To lie about climate change, or for his rich mates to watch as their investments in fossil fuel drop as a result of his actions? Sorry, but there are many in the US that really need to open their eyes to the ulterior motives behind actions such as pulling out of the Paris climate agreement.

[Darth Wedgius]

Yes, poor people have fewer choices. Yes, that makes sense to me. Yes, it can make it harder for them to have a lower carbon footprint. But most can ease up on the carbon a lot more than they do. That poor people have fewer choices does not make a few rich people responsible for them.

Fuzzy, people moved to the suburbs when automobiles became affordable and roads more decent. If people had stayed in the cities then cars would not have been nearly as popular. But people like lawns, privacy, and less crime.

People could also take the bus, which uses gas (or natural gas or diesel) and is quite passenger-mile-per-gallon efficient if it has a lot of people on it. It's a lot less convenient, but it's a personal choice.

Vegan food consumption doesn't have to be expensive. Vegetables are not especially expensive; trust me, I'm vegetarian and I'm cheap. Meat is expensive. Meat substitutes can be expensive, and organic anything can be expensive, but potatoes, brussels sprouts, broccoli, legumes, rice, those aren't especially costly.

It does when the rich spend billions of dollars to prevent legislation that could do more to fix the issue than any number choice the sum totality of poor people in the US could make.

Again, that legislation would be used to constrain choices. People could already make the choices you want them to make.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Apparently "the world is becoming increasingly inhabitable to human life through many horrible disasters and worsening conditions that are a direct result of pollution" isn't enough justification to legislate something?

[Yukaphile]

Well, again, I won't be here for the worst of it, nor do I intend to breed so that my descendants would suffer, so... it's not my problem.