> If it were true we wouldn't be as badly progressing with climate action as we are.
We are progressing poorly, but what you’re saying here is that fewer than a billion people believe that climate change is a problem?
> For instance, we would have already billions of vegan people.
Veganism is a factor in climate change, but the methane we could offset from going vegan globally is nowhere near as effective or meaningful as ending the burning of fossil fuels.
I guess you haven't really engaged with the climate change speech that people like Greta advocate for?
I don't think anyone that's serious about climate change really argues that people should become vegan, of course, it would help. But what is needed is not these sort of individual choices leading to systemic change but systemic change leading to change in individual choices. In other words, you don't become vegan because your heart changes but because suddenly a mostly vegetable-based diet becomes the cheapest alternative through different government programs. Of course there's a lot of complexity to this and price mechanisms don't always work, but prices + cultural changes can.
Our change in diets should be tackled the same way obesity and smoking have been tackled. We need information campaigns and price incentives. These as you might see are not individual choices but political, state-wide, and for climate change these need to be world-wide policy changes. That's what serious climate activists advocate for.
What's the main problem? Our political systems are not capable of properly solving these issues any longer. In a few words: things don't get done anymore. So personally I think a big part that's missing in the climate change debate is precisely the question of "what sort of political system we need to ensure these changes are made". And I think someone like Greta actually fails in this regard, in that although she points out the problem and the culprits there is very little work done beyond that.
Although I admire a lot of the work that Greta has done. I think she has failed as an activist in that she's not really encouraged people to dream as much as she's encouraged people to sulk and be angry.
I think we need to start thinking more seriously about what the political, societal and economic system look like in a world where this thing that we want (climate change has stopped) can happen. Simply saying "we need to stop climate change, big producers are killing us and politicians are doing nothing" is the easy part. And someone in her position should probably start considering the hard part more seriously.
I, for one, think we need to completely rethink our representation-based system because personally I haven't felt properly represented in... well, ever. I can't expect politicians that are worried about the next elections to actually make the hard decisions that will definitely cost them lots of votes to be made. Specially because if they actually lose then the other side will not only backtrack everything that was done but push it further to the other side. It's so much easier to destroy than to construct.
7 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 27.0 ms ] threadShe gets to say what billions are already thinking. What is extraordinary about that?
If it were true we wouldn't be as badly progressing with climate action as we are.
For instance, we would have already billions of vegan people.
I don’t understand your meaning
> If it were true we wouldn't be as badly progressing with climate action as we are.
We are progressing poorly, but what you’re saying here is that fewer than a billion people believe that climate change is a problem?
> For instance, we would have already billions of vegan people.
Veganism is a factor in climate change, but the methane we could offset from going vegan globally is nowhere near as effective or meaningful as ending the burning of fossil fuels.
I don't think anyone that's serious about climate change really argues that people should become vegan, of course, it would help. But what is needed is not these sort of individual choices leading to systemic change but systemic change leading to change in individual choices. In other words, you don't become vegan because your heart changes but because suddenly a mostly vegetable-based diet becomes the cheapest alternative through different government programs. Of course there's a lot of complexity to this and price mechanisms don't always work, but prices + cultural changes can.
Our change in diets should be tackled the same way obesity and smoking have been tackled. We need information campaigns and price incentives. These as you might see are not individual choices but political, state-wide, and for climate change these need to be world-wide policy changes. That's what serious climate activists advocate for.
What's the main problem? Our political systems are not capable of properly solving these issues any longer. In a few words: things don't get done anymore. So personally I think a big part that's missing in the climate change debate is precisely the question of "what sort of political system we need to ensure these changes are made". And I think someone like Greta actually fails in this regard, in that although she points out the problem and the culprits there is very little work done beyond that.
I think we need to start thinking more seriously about what the political, societal and economic system look like in a world where this thing that we want (climate change has stopped) can happen. Simply saying "we need to stop climate change, big producers are killing us and politicians are doing nothing" is the easy part. And someone in her position should probably start considering the hard part more seriously.
I, for one, think we need to completely rethink our representation-based system because personally I haven't felt properly represented in... well, ever. I can't expect politicians that are worried about the next elections to actually make the hard decisions that will definitely cost them lots of votes to be made. Specially because if they actually lose then the other side will not only backtrack everything that was done but push it further to the other side. It's so much easier to destroy than to construct.