I'm not surprised. Trying to rely on people to voluntarily change their behaviour while leaving companies to seemingly do whatever they want without consequences is a terrible idea. Why should people sacrifice their lifestyle while large corporations continue to make cheap, disposable goods and waste resources anyway? What's the incentive to consume less and change our lifestyles if leaders/celebrities/billionaires just fly to conferences in private jets at a whim, and waste such resources at an immense scale anyway?<p>Plus... saying things is easy. Actually doing things differently are not.
What you mean the rich and famous won't stop owning a dozen cars and a private plane, because of climate change?
Not surprising. We hear stories all the time about airports being full of private planes at climate conferences. People didn't exactly carpool to g20
68% of Americans say they wouldn't pay $10 a month in higher electricity bills to combat Climate Change:<p><a href="https://www.cato.org/blog/68-americans-wouldnt-pay-10-month-higher-electric-bills-combat-climate-change" rel="nofollow">https://www.cato.org/blog/68-americans-wouldnt-pay-10-month-...</a><p>What politicians say they want to do about global warming is very, very different to what people say they will pay for.
This is good. This particular change has to be top down. The ability to put pressure on government and industry should be grass roots, not behavioral changes themselves.
There's the perennial problem with such polls in that people have serious doubts about whether incurring costs for environmental reasons will actually accomplish the objective.<p>An awful lot of environmental rules simply export the problem but do nothing to stop it.
What do we need to change this?<p>Education?<p>Behavioral Hacking?<p>More discussion ejection seat buzzwords?<p>Surplus Resources produced by cornucopia machinery?<p>Governments that are resistant to bribery and clan-think(aka human nature)?<p>Or a virus that drastically reduces economic dynamics and individual exertions? Can in a dysfunctional society and system, a virus be considered a valid policy, to prevent far greater dangers through suicidal economic policies?<p>Does the need of the many yet to come outweigh the need of those present?<p>Just doing the devils advocate here. In the longterm im guessing it needs cornucopia to kick the can of worms further down the road.<p>To change humanity, fix all the hardcoded brain-bugs and de-faulty heuristics, alot more has to happen. Just some dopamine-milk machine in the cellphone will not change moohmanity.
The current divide on coronavirus measures seems fairly similar to me, just with the speed dial turned up.<p>Current climate chat is about social distancing and lockdowns. We need it to be about antivirals, vaccines, immunity etc.<p>Basically, how do we fix this, not what do we do to hide from it for a bit.<p>It is unsustainable to suggest that everyone just restricts their lifestyle forever in an endless loop.
Yes, it's a collective action problem which can't be solved by individual consumer activism. You need meaningful policies which internalize external costs. Of course you need to also need to work to eliminate rent seeking within the political system to make that possible as well.