undefined | Better HN

0 pointscriley23y ago0 comments

Hard to be counterproductive when the current support for and ability to implement climate policy is already so low. What are consumers are going to do, slow the already far too slow pace of combatting this existential threat down? Oh no, impending doom still equals impending doom.

When you compare the places worldwide and in the US where governments are pushing and where governments deny change and intentionally do nothing, there is a stark difference in progress. There can be no doubt that current levels of government effort basically perfectly correlate with the amount of progress done. California's government is the only reason the United States has any competitiveness on electric cars, lithium batteries, solar panels, and without CA, the other 49 aren't in the same universe as China or Europe in this space.

Ultimately, I don't think there is any future for human civilization as we know it if climate policy is purely a grass roots, bottom up, consumer and market oriented change. I believe the government-minimum scenario is the billions die when breadbasket regions fail and mass famine hits scenario

0 comments

5 comments · 1 top-level

_skel3y ago· 4 in thread

Here is what might happen:

State governments like the one in California try to ban gas car sales. This will not be popular. Right-wing politicians scream "they are taking away our cars and our freedom". Many people secretly agree, resulting in the election of politicians who roll back many climate policy provisions. End result: fewer good climate policy laws than what we could have ended up with if the left wing had been more incremental and less strident.

lukeschlather3y ago

This ban is scheduled over a decade from now, and is probably too late to effect change. This is incremental change and it is not enough change to solve the problem. Really I find this whole line of reasoning very strange. It's well-documented what we need to do to minimize climate change. We're already overdue to take action. An incremental plan is fine but the increments must be large enough to solve the problem (and this is actually an example of the increment being too small, yet you suggest it is too large and we should be more cautious.)

twblalock3y ago

The voters decide which increments are too big. It's pretty simple -- if they would vote to prevent or roll back a given climate policy, the increment is too big.

Small incremental improvement is better than failed attempts to force through large increments resulting in no improvement or negative improvement.

1 more reply

OccamsMirror3y ago

It's classic American Right freedom signaling. It's always freedom to. Never freedom from.

Freedom to buy ICE cars. Not freedom from the existential risk of climate change.

BitwiseFool3y ago

The raft of anti-automobile measures taking place in true-blue areas are facing backlash already. People talk a big game about phasing out cars and forcing people to take public transit or ride bicycles, but once those measures start to directly affect people the backlash is significant. Losing street parking makes business owners angry, losing a lane on your commute because it was converted to a bike lane no one seems to ever use causes a lot of resentment. I can also see a lot of middle class people becoming angry about the fact that if they want an automobile they have to pay for a more expensive electric car - perhaps even making it unaffordable. Then they realize this is by design because their leaders want to force them to take public transportation.

It can be argued that these measures ultimately need to happen, but it really seems like the strategy is to make the automobile experience worse and the backlash from ordinary citizens can't be diminished or dismissed.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse