Climate inaction requires tremendous sacrifice in all of our standards of living. So does taxes. It is a very human behavior to give away a little you have in order for other people to enjoy better lives. We do it all the time.
People in the developing world will not make any sacrifice to their standard of living, which is already low. To the contrary, they will insist on increasing their standard of living. For the developed world to bankroll the green infrastructure of the developing world--at a scale that allows the developing world to continue improving its standard of living, and while continuing their own green energy investment--will require people in the developing world to give away far more than "a little."
Why are you so sure that people wouldn’t agree to that? Do you see consistent polling data across generations indicating this trend? Is the popular opinion against climate relief funds in Europe? Are people in Denmark opposed to revenue from their garbage disposal/ski-hill going to climate relief in other countries? I don’t think so. And more importantly to your point, does polling suggest people are more willing to invest in carbon sequestration technology as a climate action, rather than green infrastructure in foreign countries? Show me these polls, and show me a lasting trend, and I’ll consider your point.
As a counter I’d like to offer you that the German population was ready to suffer a deeper energy crisis for harder sanctions with Russia after the Ukraine invasion. Polling was consistent, showing a willingness to accept lower standard of living, if it meant a possibility that a war fought in a poorer country would end sooner. On an individual level participants in a prisoner dilemma studies show a consistent willing to accept a worse deal if it means more people will be better off. Neither psychology nor general polling is on your side.
No, the people will accept lower standard of living just fine. The only ones who insist on anything are governments who are consistently unwilling to sacrifice the corporate profits of the rich. And here carbon sequestration works perfectly, as it will take decades for this technology to be mature and rolled out at scale, all the while corporation can keep polluting and keep turning in record profits for their shareholders. Something that people in the ”developed word“ (ugh!) actually generally oppose.
Climate inaction requires tremendous sacrifice in all of our standards of living. So does taxes. It is a very human behavior to give away a little you have in order for other people to enjoy better lives. We do it all the time.
People in the developing world will not make any sacrifice to their standard of living, which is already low. To the contrary, they will insist on increasing their standard of living. For the developed world to bankroll the green infrastructure of the developing world--at a scale that allows the developing world to continue improving its standard of living, and while continuing their own green energy investment--will require people in the developing world to give away far more than "a little."
Why are you so sure that people wouldn’t agree to that? Do you see consistent polling data across generations indicating this trend? Is the popular opinion against climate relief funds in Europe? Are people in Denmark opposed to revenue from their garbage disposal/ski-hill going to climate relief in other countries? I don’t think so. And more importantly to your point, does polling suggest people are more willing to invest in carbon sequestration technology as a climate action, rather than green infrastructure in foreign countries? Show me these polls, and show me a lasting trend, and I’ll consider your point.
As a counter I’d like to offer you that the German population was ready to suffer a deeper energy crisis for harder sanctions with Russia after the Ukraine invasion. Polling was consistent, showing a willingness to accept lower standard of living, if it meant a possibility that a war fought in a poorer country would end sooner. On an individual level participants in a prisoner dilemma studies show a consistent willing to accept a worse deal if it means more people will be better off. Neither psychology nor general polling is on your side.
No, the people will accept lower standard of living just fine. The only ones who insist on anything are governments who are consistently unwilling to sacrifice the corporate profits of the rich. And here carbon sequestration works perfectly, as it will take decades for this technology to be mature and rolled out at scale, all the while corporation can keep polluting and keep turning in record profits for their shareholders. Something that people in the ”developed word“ (ugh!) actually generally oppose.
1 reply →