A Conservative Policy Solution to Slow Down Climate Change?

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
classical_Liberal
Posts: 2283
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:05 am

Re: A Conservative Policy Solution to Slow Down Climate Change?

Post by classical_Liberal »

...
Last edited by classical_Liberal on Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Hristo Botev
Posts: 1734
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 3:42 am

Re: A Conservative Policy Solution to Slow Down Climate Change?

Post by Hristo Botev »

classical_Liberal wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 3:11 pm
It seems to me, the first and foremost thing within our control, is to bring our personal consumption levels down to a level consistent with what is a sustainable level based on current global population and current global resources/technology. IOW, ERE levels. I mean, why bother doing anything else until we've cleaned up our own house first.
Perhaps I should have been a bit clearer, as I'd assumed that bringing our personal consumption levels down to ERE levels was kinda why we are all here:

"BUT, to actually act upon those things that are in my circle of control, [by first and foremost bringing our personal consumption levels down to ERE levels,] as opposed to just throwing my hands up in the air because I'm overwhelmed by all those things that I can't control."

classical_Liberal
Posts: 2283
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:05 am

Re: A Conservative Policy Solution to Slow Down Climate Change?

Post by classical_Liberal »

...
Last edited by classical_Liberal on Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: A Conservative Policy Solution to Slow Down Climate Change?

Post by Riggerjack »

A huge advantage since the industrial revolution has been the "free" capital based on using energies and technologies that leave an impact on the environment for future generations. There is a huge future cost to that, which the market isn't currently paying. If it did pay, things would change very quickly. I'm just not sure how to force this "accounting" change without usage of some centralized authority to ensure an even playing field.
Thank you. A very good description of the typical way people who think of markets as problems see the CC problem.

Whereas I think of this like a puzzle. How could this assembly be taken apart, and put back together in such a way that it performs the same function, in ways that produce products and waste more in alignment with 21st century sensibilities.

Thinking about this from an endpoint backwards gives more options than thinking top down, and dealing with the perverse incentives complicating top down efforts.

Simply speaking, CC abatement is viewed from a top down, forcing of change on people. And as has often been repeated, this fails. Every time.

Whereas I tend to think that the offered solutions as unappealing, to non-working. And that's a tough sell.

If people don't really want to adopt your solution, they won't. This isn't a problem with people, or markets, it's a problem of people trying to force other people to buy their poor quality solution.

The obvious fix is to come up with a better way. What we lack today, is that better way. This is where the work needs to be done.

Unfortunately, most people can't even imagine a different way, let alone a better way. Hell, most people don't know how most things work, today...

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: A Conservative Policy Solution to Slow Down Climate Change?

Post by jacob »

Insofar everybody sticks to their circle of control (=oneself + possible family and some friends x couple of weeks or decades ahead) it will prevent exactly the kind of complex organization of resources and pollution managed needed. In systems terms, think of the ultimate solution as a web of stocks and flows but with people being given the advice that they should only focus on the node they control and not concern themselves with connecting nodes or nodes further away.

It is this myopia that prevents the solution from being visible and it is this lack of visibility that causes the predicament in the first place.

Focusing exclusively on one's "local spacetime bubble" works fine insofar space is large. Put it another way, individuals can do what they want as long as their actions doesn't affect their neighbors. This "distance" is the keystone of libertarian ideas and individualism for that matter. It's the fundamental assumption that underlies the whole framework so any observation that disagrees with it is thought of as an exception (or as relatively unimportant or being fixable with some minor modification.

Basically, it's fine how the fact that "my freedom to swing my fist ends at your face" goes mostly unappreciated... but problems arise as my arm grows longer and other people move closer and closer. This requires reconstructing my entire framework for "large distances" to "small distances".

TL;DR - The more the world gets squished towards its limits, the closer the nodes get, and the less they're free to ignore their impact or coordination with other nodes. Humans are unfortunately too short-sighted to see much beyond their own node. Therein lies the problem. But I'm not sure that not trying should be encouraged.

Add: I have the same objection towards the so-called low-information dieters. That is essentially abnegating responsibility. One saying I like better is the "no responsibility without authority". This also implies that those who do not take responsibility should accept others holding authority over them. How about that?

Hristo Botev
Posts: 1734
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 3:42 am

Re: A Conservative Policy Solution to Slow Down Climate Change?

Post by Hristo Botev »

@CL: I don't think those things--addressing our personal inabilities and also advocating for larger scale solutions--are mutually exclusive. Seems like its just a version of an ad hominem attack to say that the size of a person's carbon footprint determines how much that person is permitted to advocate for an otherwise sensible larger scale policy proposal to address CC. If that were the case, it'd be a pretty small handful of Americans who'd be permitted to participate in the discussion (and, honestly, you'd have a hard time getting them on the phone, because most of them probably don't have one.)

User avatar
Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 1669
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: A Conservative Policy Solution to Slow Down Climate Change?

Post by Mister Imperceptible »

If I draw an income from the System, and I have a low carbon footprint, I really am still am a participant in the system. I play a different role to be sure, but if I own a share in a company that pays me a dividend, and that company makes finished products using raw materials from Africa, or slave labor from China, and the slave labor in China powers their transportation and heats their home by pumping coal in the air, my income depends on that coal being pumped into the air in China to provide heat and transportation for the slave labor. Maybe I diversify away from the companies that use the slave labor, but the interconnectedness of the global economy inextricably links me to all that activity. So unless there is some puzzle solving, everyone not a subsistence farmer is complicit.
Last edited by Mister Imperceptible on Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

daylen
Posts: 2528
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: A Conservative Policy Solution to Slow Down Climate Change?

Post by daylen »

Something to keep in mind (*) is that the strategy space for individual humans is dependent/constrained by the emergent strategy of the human population which is globally coupled. There is no such thing as an independent human and even if there were then this state would be contradicted by engaging with community/policy. Any W7 strategy in the current global state will need to shift upon a global state change, thus if anything is going to be done to shift the general population strategy then nearly independent humans must accept some degree of hypocrisy.

(*) Looks like a few beat me to it.

classical_Liberal
Posts: 2283
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:05 am

Re: A Conservative Policy Solution to Slow Down Climate Change?

Post by classical_Liberal »

...
Last edited by classical_Liberal on Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:34 am, edited 2 times in total.

Hristo Botev
Posts: 1734
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 3:42 am

Re: A Conservative Policy Solution to Slow Down Climate Change?

Post by Hristo Botev »

@Jacob: I must have really been unclear. I was at the point yesterday where I was throwing my own hands up in the air. But the podcast reminded me that there is something I can do (lots of things), that I actually have control over. That's not limited to just lowering my consumption; it's getting my family's consumption down; and by example friends and family members; and by advocating for local policies that can make a difference (e.g., I'm currently working to get our central downtown corridor shut down to all but busses and special needs traffic); etc. etc.--the "circle of control" does indeed expand further and further out. I'm certainly not a low information diet guy; or a bury my head in the sand guy. And I am ABSOLUTELY a responsibility guy--there's a special circle of hell reserved for those who whine and complain when they've made no attempt to take on ANY responsibility.

ETA: So, yes to "no responsibility without authority". If I don't want to step up and do something (assuming I live in a society/environment where I have the option to do something), then I should keep my mouth shut and do what I'm told.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: A Conservative Policy Solution to Slow Down Climate Change?

Post by Riggerjack »

This also implies that those who do not take responsibility should accept others holding authority over them. How about that?
How is that different from today? Those who don't take responsibility want some "authority" to handle the things that are too complicated or difficult for most individuals to come up with working solutions.

All I have been saying is how spectacularly unsuited authority is to this task. But it is the preferred tool, so hammer away at this vault door all you like. But a locksmith might be more effective than just using the same old hammer...
The market just doesn't currently require external costs to be paid. This isn't a problem of the market itself, rather a problem of inaccurate accounting.
I absolutely agree. Why do you think that is?

Myself, I would say that as we created the rules of those markets (real estate, lumber, labor, and other inputs/outputs) we weren't focused on the waste as much as the profit.

But today, we are focused in the waste, as much as the profit. And today, information dispersal is much, much easier.

So all we need, is an operation that turns the output of your land into finished products in a way in line with public ethics, and allow the market to move towards the money you make.

Take for example Tom's shoes. (Disclaimer, I have never seen one of these shoes. This is simply a mental exercise.) Tom went down to south america, and saw a shortage of shoes among the poor, and lots of simple shoe designs kicked out by individual cobblers. He then came up with a line of shoes made by these cobblers, sold in the states.

When an American customer bought a pair of shoes, another pair was made and distributed to the poor by Tom's. This was a marketing ploy called 1-for-1.

Toms did big business for a while. Lots of fashion concious young ladies bought the shoes, and sent millions of pair of shoes all over the 3rd world.

But, there is nothing proprietary about 1-for-1. Soon, other manufacturers were using the same gimmick.

Tom's wasn't built to be truly competitive, and was driven to bankruptcy by competitors who were better at making shoes, and just used the new gimmick.

So. Let's look at the effect of Tom's shoes. They made and sold millions of shoes, half of which were given to the poor. But then competitors did the same. Now there are many companies using market forces to effectively make and move shoes using the leverage of high value markets to serve low value markets.

Market regulations have no way of doing this.

Tom's is bankrupt. And the market is still producing and delivering free shoes, for access to the high value markets. This will continue for as long as people feel better about their purchase, knowing that their purchase helped someone in need, than they would about shoes for half the price.

In effect, Tom's cashed in on the value of the virtue signal of shoeing those in need.


I wonder, how much is CC abatement really worth? I don't know, because we aren't even testing the market. And we won't, until we have a better product. One that works. One that people want to buy.

Or we can keep trying to herd cats...

User avatar
Alphaville
Posts: 3611
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: A Conservative Policy Solution to Slow Down Climate Change?

Post by Alphaville »


classical_Liberal
Posts: 2283
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:05 am

Re: A Conservative Policy Solution to Slow Down Climate Change?

Post by classical_Liberal »

...
Last edited by classical_Liberal on Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

daylen
Posts: 2528
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: A Conservative Policy Solution to Slow Down Climate Change?

Post by daylen »

Meh thinks "macro vs micro", "value vs cost", "markets as problems vs solutions", and so forth are all just inverses of the same framework (i.e. which way is up vs down?). Essentially equivalent in any way that matters (whatever that means to me I suppose).

Riggerjack
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: A Conservative Policy Solution to Slow Down Climate Change?

Post by Riggerjack »

and so forth are all just inverses of the same framework (i.e. which way is up vs down?). Essentially equivalent in any way that matters
Really? Have you tried to use a screwdriver upside down? It's only good for a half-assed hammer.

How we use our tools actually matters. What we can do with our tools is determined by how effectively we can use them.

We have a long history of beating on things with a regulatory hammer. The capability of this method is well and thoroughly documented. The history of this method, applied to this situation is at least 5 decades old. We know what our efforts produce.

I think it's called anger and/or depression, from all that I have read. Myself, I am not interested in generating more anger or depression without a really good cause, and a really strong benefit.

One might feel that this is such a cause. But it's hard to argue the benefit.

One cannot solve a problem with the same level of thinking that created the problem. The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over, but expect a different result. Blah, blah.
I can at least see why you are going the route you are, but don't see that culture change itself provides enough micro economic incentive to trigger the behavior changes needed at the macro level to solve the problem.
Do you own and carry a smartphone? When were you forced to buy one? How well regulated was the market that forced your compliance? How long do you think it will take to force everyone to get a smartphone? Maybe if we could just get enough social workers helping people use their smartphones, we could get closer to complete smartphone compliance...


Or maybe, the market keeps delivering enough upgrades to the product to keep consumers buying more.

All that was necessary was the original iphone, not regulation. The population merely lined themselves up to convert over.

We simply need a better product line.

Campitor
Posts: 1227
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: A Conservative Policy Solution to Slow Down Climate Change?

Post by Campitor »

I recently came across the Geopolitical analyst Peter Zeihan. He's making certain economic predictions based on several factors: European and Asian age demographics, accessibility to trade under an American military umbrella, the quantity of goods that need to be imported to sustain current economic models, and the ability to project power and control territories and satellite states.

He's predicting that the US will slowly withdraw from NATO as it no longer makes sense to guarantee Europe's security. According to Zeihan the US only pledged to protect Europe for economic reasons. As the EU continues to push for economic autonomy from the US, the incentives to continue providing a European military umbrella via NATO/world policing is no longer in America's long term interest. As the US continues to withdraw from NATO (he guarantees this will happen regardless of the political affiliation of those controlling Congress or the Executive branch), European living standards will begin to decline as they start shouldering the burden of their military responsibilities. He states only Germany, France, and Sweden have a capable military - the rest not so much (he doesn't mention the UK).

Zeihan also states the oldest will soon outnumber the youngest in the EU. Old people don't spend as much money as they did when younger which will lead to a deeper contraction of EU economies. China is in the same predicament (shouldering the cost of their own military + plus an aging population). China knows it won't be able to project power for much longer so they've slowly been turning into a more totalitarian style of government to prevent their country from transforming into a bunch of competing city states when their economy implodes.

The only remaining super power, with a mostly intact economy despite its contraction, according to Zeihan, will be the USA because we have enough replacement workers (young people), access to the Pacific and Atlantic basin trading rims, and the infrastructure to shuttle resources efficiently between our states and trading partners in the Americas. And since the US will be energy independent thanks to shale oil which is of higher quality because of its lack of contamination, it will have access to energy reserves to keep the economy afloat.

There's additional topics he touches on - one of his recent presentation can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHr999RGPQw&t=46s.

So considering that most of the world's economies are going to implode, and trading will soon turn into saber rattling between the various Eurasian economies, how will this impact any possibility of deploying a conservative CC policy when EU/Asian countries are no longer trading/cooperating and perhaps even going to war?
Last edited by Campitor on Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

daylen
Posts: 2528
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: A Conservative Policy Solution to Slow Down Climate Change?

Post by daylen »

Riggerjack wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 6:25 pm
Have you tried to use a screwdriver upside down?
I see it more like screwing a screw vs screwing the object being screwed to, but I am probably blind to what most here consider screwing. :)

Within a personality frame, Te->Ni vs Ni->Te. I suppose one direction can be more "effective" for a certain problem. This is a big problem, though.
Last edited by daylen on Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

classical_Liberal
Posts: 2283
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:05 am

Re: A Conservative Policy Solution to Slow Down Climate Change?

Post by classical_Liberal »

...
Last edited by classical_Liberal on Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: A Conservative Policy Solution to Slow Down Climate Change?

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

“MI” wrote:
The problem with saying we need a Technocracy is that the people who hold the power are still playing Game A/Finite Games. The people playing Game B/Infinite Game just become the slaves/livestock for those who sit atop the Technocracy.
Yet, right now, we live in a world where there are 14 year old kids living in refugee camps making use of their fine brains and second-hand smartphones to hustle some cash trading at the margin (which in their case is clearly defined by a fence.)

I’m not saying that we “need” a technocracy. I’m saying that in many ways high-tech tools have already become more dispersed and democratic than brown-tech tools, and that rabbit isn’t going back in the hat. The path of “development “ has been forever altered.

Obviously, high tech does not equal green tech, but it does lend itself better to the model. And it is also the case that solar panels are more efficient at producing energy/acre than corn or sugar cane. Therefore, if you had the choice between buying solar powered robot vs hiring corn fed farmhand to pick your blueberries, it makes more sense to buy the robot if you have the funds, unless the farmhand is maybe your kid who you have to feed anyways. Even if the solar powered robot is manufactured in a fossil fuel powered factory, it will likely require less energy than feeding a farmhand from birth to blueberry picking age.

User avatar
Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 1669
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: A Conservative Policy Solution to Slow Down Climate Change?

Post by Mister Imperceptible »

I think technology is part of the solution (assuming population crash is not the solution, which it might be). Not in an automagical way, but it is part of the puzzle. What I mean is that a central government body implementing a top-down solution features horrifying asymmetry. We observed during the panic in March that the federal government was all too willing to itself itself digital checks worth dozens of billions of years worth of claims on life-energy. While state governors were taking away the licenses of hairdressers to operate and shutting down their salons, Wall Street provided billions to bail out Carnival and Boeing shareholders and others. According to the tenets of free-market capitalism, those shareholders should be bankrupt, but the Technocracy decided that they should be made whole. I do not owe loyalty or obedience to that Technocracy.

That is why I got so angry in the Covid thread and other threads regarding free speech/cancel culture. You have a technocratic elite that has power of life and death over people. When the population control measures come in, they are not going to say “We will now begin the sterilizations.” They will just start doing it. If they have not already. If the virus were not real it would have been necessary to invent it. So scaremongering tactics by the elite like “Covid destroys your heart” or “Covid will make your testicles explode” are expected and I cannot take them seriously (having had it and feeling it was just a nasty strain of the common flu....which by the way seems to have been eliminated). A big part of the 21st century will be groups of people waging psychological warfare on others by trying to convince them not to procreate or compete in the Darwinistic struggle. Repeating what I said up thread, that really just serves the people at the top of the Technocracy who get free claims on embodied life-energy to play their own Game A. That can happen within multiple strata of society in one country, and it can happen at another level between countries themselves. There’s well over a billion people in China and India and like Putin said, they want to be rich and prosperous and no one can tell them differently. It should not be a surprise that huge swaths of people are not just giving up the Darwinistic struggle. I want my needs provided for. I want a beautiful wife. I want children. I hear the technocracy telling me to stop doing what I need to do to get those things. Ok, give me a few million dollars, a beautiful wife to have children with, and I will get in front of a camera like Kristalina Georgieva and tell people we are setting up a new world order with myself as an overlord, and everyone else needs to lie down and die. Short of that, I refuse to comply. And I am not alone, billions of others will refuse to comply. So that needs to be factored into the puzzle solving, because the psychological warfare convincing people to lie down and die will not work on the people who have not had the will to fight bred out of them.

Locked