I had been assuming that the one silver lining of this whole covid experience would be a natural experiment in reducing the economy and thus greenhouse gas. However, I was chatting with some friends yesterday who work in climate change research and policy and they were pretty pessimistic. They felt that this will push people away from public transit and into cars thus increasing oil demand.
It will be interesting to see what, if any, effect this all has.
It’s going to be a nightmare, and it’s already happening. People aren’t going to want to travel in close proximity to other people for a LONG time after this. Car travel goes up, public transit usage goes down, which blows a hole in municipal budgets, which causes reductions in service, which causes more car travel. It’s a very vicious circle.
I anticipate WFH is going to become permanent for an awful lot of people, which will greatly reduce overall emissions. In the US at least the vast majority of miles traveled were already by car. Also air travel is never going back to where it was, and cruise ships are similarly perma damaged.
A reduction in global trade will also have significant positive impacts for climate change. Supply chains are going to be more local going forward. If I only got to put forward one high certainty result of all this that would be my pick.
Most people who do public transit do it because they have to or it would be an overwhelming burden to drive/park. So, I dunno.
May lead to less travel - especially air travel, more work from home. And experiment of a reduced economy might go on for some time.
We’re a long way from sustainability though. Even with COVID we’re still adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
I think that what the current experience is showing is that a vast majority of emissions are actually driven by industrial production and shipping. I am not an expert on this but I always thought the idea of defeating climate change via point of purchase consumer choice was corporate BS.
You think corporations are asking people to consume less?
And, if people consume less, less gets produced and shipped. There may be a delay, but industry isn’t producing and shipping for no reason.
I think blaming industry is how a lot of consumers absolve themselves of responsibility.
No quite the contrary. What I think is that corporations convinced governments to convince people that the way to fight climate change was to buy a bunch of “green” products instead of imposing regulations on corporations.
Well, how about just suggesting that people consume less? That would be a way of “defeating climate change via point of purchase consumer choice”. Are you expecting governments to force companies to produce less? Or are you just suggesting that corporations buy a bunch of “green” products?
I am not pretending to have a magic bullet solution to climate change. Yes, I agree that it will likely require lower consumption. I am just saying that wave one of the green consumer revolution was largely based on marketing designed to get people to keep buying lots of stuff with a green halo. My point is that larger structural changes are what’s needed, and all of the evidence of the past 30 years supports that.
Totally agree, I just think that there is a still prominent narrative that the way to solve climate change is for consumers to but more green stuff. I think it should be obvious that wiser structural changes across the global economy are needed. I don’t think that’s very controversial, and I was observing the fact that global emissions are still high at a time when global consumer activity has been seriously curtailed.
The change is that people need to consume less. Yeah, some green products are not so green, but most really are and there’s a lot of reactionary propaganda around this or that supposedly green product being actually worse.
The government could of course do more. New single family homes could be limited to 1500 square feet. Meat could be banned. But, people could do that for themselves and anyone who wants the government to impose such rules should absolutely follow them on their own. If a majority of people vote with their behavior, at least we’re half way there.
Yup… nothing the consumer can do. Nothing at all…
The Neolibs with their milquetoast, uninspiring candidates and personal refusal to take even the most basic steps at a micro level will save us.
What do you think about taxing meat or subsidizing vegetarian diets? That would fit into my concept of structural changes.
I largely agree with what you’re saying, but not this part. It seems pretty clear at this point that centralized coordination is necessary. I also think you’re framing things in a misleading way by putting it as free consumer choice vs. banned meat. That’s Fox News stuff and we know it’s not true.
It’s pretty clear we need an overhaul of our food system. Bill Maher is insufferable on his eugenics-lite bashing on the obese for the drain they put on our health system, but there is a lot of truth there. We subsidize shit like corn, so every product at the grocer in the middle of the store has corn syrup, corn starch, corn oil, et al. Reallllll healthy.
What are you expecting government to do to lower consumption then?
I don’t know what you mean by the Fox News part and we know it’s not true. We know the government is not going to ban meat. It would be good for the climate (and the animals) if it did, but we know they’re not going to do it. We also know they’re not going to ban 5000 sf homes with 3 air conditioners. They’re not going to ban air travel. They’re not going to ban keeping your house 78 degrees in the winter in Wisconsin.
You want to blame industry as if it’s the air conditioner or energy producer’s fault that people live like that. It’s the consumer’s fault.
I think you are misunderstanding a lot of what I’m saying. I’m not saying consumers have no responsibility. I’m not saying government needs to ban this that and the other. You install solar panels for a living right? I think you might be overreacting to what I’m saying, thinking that I’m saying solar panels have NO benefit, for example, when I am saying no such thing. What I’m saying mostly boils down to “the market alone can’t reduce emissions enough to prevent climate change”. Ots incomprehensible to me that anyone could try to argue against that point in 2020, except maybe someone who makes a living selling green consumer goods. Upton Sinclair and all that.
I’m not objecting to what you’re saying because it could be construed to be about solar panels. I wouldn’t think you could be that wrong.
How can anyone in 2020 think that the government can solve climate change?
I think it’s a HUGE problem that a lot of people sit around thinking the government should do this or that about something like climate change and don’t do those things themselves and excuse it as their contribution being so small that it doesn’t matter. It matters more than your vote!
Me too. That doesn’t contradict anything I’ve said in this thread. The question isn’t really about whether this behavior is okay or not okay. Its about the most realistic path to widespread changes in behaviours and outcomes. Suggesting government action is not equivalent to forgiveness of the activity the government action is designed to curtail. No one says laws punishing murder are bad because it just excuses the murderers for failing to have some self control.
