The Burning Question and Jevon's paradox

[Narz]

Namely by getting less preachy and more practicey. Forcing involvement by government regulation is more counterproductive than attempting to make a fashion statement.

For real?

Making a statement is all well & good but it's not enough anymore to make like Gandhi & "be the change" hoping others will follow suit. Governments need to force mofos to get in line, kicking & screaming if need be. If we wait for people to see the light it will be too late. Probably already is.

 

[El_Machinae]

Namely by getting less preachy and more practicey. Forcing involvement by government regulation is more counterproductive than attempting to make a fashion statement.

Those are separate things. We've long passed the stage where 'practicey' makes any difference. There is no level of asceticism that the greenies can achieve that will undo the progressive ongoing damage caused by the nongreenies*. We're actually at the stage where only government regulation can make any real difference, it's a classical Tragedy of the Commons.

*That's not to say that personal sacrifices don't help, because the system is a buffered system that's having its buffering capacity leeched away over time.

 

[Rashiminos]

Those are separate things. We've long past the stage where 'practicey' makes any difference. There is no level of asceticism that the greenies can achieve that will undo the progressive ongoing damage caused by the nongreenies*. We're actually at the stage where only government regulation can make any real difference, it's a classical Tragedy of the Commons.

Asceticism isn't really a point in contention. Greenies want to change the economic structure, not dissolve it in a reversion to a prior system. Complaints about a lack of current economic viability of sustainable alternatives are not met with individuals or collectives rising to those challenges with the same gusto levied towards government intervention. The contrarians in the political process would be a bit harder pressed to make a case against personal choice and peer reinforcement (although it has been done).

For real?

Making a statement is all well & good but it's not enough anymore to make like Gandhi & "be the change" hoping others will follow suit. Governments need to force mofos to get in line, kicking & screaming if need be. If we wait for people to see the light it will be too late. Probably already is.

And how will they force those "mofos?" When you put it that way, the charge of being authoritarian fits. If that's the only path you think has a chance of working, commit. Don't cringe at the mere protest of being "Ecofascist." You disagree with the label, not with the intent.

 

[El_Machinae]

Complaints about a lack of current economic viability of sustainable alternatives are not met with individuals or collectives rising to those challenges with the same gusto levied towards government intervention.

Yes, I know. It's a function of people wanting their cake and to eat it too. It's true that the 'true' economic viability of sustainable alternatives is not currently there. It's only through government intervention can they become so (for normal people), and it's the only way to harness market incentives towards creating those alternatives.

You're right, though, there's very little private greenie action towards creating viable alternatives. I've only rarely seen investment opportunities

 

[Rashiminos]

Yes, I know. It's a function of people wanting their cake and to eat it too. It's true that the 'true' economic viability of sustainable alternatives is not currently there. It's only through government intervention can they become so (for normal people), and it's the only way to harness market incentives towards creating those alternatives.

Despite government's attempts to stimulate, new industries are built by the people who want to use them, and old, insufficiently-green industries are eroded when support, financial or otherwise, is withdrawn from them. I don't accept the notion that government intervention is the only means (for 'normal' people, and that's an interesting distinction to draw ) towards 'sustainability', but it may be a path of lesser resistance for quite a few.

 

[El_Machinae]

Despite government's attempts to stimulate, new industries are built by the people who want to use them, and old, insufficiently-green industries are eroded when support, financial or otherwise, is withdrawn from them.

Yes, that's mostly true. Or, it IS true, but it's only true at certain timescales. If my car is expected to last me until after my per capita contribution needs to drop by 80%, then it's really quite obvious how waiting for my car to 'erode' isn't really going to help. Conversely, if new industries are created by those with incentive to do so, then creating incentives (via government action) helps create those industries.

I don't accept the notion that government intervention is the only means (for 'normal' people, and that's an interesting distinction to draw ) towards 'sustainability', but it may be a path of lesser resistance for quite a few.

It's not the path of lesser resistance, it's the only real path. It's the only path because we're passed the point where one group of people can slow the aggregate momentum sufficiently quickly. This is where Jevon's paradox kicks in - the more 'wiggle room' in the buffer that concerned people create (through invention), the faster other people will consume that buffer. IF there was a deliberate effort (in only the Pascal's Wager sense) overall, then the brunt of the sacrifice could be borne by the proud few. BUT, there're entire swaths of people who're willing to make things worse if they get the chance or the opportunity.

This is why there needs to be a strict limit on total emissions. Why? Because any system that creates economically viable alternatives will only speed the rate at which total emissions rise.

 

[Rashiminos]

Yes, that's mostly true. Or, it IS true, but it's only true at certain timescales. If my car is expected to last me until after my per capita contribution needs to drop by 80%, then it's really quite obvious how waiting for my car to 'erode' isn't really going to help. Conversely, if new industries are created by those with incentive to do so, then creating incentives (via government action) helps create those industries.

You wouldn't be waiting for the car to erode so much as replacing it with a better mode of transportation while recycling the car. The government's primary vehicle of incentivization is financial, which tends to attract the wrong sort of business.

It's not the path of lesser resistance, it's the only real path. It's the only path because we're passed the point where one group of people can slow the aggregate momentum sufficiently quickly. This is where Jevon's paradox kicks in - the more 'wiggle room' in the buffer that concerned people create (through invention), the faster other people will consume that buffer. IF there was a deliberate effort (in only the Pascal's Wager sense) overall, then the brunt of the sacrifice could be borne by the proud few. BUT, there're entire swaths of people who're willing to make things worse if they get the chance or the opportunity.

I don't disagree that there are people willing to make things 'worse.' As long as you describe them as acting in bad faith, apply that to their interactions with and among government.

This is why there needs to be a strict limit on total emissions. Why? Because any system that creates economically viable alternatives will only speed the rate at which total emissions rise.

A strict limit isn't that likely to work if the willingness you bemoan is as strong as you make it out to be. Some of them will evade government action, others will decide it for themselves. If they voluntarily relocate to a jurisdiction in which the environmentalist groups are essentially outnumbered, what then?

 

[El_Machinae]

If they voluntarily relocate to a jurisdiction in which the environmentalist groups are essentially outnumbered, what then?

What can you do? Then all you've bought is time. That's what every greenie who's already trying to limit their lifestyle is already doing. What's then needed? Well, better international political coordination. No one said this was going to be easy. In fact, it's pressingly hard. I mean, the only saving grace here is that the nations that have done the bulk of the buffer consumption (to date) are countries whose citizens mostly control the governments. The countries with less control (a) need time and political aid and (b) have (proportionally) much more of their share of the buffer remaining.

 

[Core Imposter]

If all is lost, emigrate to the New World.

 

[Rashiminos]

What can you do? Then all you've bought is time. That's what every greenie who's already trying to limit their lifestyle is already doing.

*Chuckles* Not exactly.

What's then needed?

You're claiming that only government intervention can work, so tell me, first.

Well, better international political coordination. No one said this was going to be easy. In fact, it's pressingly hard. I mean, the only saving grace here is that the nations would have done the bulk of the buffer consumption (to date) are countries whose citizens mostly control the governments. The countries with less control (a) need time and political aid and (b) have (proportionally) much more of their share of the buffer remaining.

Let's say we have a group of nations led by the "swaths of people willing to makes things worse" and are fully capable of exhausting the buffer between them. How does international political coordination intercede to make things better in this circumstance?

 

[El_Machinae]

Political agitation is necessary in order to corral those groups of nations, it's always been the issue. Yes, international coordination is nigh useless without getting the powerful nations (who've already nearly exhausted their share of the buffer) yolked. Right now, we've already got groups of nations led by those people, and then there's the token Green element frenetically trying to figure out how to tighten their belts (very poorly, I might add) and create useful political agitation. It's an uphill battle, hindered by human nature.

 

[Hygro]

Namely by getting less preachy and more practicey. Forcing involvement by government regulation is more counterproductive than attempting to make a fashion statement.

LMFAO you nearly wrote that getting more practicey means attempting a fashion statement.

It's like we're tied together on a rope and you're about to jump over a cliff and I'm like "no, stop, you'll kill us both" and you're like "get less preachy". Aight, maybe I'll just have to manhandle your sorry ass before you take us both out.

That's the real logic of it. It isn't "getting preachy" when people are going to die in increasingly large numbers because someone wants their meat processed and packaged like an electronics piece.

And how will they force those "mofos?" When you put it that way, the charge of being authoritarian fits. If that's the only path you think has a chance of working, commit. Don't cringe at the mere protest of being "Ecofascist." You disagree with the label, not with the intent.

Now that's gangster.

 

[Rashiminos]

LMFAO you nearly wrote that getting more practicey means attempting a fashion statement.

That's actually a closer interpretation than your imagining below.

It's like we're tied together on a rope and you're about to jump over a cliff and I'm like "no, stop, you'll kill us both" and you're like "get less preachy". Aight, maybe I'll just have to manhandle your sorry ass before you take us both out.

Who tied the rope in this example? Was it me saying that we might each be better off doing our own thing in this case, or was it you insisting we both had to follow certain limits. Hypothetically, could you not untie the rope if I opted to jump off by myself?

Spoiler :

It's your example, so you probably tied the rope if it included me in it. Hypothetically, the threat of manhandling me implies a need for self-defense, to put it gingerly.

That's the real logic of it. It isn't "getting preachy" when people are going to die in increasingly large numbers because someone wants their meat processed and packaged like an electronics piece.

You weren't near real logic when you dreamed about that cliff. Nongreenies may not actually realize the ability to increase consumption if their population base for doing so shrinks in favor of network that supports an environmentally-conscious lifestyle.

 

[classical_hero]

Solar panel every rooftop, switch to electric everything.

Do you realise how damaging modern solar panel production is? Especially the mining process to get the rare earth minerals needed to make them?

 

[El_Machinae]

If anything, that's a reason to be more cautious with our fossil fuel consumption.

I made a mistake in the OP! I bought the book today and noticed I'd misunderstood something in the lecture The book calls the OP graph the 'probable' reserves, the reserves that are 50% likely to be economically extractable. The graph regarding 'proven' reserves (90% likely to be economically extractable) lets us burn all the proven gas and all the proven oil, but very little of the proven coal.

 

[Narz]

And how will they force those "mofos?" When you put it that way, the charge of being authoritarian fits. If that's the only path you think has a chance of working, commit. Don't cringe at the mere protest of being "Ecofascist." You disagree with the label, not with the intent.

Ok, so I'm authoritarian. Label me all you like. However even libertarians say "your right to swing your fist ends where I begin" & ecologically damaging behavior hurts everyone.

Modern people are goddamn brats, thinking they have the "right" to do whatever they want as long as they have the money.

It doesn't matter anyway as environmental regulations are going to move at a snail's pace.

Me personally, I'd move to an "Eco-facist" state in a minute just because of the quality of character I imagine I'd find there.

 

[Hygro]

That's actually a closer interpretation than your imagining below.

Who tied the rope in this example? Was it me saying that we might each be better off doing our own thing in this case, or was it you insisting we both had to follow certain limits. Hypothetically, could you not untie the rope if I opted to jump off by myself?

Spoiler :

It's your example, so you probably tied the rope if it included me in it. Hypothetically, the threat of manhandling me implies a need for self-defense, to put it gingerly.

You weren't near real logic when you dreamed about that cliff. Nongreenies may not actually realize the ability to increase consumption if their population base for doing so shrinks in favor of network that supports an environmentally-conscious lifestyle.

The rope in this metaphor is the planet. You can't untie the rope, it's one planetary system.

Do you realise how damaging modern solar panel production is? Especially the mining process to get the rare earth minerals needed to make them?

Valid concern. Not as damaging as accelerating an already existing mass extinction event. Besides, no one said we can't be more careful about that either. I am happy to discover I'm not on your ignore list however--this is the first time you've responded to one of my posts in forever

 

[El_Machinae]

The rope & cliff face could even represent history. You can have both climbed the cliff together, and then over the last 21 years (Since Rio '22) been increasingly vocal about not wanting to climb higher, but kept on doing so out of some weird personal weakness. And then, learning the guy wants to climb faster and faster, higher and higher, you can become increasingly self-defensive.

 

[Rashiminos]

The rope in this metaphor is the planet. You can't untie the rope, it's one planetary system.

It is a system, but it cannot be the rope. The planet is fine. Go ahead and treat it like the rope , but it's fine.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm sure the rope will be fine at the end of the story that it's being used as analogy for.