That seems like a bad plan, you should balance the technology and environmental benefits against the rate of improvement and an intelligent way because the biggest obstacle to climate change action is not technical or engineering, it’s just human behavior and voters.
It sounds good that maybe like 51% of your population are willing to pay higher costs, but it’s one thing to say you’re willing to pay higher cost and it’s another thing to actually pay the higher cost. You’ll probably lose a percentage of those supporters once bills go up even faster.
But more importantly, you have the chunk of your country that doesn’t wanna pay and you’re lowering their standard of living for what’s gonna amount to really really tiny gains against climate change.
I think you should take the path at least resistance where your money buys the most reform right now and invest more as the technology improves.
Don’t lower your standard of living because combining climate change is not some kind of race, it’s something we’re gonna be doing over the next couple hundred years.
If you lower your standard of living for the other half or whatever percentage of the population doesn’t really want higher costs, you’re gonna convert them into extremists at a higher rate and that’s gonna prove to be a bigger problem than climate change.
Once a person is converted to an extremist, they don’t usually go back or become a useful member of society again, so consider that you know you’ll be turning some of these people into some of the worst people in your country and they’ll be alive for like 60 to 80 years.
That’s what I mean when I say human behavior is the biggest obstacle.
1 Comment
That seems like a bad plan, you should balance the technology and environmental benefits against the rate of improvement and an intelligent way because the biggest obstacle to climate change action is not technical or engineering, it’s just human behavior and voters.
It sounds good that maybe like 51% of your population are willing to pay higher costs, but it’s one thing to say you’re willing to pay higher cost and it’s another thing to actually pay the higher cost. You’ll probably lose a percentage of those supporters once bills go up even faster.
But more importantly, you have the chunk of your country that doesn’t wanna pay and you’re lowering their standard of living for what’s gonna amount to really really tiny gains against climate change.
I think you should take the path at least resistance where your money buys the most reform right now and invest more as the technology improves.
Don’t lower your standard of living because combining climate change is not some kind of race, it’s something we’re gonna be doing over the next couple hundred years.
If you lower your standard of living for the other half or whatever percentage of the population doesn’t really want higher costs, you’re gonna convert them into extremists at a higher rate and that’s gonna prove to be a bigger problem than climate change.
Once a person is converted to an extremist, they don’t usually go back or become a useful member of society again, so consider that you know you’ll be turning some of these people into some of the worst people in your country and they’ll be alive for like 60 to 80 years.
That’s what I mean when I say human behavior is the biggest obstacle.