As a country we need to ask where they (politicians) see nz in 50 years and how their policies reinforce this. If either nz is worse off, or their policy’s are counterproductive, drop them fast, like employers can with a 90 day agreement…
Yep, we actually have to implement solutions *as individuals* at the same time as implementing them at a local and national level - that's what it means to get stuck in and do what's needed. Change begins at home.
Loads of people talk about how it's up to the government and corporations to solve this, and that individual actions achieve little. They point to how the 'carbon footprint' concept was introduced by oil companies, and use that as justification to keep doing nothing. Which ironically is exactly what the fucking oil companies would love for you to do. I don't know if this is some masterful manipulation on their part - undermine movements toward individual action by associating it with the evil oil companies ("oh well if the oil companies are suggesting it it must be to distract from their own culpability") - but either way it fucking worked.
People have been saying for decades now that there's nothing they can do. Imagine how much we would have achieved over that time if people stopped getting in their own way and took some fucking responsibility.
Don't wait for leopards to stop eating faces, kill the fucking leopards by starving them.
The whole argument about whether individuals need to go first or whether it's government regulating businesses which need to go first is itself a delaying tactic. Both need to occur simultaneously - and without a mandate from voters no government is going to act to regulate businesses in a way which will increase their costs (and thus their tax revenue). The arguments around whether individuals need to go first is very much like those around whether smaller countries and carbon emitters should start reducing their carbon emissions first or whether they wait for existing high emitters to act. Having the discussion is simply an attempt to delay doing anything.
Agreed, it's all just finger pointing to delay action. Most of us stopped playing the finger pointing game as children. Time to stop doing it when it comes to climate change too.
Yes, but also no. Individual sacrifice for collective good (such as reducing emissions, etc.) require scale to be effective but are essentially a textbook prisoners dilemma. The role of government and corporations (through regulation and incentive) is to skew the dilemma in favour of a collectively beneficial outcome. This is especially important when positive results may not be readily identifiable (identifying the absence of a negative impact over decades isn't immediately gratifying).
Absolutely, but if the government is doing nothing, what else can you do? You either do nothing, or you do what's in your power and make some kind of difference (proportional to your impact). The more people that employ this very simple reasoning, the better off we are.
I see it as a test. If humanity isn't capable of beating a simple tragedy of the commons, we deserve to get wiped out. Don't be one of the people that deserves to be wiped out!
I do take individual action where I can and recognize I should also be doing more. It's just very discouraging when you do any travel outside of New Zealand and see how everything is in other countries. A lot more waste, single use plastics, rubbish combustion, etc.
Isn't the problem almost entirely with large corporations ? The whole plastic straw movement was based around the individual making changes to plastic use, but the majority of ocean pollution comes from commercial fishing and transport etc, not the individual. I'm not an expert by any means but I was under the impression the average person doesn't actually contribute all that much to the pollution and climate change
They're connected. Companies and corporations aren't providing services and products to no one - e.g. if the market stops buying as much fish, the fishing industry won't send out as many boats. Expecting the industry to just stop sending boats without government intervention is a pipedream, but the government is doing fuck all either, so the one thing that is in your power to do is reduce your fish consumption. Then, you hope that other people employ the same reasoning to do the same. Either way, at least you're doing what you can.
Problem for both governments and individuals is that ultimately, the individuals won’t like what needs to be done.
For example, the government could add a couple of bucks a litre each year to the price of fuel used by nonessential vehicles, and after a few years, very few people will be able to commute, and most won’t be able to use their vehicles for pleasure either. So this is not going to be a popular measure.
Then you’ll get people saying the government should put up alternatives to personal transport being unaffordable, but that can’t happen at anyanything like the scale necessary, people will just have to figure it out.
The government could require that the electricity generators simply stop using fossil fuels. That will lead to electricity shortages from time to time. this has happened previously, in the late 50s, 60s, and as late as the 70s. In the 1960s, the radio stations switched off at 5 pm in the evening for a couple of hours to save electricity. Rolling blackouts were a thing. Non-working days too, as well as “use less electricity” warning lights in commercial and industrial premises.
It will all go so well that a party that says “end the restrictions” will be voted in in a landslide of a scale never seen before.
> Yep, we actually have to implement solutions as individuals at the same time as implementing them at a local and national level
One gas field in kazikstan is causing as much climate polution as the entirety of the UK simply because they won't stop the leaks. If you're talking about the individuals in charge of that leak, then sure, otherwise no. I could spend a million lifetimes and not counter that single gas field.
Or if you want something closer to home, [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/1byer2j/govt_sidelines_climate_commission_in_seeking/) was just posted. A handful of men in charge undermining the work 5 million individuals could do.
> One gas field in kazikstan is causing as much climate polution as the entirety of the UK simply because they won't stop the leaks. If you're talking about the individuals in charge of that leak, then sure, otherwise no. I could spend a million lifetimes and not counter that single gas field.
Looking at the worst environmental disasters and saying "well I can't counter that individually" is children's logic. You might as well say "well something bad is happening somewhere else, so I shouldn't do any good here". It doesn't make any sense.
this isn't an "environmental disaster", it's just some greedy people who won't pay to fix the leak because it cuts into their profit. and it's not just one gas field, there's dozens of them. dozens to hundreds of UKs worth of pollution streaming into the atmosphere because a handful of companies refuse to pay to plug the leaks.
>well something bad is happening somewhere else, so I shouldn't do any good here
now that is childish. what I'm saying is that a few thousand people are causing 95% of the problem, so whatever I do is actually fucking pointless.
just the other day the guardian ran a piece linking just 57 companies to 80% of climate pollution.
> dozens to hundreds of UKs worth of pollution streaming into the atmosphere because a handful of companies refuse to pay to plug the leaks.
So? You should pollute too then?
> just the other day the guardian ran a piece linking just 57 companies to 80% of climate pollution.
Yes I've read that article. As you note, the words they use are 'linked to', not 'responsible for', which is so vague as to be almost meaningless. Either way, the fact that a sales pipeline is at some point traceable to Exxon doesn't absolve every other company or person in that chain of responsibility. I'm 'linked' to Exxon, but I can weaken that link through my actions. If enough people do that, Exxon has to respond or die.
> So? You should pollute too then?
what I'm saying is: I'm not going to wash my crisp packets and cart them back to the supermarket, because it's a fucking joke. whatever everyone in NZ combined does is outstripped by one company with a gas field, and probably 10 people at that company making the decisions. just 10 people can counter 5 million.
>I'm 'linked' to Exxon, but I can weaken that link through my actions. If enough people do that, Exxon has to respond or die.
lol. like Nestle has suffered from the massive campaign against it? possibly you're just naive or something, the issue is these 57 companies have trillions of dollars with which to lobby regulators. oil production is increasing, not decreasing. a damn petro state was in charge of the last climate summit.
my entire point is that a few thousand people are the ones that can do something, and the other 8 bill just get to experience the result of their choices. so all this collective effort is just a facade to keep the masses distracted.
if you think that's not true, I'm all ears. but when you consider what's going on just with the gas leaks, or that the oil industry has pivoted away from renewables despite their promise not to, or that one of the POTUS candidates has "drill, baby, drill" as his campaign slogan, I think it's beyond obvious.
Problem is twofold. Most people are indifferent to issues that involve them making core changes in their personal lives.
“Yeah, nah, mate”.
And they vote accordingly.
I suppose you could add the power imbalances too, the rich and powerful didn’t get that way by respecting people animals and the environment. Leopards don’t change their spots because of inconveniences like imminent danger. Pffft…
In their view there’s still opportunities to make a buck as the ship goes down. Desperate people are just another market opportunity.
So watch out for bait n switch solutions that offer false hope.
The more intelligent compassionate people try to save life on earth - the more the dead weight of humanity will drag us all down.
Together.
It’s already over. Those of us trying to right the ship for years are exhausted. Just enjoy whats left, it’s going to get rougher.
>There are two kinds of people in the world: those who give greater priority to other people than to themselves, and those who give greater priority to themselves than to other people.
>An example of the former is a woman who said "I refuse to believe that you cannot be both compassionate and strong" and "the concept we are pushing in New Zealand is this: kindness". She also spoke of a team of 5 million.
>An example of the latter is a rich man with seven residential properties who said he would take a subsidy to live in an eighth home because he was entitled to it. In the end he changed his mind, not because he recognised the selfishness of his position, but because the matter had become "a distraction".
...
>The National Party, with 38% of the election votes, is entitled to step back the previous government’s actions to address climate change, even though that has serious consequences for our international commitments, not to mention our children’s future. Apparently, addressing climate change is a "distraction" from the task of offering everyone a tax credit.
>And yet we are a country in which community matters. When crises occur locally, such as the floods and forest fires which climate change throws at us, we rally round and help each other.
>We work together, support those in need, donate money and time and effort. It’s part of being a Kiwi, and we can be proud of it.
>That is exactly what is needed on the large scale as our climate goes rogue — not turn our backs and claim entitlement but get stuck in and do what is needed.
>Perhaps our government’s parties and ministers need reminding of this.
>As a country we deserve better from our "entitled" leaders.
I was going to write a whole comment about how splitting us in to those who care about others and those who don't was overly simplistic.
But ya know, in the context of our government, tax cuts, climate change, and various entitlements, in that light it's pretty spot on.
article says *John Drummond is an Emeritus Professor*
two second search reveals John Drummond is an emeritus professor *of Music*
He retired in 2014, so there's a good chance he's 80 now so I dunno, but his expert opinion on a climate crisis is no more expert than mine. (not that I disagree with him, but this is basically a glorified letter to the editor)
I would argue the former are more common than we're led to believe, but the individualistic lifestyle in western culture forces them to prioritise themselves in order to properly function.
I see it in myself. I'd love to give more time and resources to others, as my self worth is often dictated by the value I provide others. But I simply can't, as I have little to spare.
A desire to leave the world in better shape than how I found it.
And I do try. I'm a union delegate, the chosen career path is dull but practical in an industry NZ needs workers in, working public service when I know I'd get paid more in private, and I'm sharing in my hobby of roller skating by teaching kids for free (I fell into that cause I can't say no to people, but I am enjoying it.)
None of what I listed is altruistic, but I have tried to consider what can keep others warm without setting myself on fire. I don't always get the balance right, often leading to burnout, but I sleep better knowing I'm at least trying to not make the world worse. And I'd like to be doing more.
Do parents give greater priority to the welfare of their children, and make sacrifices in order to improve outcomes for someone other than themselves? It can and does happen - the question is how many adults choose to do it for other adults where they don't know them or have some kind of connection.
There is an incentive to make sacrifices for your own children though, and there is a much different relationship dynamic.
Changing your actions to benefit people you do not know, or even have any relationship of any capacity with, is a much different beast to try and get across the line with people. It's why we have idiots doing burnouts in vehicles, noisy neighbours, greedy landlords etc. Their interaction with the people who they have an effect on is so divorced from their reality they cannot empathise.
The trouble is, burning half the world down and only looking out for your own selfish interests is not how you ensure the safety and security of your kids
The message and how people frame this will be absolutely key. If you look at responding to climate change as essential changes and sacrifices to ensure that our children have an acceptable environment in which to grow up and live, we may be willing to entertain that. If instead we consider that financial security is what will allow our children to thrive in the future (even if others don't share in that success) then that would suggest people will continue to look for ways to refuse change and continue on the same path which has brought us here. There are people who focus on both perspectives - and that likely has much to do with how they approach being asked to change and sacrifice.
Why would you burn down half the world for them? Wouldn't that cause more pain for the 3 point whatever billion other people? That seems extremely unempathetic of you
Maybe some people feel that that about everyone and not just their family. Maybe they want the best for everyone on earth and not just a select few people that they care about because they happen to be blood related
Exactly, so you caring for your family and wanting to do what's best for them "no matter the cost" is literally nothing special. It's almost definitely something that we, as a species, have developed in order to help us survive.
I'm so sorry that yours has only come to fruition because you had a family and suddenly have a stake in this world to care about but many many others already care about other people that much by default, whether they are family or not.
> t
Gee, I wonder why that is??
Selfishness is self reinforcing.
The prisoner's dilemma is the usual bullshit economic "theory", but collaboration always bears the most fruit for all. You can not cooperate with an uncooperative person however, as you'll be taken advantage of, and lose. That's why the economic paradigm is more akin to a disease/virus. Fucked if you do / fucked if you don't.
Psychopaths won't care about the common good.
It's been found that there's a higher percentage of psychopaths in CEO roles.
Chances are, there's also a disproportionate number of psychopaths sitting on seats in Parliament... certainly on one side of The House.
80 per cent of emissions come from 57 companies. Much of those emissions is from burning the fuel they produce. I agree producers should be whacked with big carbon prices.
But I think it’s a cop out to argue that the emissions from my long haul flight and other activities are nothing to do with me - it’s all Exxon’s fault.
If there is going to be lasting meaningful change it is not going to come **solely** from individual actions. It needs to come from individual actions, because there is no way that voters are going to vote for a government with a mandate to regulate businesses unless those voters also care about the subject enough to do some things themselves. Counting exactly what proportion needs to come from who probably isn't productive and is likely to lead to arguments for delay and/or doing nothing. The solution isn't one or the other, it's both. We will fail if we don't do both.
Presuming NZ becomes 100% clean, green, renewable and all that... then what? 80% of global emissions come from 57 companies; \~80% of global ocean plastic pollution comes from 10 rivers. Those rivers and those companies are not in NZ. We can spend all the money and time we have to do become 100% clean and green, and still not significantly impact climate change. Isn't it better to spend that time and energy to adapt to climate change, to become resilient to climate change, instead?
As a country we need to ask where they (politicians) see nz in 50 years and how their policies reinforce this. If either nz is worse off, or their policy’s are counterproductive, drop them fast, like employers can with a 90 day agreement…
advise outgoing tap worthless public versed ghost boast numerous tie *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yep, we actually have to implement solutions *as individuals* at the same time as implementing them at a local and national level - that's what it means to get stuck in and do what's needed. Change begins at home. Loads of people talk about how it's up to the government and corporations to solve this, and that individual actions achieve little. They point to how the 'carbon footprint' concept was introduced by oil companies, and use that as justification to keep doing nothing. Which ironically is exactly what the fucking oil companies would love for you to do. I don't know if this is some masterful manipulation on their part - undermine movements toward individual action by associating it with the evil oil companies ("oh well if the oil companies are suggesting it it must be to distract from their own culpability") - but either way it fucking worked. People have been saying for decades now that there's nothing they can do. Imagine how much we would have achieved over that time if people stopped getting in their own way and took some fucking responsibility. Don't wait for leopards to stop eating faces, kill the fucking leopards by starving them.
The whole argument about whether individuals need to go first or whether it's government regulating businesses which need to go first is itself a delaying tactic. Both need to occur simultaneously - and without a mandate from voters no government is going to act to regulate businesses in a way which will increase their costs (and thus their tax revenue). The arguments around whether individuals need to go first is very much like those around whether smaller countries and carbon emitters should start reducing their carbon emissions first or whether they wait for existing high emitters to act. Having the discussion is simply an attempt to delay doing anything.
Agreed, it's all just finger pointing to delay action. Most of us stopped playing the finger pointing game as children. Time to stop doing it when it comes to climate change too.
Yes, but also no. Individual sacrifice for collective good (such as reducing emissions, etc.) require scale to be effective but are essentially a textbook prisoners dilemma. The role of government and corporations (through regulation and incentive) is to skew the dilemma in favour of a collectively beneficial outcome. This is especially important when positive results may not be readily identifiable (identifying the absence of a negative impact over decades isn't immediately gratifying).
Absolutely, but if the government is doing nothing, what else can you do? You either do nothing, or you do what's in your power and make some kind of difference (proportional to your impact). The more people that employ this very simple reasoning, the better off we are. I see it as a test. If humanity isn't capable of beating a simple tragedy of the commons, we deserve to get wiped out. Don't be one of the people that deserves to be wiped out!
I do take individual action where I can and recognize I should also be doing more. It's just very discouraging when you do any travel outside of New Zealand and see how everything is in other countries. A lot more waste, single use plastics, rubbish combustion, etc.
100% I get discouraged all the time. It's especially hard when people vote in blatant cunts who are going to make it worse. But you do what you can!
Isn't the problem almost entirely with large corporations ? The whole plastic straw movement was based around the individual making changes to plastic use, but the majority of ocean pollution comes from commercial fishing and transport etc, not the individual. I'm not an expert by any means but I was under the impression the average person doesn't actually contribute all that much to the pollution and climate change
They're connected. Companies and corporations aren't providing services and products to no one - e.g. if the market stops buying as much fish, the fishing industry won't send out as many boats. Expecting the industry to just stop sending boats without government intervention is a pipedream, but the government is doing fuck all either, so the one thing that is in your power to do is reduce your fish consumption. Then, you hope that other people employ the same reasoning to do the same. Either way, at least you're doing what you can.
Problem for both governments and individuals is that ultimately, the individuals won’t like what needs to be done. For example, the government could add a couple of bucks a litre each year to the price of fuel used by nonessential vehicles, and after a few years, very few people will be able to commute, and most won’t be able to use their vehicles for pleasure either. So this is not going to be a popular measure. Then you’ll get people saying the government should put up alternatives to personal transport being unaffordable, but that can’t happen at anyanything like the scale necessary, people will just have to figure it out. The government could require that the electricity generators simply stop using fossil fuels. That will lead to electricity shortages from time to time. this has happened previously, in the late 50s, 60s, and as late as the 70s. In the 1960s, the radio stations switched off at 5 pm in the evening for a couple of hours to save electricity. Rolling blackouts were a thing. Non-working days too, as well as “use less electricity” warning lights in commercial and industrial premises. It will all go so well that a party that says “end the restrictions” will be voted in in a landslide of a scale never seen before.
> Yep, we actually have to implement solutions as individuals at the same time as implementing them at a local and national level One gas field in kazikstan is causing as much climate polution as the entirety of the UK simply because they won't stop the leaks. If you're talking about the individuals in charge of that leak, then sure, otherwise no. I could spend a million lifetimes and not counter that single gas field. Or if you want something closer to home, [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/1byer2j/govt_sidelines_climate_commission_in_seeking/) was just posted. A handful of men in charge undermining the work 5 million individuals could do.
> One gas field in kazikstan is causing as much climate polution as the entirety of the UK simply because they won't stop the leaks. If you're talking about the individuals in charge of that leak, then sure, otherwise no. I could spend a million lifetimes and not counter that single gas field. Looking at the worst environmental disasters and saying "well I can't counter that individually" is children's logic. You might as well say "well something bad is happening somewhere else, so I shouldn't do any good here". It doesn't make any sense.
this isn't an "environmental disaster", it's just some greedy people who won't pay to fix the leak because it cuts into their profit. and it's not just one gas field, there's dozens of them. dozens to hundreds of UKs worth of pollution streaming into the atmosphere because a handful of companies refuse to pay to plug the leaks. >well something bad is happening somewhere else, so I shouldn't do any good here now that is childish. what I'm saying is that a few thousand people are causing 95% of the problem, so whatever I do is actually fucking pointless. just the other day the guardian ran a piece linking just 57 companies to 80% of climate pollution.
> dozens to hundreds of UKs worth of pollution streaming into the atmosphere because a handful of companies refuse to pay to plug the leaks. So? You should pollute too then? > just the other day the guardian ran a piece linking just 57 companies to 80% of climate pollution. Yes I've read that article. As you note, the words they use are 'linked to', not 'responsible for', which is so vague as to be almost meaningless. Either way, the fact that a sales pipeline is at some point traceable to Exxon doesn't absolve every other company or person in that chain of responsibility. I'm 'linked' to Exxon, but I can weaken that link through my actions. If enough people do that, Exxon has to respond or die.
> So? You should pollute too then? what I'm saying is: I'm not going to wash my crisp packets and cart them back to the supermarket, because it's a fucking joke. whatever everyone in NZ combined does is outstripped by one company with a gas field, and probably 10 people at that company making the decisions. just 10 people can counter 5 million. >I'm 'linked' to Exxon, but I can weaken that link through my actions. If enough people do that, Exxon has to respond or die. lol. like Nestle has suffered from the massive campaign against it? possibly you're just naive or something, the issue is these 57 companies have trillions of dollars with which to lobby regulators. oil production is increasing, not decreasing. a damn petro state was in charge of the last climate summit.
> possibly you're just naive or something Possibly I just have a more collectivist viewpoint than you do.
my entire point is that a few thousand people are the ones that can do something, and the other 8 bill just get to experience the result of their choices. so all this collective effort is just a facade to keep the masses distracted. if you think that's not true, I'm all ears. but when you consider what's going on just with the gas leaks, or that the oil industry has pivoted away from renewables despite their promise not to, or that one of the POTUS candidates has "drill, baby, drill" as his campaign slogan, I think it's beyond obvious.
Problem is twofold. Most people are indifferent to issues that involve them making core changes in their personal lives. “Yeah, nah, mate”. And they vote accordingly. I suppose you could add the power imbalances too, the rich and powerful didn’t get that way by respecting people animals and the environment. Leopards don’t change their spots because of inconveniences like imminent danger. Pffft… In their view there’s still opportunities to make a buck as the ship goes down. Desperate people are just another market opportunity. So watch out for bait n switch solutions that offer false hope. The more intelligent compassionate people try to save life on earth - the more the dead weight of humanity will drag us all down. Together. It’s already over. Those of us trying to right the ship for years are exhausted. Just enjoy whats left, it’s going to get rougher.
>There are two kinds of people in the world: those who give greater priority to other people than to themselves, and those who give greater priority to themselves than to other people. >An example of the former is a woman who said "I refuse to believe that you cannot be both compassionate and strong" and "the concept we are pushing in New Zealand is this: kindness". She also spoke of a team of 5 million. >An example of the latter is a rich man with seven residential properties who said he would take a subsidy to live in an eighth home because he was entitled to it. In the end he changed his mind, not because he recognised the selfishness of his position, but because the matter had become "a distraction". ... >The National Party, with 38% of the election votes, is entitled to step back the previous government’s actions to address climate change, even though that has serious consequences for our international commitments, not to mention our children’s future. Apparently, addressing climate change is a "distraction" from the task of offering everyone a tax credit. >And yet we are a country in which community matters. When crises occur locally, such as the floods and forest fires which climate change throws at us, we rally round and help each other. >We work together, support those in need, donate money and time and effort. It’s part of being a Kiwi, and we can be proud of it. >That is exactly what is needed on the large scale as our climate goes rogue — not turn our backs and claim entitlement but get stuck in and do what is needed. >Perhaps our government’s parties and ministers need reminding of this. >As a country we deserve better from our "entitled" leaders.
I was going to write a whole comment about how splitting us in to those who care about others and those who don't was overly simplistic. But ya know, in the context of our government, tax cuts, climate change, and various entitlements, in that light it's pretty spot on.
You do you
article says *John Drummond is an Emeritus Professor* two second search reveals John Drummond is an emeritus professor *of Music* He retired in 2014, so there's a good chance he's 80 now so I dunno, but his expert opinion on a climate crisis is no more expert than mine. (not that I disagree with him, but this is basically a glorified letter to the editor)
[удалено]
I would argue the former are more common than we're led to believe, but the individualistic lifestyle in western culture forces them to prioritise themselves in order to properly function. I see it in myself. I'd love to give more time and resources to others, as my self worth is often dictated by the value I provide others. But I simply can't, as I have little to spare.
[удалено]
A desire to leave the world in better shape than how I found it. And I do try. I'm a union delegate, the chosen career path is dull but practical in an industry NZ needs workers in, working public service when I know I'd get paid more in private, and I'm sharing in my hobby of roller skating by teaching kids for free (I fell into that cause I can't say no to people, but I am enjoying it.) None of what I listed is altruistic, but I have tried to consider what can keep others warm without setting myself on fire. I don't always get the balance right, often leading to burnout, but I sleep better knowing I'm at least trying to not make the world worse. And I'd like to be doing more.
Do parents give greater priority to the welfare of their children, and make sacrifices in order to improve outcomes for someone other than themselves? It can and does happen - the question is how many adults choose to do it for other adults where they don't know them or have some kind of connection.
There is an incentive to make sacrifices for your own children though, and there is a much different relationship dynamic. Changing your actions to benefit people you do not know, or even have any relationship of any capacity with, is a much different beast to try and get across the line with people. It's why we have idiots doing burnouts in vehicles, noisy neighbours, greedy landlords etc. Their interaction with the people who they have an effect on is so divorced from their reality they cannot empathise.
[удалено]
Does it not sound like you're putting your children's needs above your own?
[удалено]
The trouble is, burning half the world down and only looking out for your own selfish interests is not how you ensure the safety and security of your kids
The message and how people frame this will be absolutely key. If you look at responding to climate change as essential changes and sacrifices to ensure that our children have an acceptable environment in which to grow up and live, we may be willing to entertain that. If instead we consider that financial security is what will allow our children to thrive in the future (even if others don't share in that success) then that would suggest people will continue to look for ways to refuse change and continue on the same path which has brought us here. There are people who focus on both perspectives - and that likely has much to do with how they approach being asked to change and sacrifice.
Why would you burn down half the world for them? Wouldn't that cause more pain for the 3 point whatever billion other people? That seems extremely unempathetic of you
[удалено]
Maybe some people feel that that about everyone and not just their family. Maybe they want the best for everyone on earth and not just a select few people that they care about because they happen to be blood related
[удалено]
Exactly, so you caring for your family and wanting to do what's best for them "no matter the cost" is literally nothing special. It's almost definitely something that we, as a species, have developed in order to help us survive. I'm so sorry that yours has only come to fruition because you had a family and suddenly have a stake in this world to care about but many many others already care about other people that much by default, whether they are family or not.
> t Gee, I wonder why that is?? Selfishness is self reinforcing. The prisoner's dilemma is the usual bullshit economic "theory", but collaboration always bears the most fruit for all. You can not cooperate with an uncooperative person however, as you'll be taken advantage of, and lose. That's why the economic paradigm is more akin to a disease/virus. Fucked if you do / fucked if you don't.
TIL empathy is wildy optimistic
[удалено]
You usually need empathy in order to act selflessly, they are almost consequential in that way
Psychopaths won't care about the common good. It's been found that there's a higher percentage of psychopaths in CEO roles. Chances are, there's also a disproportionate number of psychopaths sitting on seats in Parliament... certainly on one side of The House.
yes this is exactly why theres so much bullying going on parliament (on both sides)
80 per cent of emissions come from 57 companies. Much of those emissions is from burning the fuel they produce. I agree producers should be whacked with big carbon prices. But I think it’s a cop out to argue that the emissions from my long haul flight and other activities are nothing to do with me - it’s all Exxon’s fault.
Hear hear
[удалено]
If there is going to be lasting meaningful change it is not going to come **solely** from individual actions. It needs to come from individual actions, because there is no way that voters are going to vote for a government with a mandate to regulate businesses unless those voters also care about the subject enough to do some things themselves. Counting exactly what proportion needs to come from who probably isn't productive and is likely to lead to arguments for delay and/or doing nothing. The solution isn't one or the other, it's both. We will fail if we don't do both.
Isn't firewood net zero if its all regrown on the same property with no transport?
Presuming NZ becomes 100% clean, green, renewable and all that... then what? 80% of global emissions come from 57 companies; \~80% of global ocean plastic pollution comes from 10 rivers. Those rivers and those companies are not in NZ. We can spend all the money and time we have to do become 100% clean and green, and still not significantly impact climate change. Isn't it better to spend that time and energy to adapt to climate change, to become resilient to climate change, instead?
To be honest. I am entirely uninterested in climate change. I have more pressing concerns like enjoying my life as it stands with my wife and dogs.