When I've pointed out to people that if they really want to be green then they should stop driving their car, I got a response along the lines of "the top ten producers of CO2 are all private companies. It's not about changing public behaviours, it's about regulating corporate behaviours".
I never buy this, because corporate behaviours are driven by the market, which is driven by public behaviours. If we all stopped driving cars, the oil companies are going to stop processing so much oil.
But I do understand that changing that much public behaviour is difficult (and made more difficult by this attitude/argument). So regulating the oil companies and making fuel so expensive that people can't drive their cars appears to be the only way to do this.
Except that if fuel prices go up, people point out that they can't afford to drive for necessary trips. And the transport infrastructure is all based around lots of private cars. So the government has to keep fuel prices low enough to make cars usable for poor people. Which means no-one gives up their cars and the oil companies carry on processing this much oil.
So I don't really understand how we're going to solve this and not cook ourselves.
Nobody wants to sacrifice anything, and yet that's exactly what is needed from humanity. Can't even change the small things, as we see through outrage over plastic straws still, nevermind trying to get people to eat less meat.
I will add however that oil companies wouldn't stop processing so much oil right away, they will do what desperate powers do which is cling to remaining power as tightly as they can. This isn't something worth really caring about in the long run, but something to be cognizant of when trying to shift public behaviour as they will undoubtedly be affected by the propaganda such powers will be obsessively pushing out.
See also: tobacco companies spending several decades avoiding regulatory processes in advertising and convincing people they had no idea it was harmful nor that it was their fault for encouraging such consumption. Sounds a little familiar to several other industries.
A survey sticks in my mind; it found that people were considerably more willing to pay higher taxes if they trusted everyone else would pay their share too. I think the same lesson can be applied here. Nobody wants to personally make big sacrifices while everyone else is living large, and I can’t blame them.
If the producer has to deal with the problem and prices rise, no one can opt out of sharing the burden.
> Can't even change the small things, as we see through outrage over plastic straws still, nevermind trying to get people to eat less meat.
If you want people who aren't ideologically on board to sacrifice, you need viable alternatives. Cardboard straws suck ass. Without exception, every single cardboard straw I've ever used was soggy and tasted... well, like cardboard. They simply are not viable replacements. Fake meat is better at least (I've had impossible burger and it's legitimately good), but it's hella expensive and that's going to be a hard sell for people. Moreover, talk about not eating meat is absolutely dominated by people who have a moral objection to eating meat, not people who are concerned about carbon emissions. Which is fine, but the majority of people don't agree there is a moral issue (and many even think it's crazy to hold that position), so that's not going to convince anyone to bear a higher price. Get the price more on par with ground beef, get the public perception to be about the environment and not animal rights, and you could probably see big changes.
Conversely, look at LED bulbs versus incandescent. While they cost more up front, LED bulbs last forever and cost so much less in terms of electricity that they are just overwhelmingly better for most uses. I myself don't give two shits about the environment, but I don't see myself buying anything but LED bulbs ever again. They're just that much better. That's the kind of innovation one needs to advance if one wants to change the behavior of the masses. Give them something which is not only environmentally better but practically better, and they will adopt it. But you can't expect most people to sacrifice for the environment. The reality is that most people just don't care, and they aren't going to sacrifice for something they don't care about.
I actually had a great (for cardboard) straw from jacksons in portland this weekend. I grabbed 3 of them thinking they'd melt. It did 2 full ~42oz diet dews over 4 hours before it started melting. the 2nd one lasted longer (I re-used the cup for drinks that night) holding up to 4 32 oz coke zeros and vodka. I was amazed.
> If you want people who aren't ideologically on board to sacrifice, you need viable alternatives.
If people are not ideologically onboard with "we don't want society to collapse" while wanting to keep using plastic straws... I think they need information more than viable alternatives.
Part of the issue with your argument is that most policymakers will be dead by the time society collapses, so they don't care as much. Sure, there's often rhetoric around "saving the world for my children and their children", but in the end most people are selfish and are fine with making things the problems of future generations.
"Information" doesn't sway people. Feelings do. If they feel like they're eating/using/whatever something inferior to what they've grown up using, all in the name of sustainability, they're going to balk.
> Part of the issue with your argument is that most policymakers will be dead by the time society collapses
Hmm... given how it is going (climate seems to be changing faster than the models predicted), it's getting more and more clear that global instability, wars and famine will be here in the next few decades (if you doubt the "famine" issue: take any big US city, and ask yourself what happens if trucks can't get into the city and bring food for a few days). Unless most policymakers are 60 or so, they have a good chance to live long enough to see that. Most definitely their children.
> "Information" doesn't sway people. Feelings do.
When you realize how bad the biodiversity problem is, how bad climate change is, and how bad the energy problem (which is actually the root cause of the other two) is, I think the only reasonable feeling you can get is fear. Maybe faith in technology helps (many people hide behind "they will find a solution"), so maybe one needs to realize that the tech industry is a big money-making joke.
But once you get that information, you should get the fear. And fear should make you accept to start thinking about actions to mitigate the consequences of... well of our way of life.
Definitely in agreement, also a big proponent of gradually increasing taxes to incentivize certain spending to speed up that process. They're not popular but very effective.
The good news is a lot of the positive change is already in progress. Bad news is the national goals for many countries are all still minimum 25 years away with people desperately clinging onto the hope that some magical technological breakthrough will happen that ensures we don't have to sacrifice anything currently.
And what exactly is the solution there? For most Americans a car is literally their ONLY option for transport.
> I never buy this, because corporate behaviours are driven by the market, which is driven by public behaviours.
I’ve heard this many times, but it’s simply not true. There was no demand for glued-in batteries, lightbulbs that die prematurely, or SaaS. However, when something is required to maintain your job or current state of living, people will accept the corporate greed. No one but Adobe was happier because Photoshop removed ownership, but people need Photoshop for their work and have to live with it. No one wanted lightbulbs that die earlier than before, but that’s all they sell. And don’t even get me started on the righteous anger felt over the fact that Apple made ewaste trendy.
Also, you obviously haven’t seen how much CO2 a 10kHP engine puts out after an 8 hour shift.
> So regulating the oil companies and making fuel so expensive that people can't drive their cars appears to be the only way to do this.
I’m glad you are far away from America, because even in Europe this is a hilariously stupid idea. Sure let’s just leave a large chunk of society stranded at home with no ability to have a job, they’ll surely be happy we “saved the planet” by cutting out minor CO2 emissions while corporate greed leads to mass produced garbage.
> So I don't really understand
I’m not surprised, considering your radical views.
The only two options are not "you, individual, drive less" and "go to wall-street^W^W the office of shell gas and tell them to cut it out." A lot of americans are forced into car dependency, but at the very same time, it is very easy to drive in downtowns in the US even where it is difficult to own a car. You need to do both, both disincentivize driving on the personal level and regulate companies and change land-use patterns and street design to facilitate other modes. It's a difficult problem to solve but if you think it's an actual problem you must solve it for our future climate and the other ills car culture leaves society.
As for you continuing to insist that tut-tut-ing corporations is enough, the numbers are clear that just because 1 airplane moving packages produces more carbon per km, it doesn't matter as I said above, the majority of transport emissions are passenger cars and trucks, just because they are so many of them. There is room for amelioration for industry transportation numbers but it will not matter if you just touch that and still continue existing usage in the US. Even getting to European levels of car usage would change things significantly for the US. Regardless, know putting an onerous tax on gas producers will immediately see gas prices rise for everyone, so even if it is indirect, you still are disincentivizing driving. There is no way out of this problem without disincentivizing driving.
Now, of course, you have to believe this really is a problem. Because only then do you think something as difficult as changing the prioritized mode of a transport for a country is a worthwhile thing to do.
The problem with making driving more expensive (which is what happens when you try to legally disincentivize it) is that it becomes a regressive tax: lower-income folks get hurt very badly by it. The rich of course don't love paying extra for something (and, being the ones usually in power, will fight against it), but can usually bear the cost without much pain.
It's worth remembering that the poorest, those that can't afford a car or can only afford 1 car for the family, are reliant on public transit. But yes, making driving expensive often ends up hurting the lower-middle class the most because they usually live in the least walkable areas due to historical redlining and generally commute the furthest. The fact that this is a regressive tax is a big talking point for keeping driving cheap.
The problem is, the alternative is to throw money at a public transit system and nobody wants to do that either. You can make the taxes highly progressive, but even then, I doubt anyone would agree. In general the only thing to do is what activist groups are doing already; fight the local institutions (DOTs, planning departments, city council, etc.) to make the changes necessary to make getting around without a car viable, fast, comfortable, and cheap.
>There was no demand for glued-in batteries, lightbulbs that die prematurely, or SaaS.
Demand, no. That would be silly. However, there was/is a demand for lower costs, which is how every single one of these anti-consumer ideas is sold to the public, and the public is fully accepting of inferior products for (theoretically) lower prices. The irony, of course, is that lower up-front costs usually mean higher costs over time, which is exactly why companies are happy to oblige.
This is where the whole concept that China makes poor quality stuff comes from. China is fully capable of high quality manufacturing. However, most consumers prioritize cost over quality, and China is willing to do the same.
> And what exactly is the solution there? For most Americans a car is literally their ONLY option for transport.
Hmm without saying that Americans need to do without a car entirely (because the country screwed up in that sense), I am pretty sure that in many situations, it is possible to not use a car.
My experience is that Americans tend to not even consider taking a bike for a short ride. I have been in multiple places where I would use the electric scooters or bikes (bikes are better) for relatively short distances (say less than 30min), and I was often not much slower than with a car.
I think bikes and scooters would be more popular where I am (Seattle) if they weren’t so easy to steal. Even unpowered bikes are disappearing from regular use due to rampant theft. It’s sad.
> I think bikes and scooters would be more popular where I am (Seattle) if they weren’t so easy to steal.
Yes, this is a big factor. Where I live (around silicon valley area) I can easily bike to nearly everything I need. But! Secure bike parking is rarely available. So my bike is guaranteed to be stolen. So the result is I either walk (if within ~10 minute walk) or drive. I'm a cyclist so I'd love to bike everywhere but without secure bike parking, can't happen.
I find it a bit sad that (secure) bike parking is missing in a country where it honestly feels like half of the constructed territory is parking lots.
Not a criticism, but the area covered by parking lots in the US shocks me every time I visit.
Instead of making half-working heavy autonomous electric cars, couldn't Silicon Valley somehow find a low-tech way to solve the secure bike parking issue? They are good at claiming that they want a better world, and this should not be rocket science.
I mean of course it could. Much like we have parking minimums, we could just mandate bike locker minimums. There's already a robust bike locker program in the area called Bikelink so it would just be about expanding the program. The problem is nobody has lobbied the government to do this yet and updating code like this is hard because maintaining the status quo is easy. Developers will also undoubtedly fight it because it raises costs.
Bike lockers are expensive and take up space. The Dutch have multilevel parking for bikes, but it is manned.
Law enforcement actually caring about bike theft and having resources to crack down on bike thieves would help, but these days they don’t have room in jails for bike thieves, and they are considered a low priority along with shoplifters and drug dealers.
There's no technical problem, it's just a public policy issue.
In low-theft areas it just takes bike racks/poles/etc where one can lock the bikes. Cost is nearly nothing, just political will to do it.
In high-theft areas bike lockers are needed, these cost money and take more space, but it's still a lot more efficient in terms of transportation units per sqft.
>And what exactly is the solution there? For most Americans a car is literally their ONLY option for transport.
The administration has already earmarked substantial amounts for various transit programs across the country thankfully. You can find out more https://www.transit.dot.gov/TOD
These programs also include zero-emission transit as a primary focus where possible, such as school buses.
So the solution already exists and is in action. It just takes time!
> If we all stopped driving cars, the oil companies are going to stop processing so much oil.
Yes and no. Or at least maybe. If demand from autos drops so does the price of oil. At some point it becomes feasible to be used for things that were previously too expensive. Like what? I'm not sure but these things happen. It's how the market "thinks".
Worst case, the cost of plastic falls even further. Less autos equals more plastic?
Regulation via higher taxes on petroleum-sourced products could work but it continues to be politically unfeasible.
That's a good point, thanks. However, as demand drops so does the unity of such cartels. Less demand will likely destabilize those arrangements. In this case, raising prices to compensate for drop in demand is self defeating as it makes alternatives more cost effective. At some point there's a tipping point where volume is the only option (to make up for less demand).
We'll see. It's complicated. And if you or I could predict the future...we'd not be on HN guessing :)
but surely people don't need big suv's. I like big cars too - but those things are unsustaianble.
wish people would adopt the smaller cars found in asia, motorcycles, mopeds etc. i'm sure you can even have a 'jek' like vehicle which protects user from elements and can go up to 70mph on a motorcycle engine.
That's the great thing about 'game theory'. The rules can so easily be set up to funnel 'players' inexorably into "WarGames"-like resolutions. I.e., no matter how well the game is played, everyone loses (phrased rather more effectively in the movie, though).
Realistically, though, the comparatively slow march - in "WarGames" terms, but not human lifespan terms - towards the conclusion for our species, clearly won't result in equal losing over given near-term timeframes. That is almost certainly one of the calculations* for some players who continue to push destructive patterns.
Human activity (think economic) is incredibly interdependent as well as massively interwoven with an incredible array of aspects of our planet. There are always 'externalities' - i.e., the cost of goods and services probably ALWAYS (even in really 'primitive' economies) is missing a little bit in the accounting, so-to-speak. For example, when Virginia was fairly well-settled by Europeans, with many of the original inhabitants pushed out, tobacco was king. But growing tobacco is very hard on the land - tobacco is a crop that depletes soil very quickly. The solution, at the time, was to just develop a new plot after several years. Land was absurdly abundant from the perspective of the colonists of the time - and people like Lord Fairfax had tremendous tracts (his represented a substantial part of the current state). All of the decades and centuries that went into producing soil that led to great tobacco production was an externality. The environment, original inhabitants of all types (including ALL organisms), etc. contributed to ... or, perhaps better, SUBSIDIZED the tobacco production for those who moved in. And those who moved in generally never paid any of that back. It did cause problems for some, and people did switch crops grown over time ... were generally forced to adopt more sustainable practices ... (as well as ceasing, ultimately, other ways of externalizing costs generally FAR more reprehensible), but, the debt wasn't really repaid in just about any real way be those responsible. And, who actually, in some sense, effectively stole (beyond all of the other shades and types of stealing in the whole story, as we might frame it today) a massive amount of 5hit that it's not clear they had such a 'right to'.
All of this can get quite complicated, and that itself illustrates some of the problem - there is no 'analytical solution'. There are always trade-offs of various types, and practical 'solutions' come together one way or another over time. But, a lot of current issues don't have the solution of 'just move to another plot', no matter what dimwits like Musk think or say. And, even those who have some conscience and conscientiousness are always faced with the sort of impossible problems of ethics you are touching on. But, the passage of time will always lead to practical solutions - one way or another.
* Or part of a set of rationalizations, for those with a conscience of some sort - possibly even coupled w/ true delusions or grandeur, such as saving the species as a whole. Likely delusional in some heads, outright dishonesty in others.
I never buy this, because corporate behaviours are driven by the market, which is driven by public behaviours. If we all stopped driving cars, the oil companies are going to stop processing so much oil.
But I do understand that changing that much public behaviour is difficult (and made more difficult by this attitude/argument). So regulating the oil companies and making fuel so expensive that people can't drive their cars appears to be the only way to do this.
Except that if fuel prices go up, people point out that they can't afford to drive for necessary trips. And the transport infrastructure is all based around lots of private cars. So the government has to keep fuel prices low enough to make cars usable for poor people. Which means no-one gives up their cars and the oil companies carry on processing this much oil.
So I don't really understand how we're going to solve this and not cook ourselves.