Comment by spodek | Hacker News Reader

Comment by spodek | Hacker News Reader

I see remarkable similarity in Bolsonaro's response on a national scale to nearly every American's response when choosing between making money and the environment.

Suggest to an American to fly less and over 99% will say, "But my job. . ." as humans fly more than ever. Not to dwell on flying, we could talk of miles driven, plastic discarded, air conditioning empty rooms, eating more beef than ever.

The scale is different, but the emotional response is similar.

An alternative: we could see ourselves as part of something greater than ourselves that benefits us all including ourselves. We want Bolsonaro to feel that way. We can do it ourselves and reduce our waste each by a good 75 to 90 percent.

As Frankl said, "We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms -- to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way."

Which is why the fix must be economic, not moral. LED light bulbs and wind power in the Midwest aren't successes because everyone decided to pitch in, take their place on the line and give it all for Captain Planet, they're successes because they fulfill the fundamental promise of efficiency: do more with less. They save people money.

And if you doubt the efficacy of said approach, just look at Texas renewable numbers. Texas is arguably the capital of the American oil industry and is a solidly red state. And yet it's gone from 6% Wind to 19% Wind in 10 years, with Dallas likely to be 100% renewable by 2030: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/a-snapshot-of-t... https://www.windpowerengineering.com/business-news-projects/...

It's a concept most environmentalists I encounter look upon as the dark side of the force, like if they used economics and human selfishness towards a positive end it would somehow take away their environmentalist virtue. Guess it's hard to be a martyr when you take away the sacrifice. Doesn't help that they usually look down on the individuals in question, and can't seem to understand why "pay more and do less so you can make a negligible personal impact on the problem, because it's the right thing to do." is a hollow argument for many people. Maybe that person in the concentration camp who gave his last piece of bread died, and maybe you don't want to be that person.

There are no economic fixes, there are only fixes to growth. In that we reduce the growth of the economy and the growth of population and consume less... until such a point that our consumption of resources matches their production by the environment. Anything else is rhetorical bullshit meant to placate the masses... and make them feel better about being Bolsonaro which all you are.

I call it environmental austerity in order to pay the environmental debt accrued through economic development.

> It's a concept most environmentalists I encounter look upon as the dark side of the force, like if they used economics and human selfishness towards a positive end it would somehow take away their environmentalist virtue. Guess it's hard to be a martyr when you take away the sacrifice. Doesn't help that they usually look down on the individuals in question, and can't seem to understand why "pay more and do less so you can make a negligible personal impact on the problem, because it's the right thing to do." is a hollow argument for many people.

Do you think an environmentalist would read this description and think, "that's me to a tee!"? If not, do you think you are more perceptive about the motives, beliefs, and strategies of environmentalists than they are themselves?

Your point would be better made without the dubious theories about the beliefs and motives of environmentalists.

No, they probably wouldn't think that. But that's how it comes off in many cases. Not all, but many. See the parent comment relating environmentalism to the romantic martyrdom of those concentration camp prisoners who offered comfort to others and gave up their last piece of bread. And its argument that Americans who refuse to stop flying/driving/using plastic for their job are somehow "emotionally" the same as Bolsonaro's politically motivated denialism.

You need look no further than any Hacker News discussion of climate change to see tons of comments of how people should stop eating beef, stop eating all meat, stop driving so much, stop flying, pay more for clean energy, pay more in taxes, even stop having children (at which I will never cease to /facepalm), all with the theme of "There is no way you have any valid argument against any of this, so if you refuse to make these sacrifice you're part of the problem."

I'm all for environmental regulation, I'd even be in favor of a carbon tax, but modern environmentalism has a huge messaging problem that makes both nearly impossible in the US outside of deep blue zones. It's way too moralistic and way too unwilling to adapt(ironic, given its cause). Maybe if environmentalists turned down the volume on climate change and talked more about good jobs, clean air, clean water, they'd make more headway. Find common ground and go with that, because in a functioning democracy we all move forward together (given a large majority) or not at all. And in my opinion anyone who truly cares about solving climate change should prioritize progress over virtue.

> LED light bulbs

I live in the midwest and my friends still complain that the government forced them to switch to the new bulbs.

There's a lot of weird anxiety about doing things to help the environment from a lot of folks that makes them not want to do even things that benefit themselves.

It's perfectly reasonable to complain about the government banning incandescent bulbs. For a drop in the bucket of energy savings, they took away a choice that many people preferred in favor of mainly fluorescent bulbs which are an environmental hazard. Thank God for decent LED lights in the last few years or the irony would still be pretty thick.

It's a great example of poor environmental policy and you dismiss criticism as "weird anxiety". It's not weird to dislike other people forcing you to make choices that they think are for your own good.

> For a drop in the bucket of energy savings

Incandescent bulbs last months, LEDs last years and use 5x less energy.

> Thank God for decent LED lights in the last few years or the irony would still be pretty thick.

Do you think we would be better off using incandescents?

I think the main thrust of your point is that you don't think the government should be able to tell folks they can't use crappy bulbs. I think without government intervention LEDs wouldn't be where they are today, which is partly due to that weird anxiety I mentioned, and that's unfortunate.

It's still a drop in the bucket compared to, for instance, closing the SUV "light truck" efficiency loophole. Which one was more politically palatable? The one with the grand gesture and minor actual savings of course. Forgive me for getting a little cynical about government policy, it must be that weird anxiety creeping up again.

Also you need to take into account the total manufacturing cost of the light. I believe that only recently have some LEDs (and not good ones with a decent spectrum) reached parity with incandescents in terms of TCO.

Finally, I would look at the market for computers and find how much government intervention it took to advance the technology in that industry. Why would the market for light bulbs be any different? Businesses had already switched to fluorescent for cost savings, why can't consumers be allowed to make similar cost/benefit choices?

I'm not sure environmentalists doubt the economics, or your blanket dismissal. More the huge delay in waiting for the economics to maybe win out. Hence calling for subsidies to the alternative, not as we currently do, subsidise the (formerly) profitable incumbents.

I suppose I reluctantly wear the environmentalist label as that's how some see me. It's not how I would see myself.

A fix is removing all subsidy from fossil fuels and instead subsidising renewables along with increased insulation and combined community heat and power schemes. Except I don't see that as environmentalism, just common sense, whether considering an individual family and house, or a town or national scale.

> Suggest to an American to fly less and over 99% will say, "But my job. . ." as humans fly more than ever.

I see it as the reason why individual solutions will never work and why you need the government to step in to make sure those negatives externalities (aka killing the planet for our children) are properly priced in so that we subset those practices.

Something, something, game theory, and especially the subset of games that have a cooperate/defect dynamic.

Left to themselves, individuals want to defect and get a free ride on the backs of those who cooperate. But if a critical mass of individuals cooperate—by choice, force, or persuasion—everyone wins.

—

It’s intellectually fine to be a libertarian and say, “even if the overall good is served by cooperation, there is a higher value in having the freedom to defect.”

But you are correct that on the balance, it takes a society working together to achieve certain large-scale good outcomes that demand widespread cooperation.

Whether those large-scale good outcomes are worthy of having less liberty is what certain debates are really about, even if people try to frame them otherwise, e.g. “Individual good, government bad.”

The problem with having the government step in is that well, the vast majority of the population would disagree with any attempts to limit consumerism/things that may damage the environment, and any politician who tried them would be a political pariah.

I mean, imagine a government actually trying to limit how often people/companies could fly/run planes, how much meat they're allowed to have, what kinds of cars were allowed, etc.

The immediate reaction would basically be:

A: Most of the population flat out ignoring them and their attempted guidelines, leading to bad press if they tried to enforce them.

B: The opposition having a golden opportunity to win over the current ruling party's supporters with claims they'll revert said changes after the next election.

C: Said main party's polling support crashing straight through the floor as most of their supporters abandon them.

D: Tons of bad press in general, especially if certain people/companies seem to be 'getting away with' behaviour they don't allow the rest of the population to indulge in. You can already see this (for good reason) with complaints about stuff like Davos and how all these politicians and actors/celebrities are taking private planes everywhere.

E: Their own party members jumping ship, especially if it's a larger/established party which went all eco intense.

F: If things got bad enough, outright civil war/revolution/military coup/riots/etc. And given the percentage of people who'd back such restrictions/law changes is so tiny, it probably wouldn't end in their favour.

The government stepping in would (if done as strictly as some articles/guidelines suggest), lead to a lot of civil instability and any political party implementing it basically collapsing.

So the options are basically either 'hope everyone becomes more environmentally conscious (unlikely)', 'get the government to step in' (unlikely, may lead to wars and revolutions, would sink their reputation), 'hope some sort of invention makes carbon capture much easier/resource efficient or makes clean energy super cheap'.

The physics of air travel make clean energy not super useful. At best, we could try to figure out a carbon-neutral way to create combustible fuel, like biofuels.

You're right that in general people don't like government policies that potentially lower people's standards of living. Gas taxes are usually very unpopular. But I think "hope everyone becomes more environmentally conscious" is more possible than you think. This is very much a generational issue and I think as the negative effects of climate change become more apparent, the public will begin to see the light.

In the US, it would not take a huge change in public opinion to make truly effective environmental policy more tenable. With the current trend, it may only take another decade for over 60% of Americans to believe that climate change should be a top priority: 44% already claim to prioritize it, up from 26% in 2010. Of course, some of these people may not actually like how environment-focused policies affect their lifestyles, but that may change as well.

Even though Bolsonaro is a stupid animal, his policies wrt the Amazon are only the result of capitalist thinking, which is the standard way of western society. So much so that he has strong support from the rich in Brazil and in other countries as well.

The reason Amazon is being deforested is simple: is not that they hate the Amazon and want to destroy it. Is that doing this is very profitable. You get FREE land to raise cattle and grow soy. You can get rich(er) from day to night. With that money you buy your way with politicians, both in Brazil (easy) as well as in other countries who will turn a blind eye on this. And its not only people in Amazon getting rich, Americans are buying like crazy into the cheaper meat, wood, and soy. And Americans will find this great, because now you can get "hormone-free beef", cheap "earth-saving" soy products, and beautiful, cheap wood products. People in America peddling these products are getting rich and telling everyone that they're making their lives "better". This is what capitalist society calls a "win-win".

The problem there is that making more money is not good to everyone as they want us to believe, and in particular not good for the environment, or to the thousands of native people who will die or be dislodged from their native land, or to the several thousand people that will have to toil on land stolen by others. There is no way capitalism can prevent this, because it only benefits a certain part of society that decided to live under its auspices (most of them in rich countries) - Brazilians making cents per day have close to zero power in the market. Making more money is not good for the workers that will be squeezed for this profit to happen. It is not good for the kids that will grow without education because their families are forced to participate in this process. In other words, making more money does not solve problems, it only create more problems, even if these problems are going somewhere you cannot see or care about. The world needs to break this vicious cycle of money making before we can find a solution to these grave problems that cannot be controlled under capitalism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com