Comment by xtian | Hacker News Reader

Comment by xtian | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I would be careful about blaming "human ignorance" because, case in point, a great many of us are aware of the climate crisis and feel the need to do something about it. In the US, for example, most of the component policies of the Green New Deal poll quite well across party lines.

The problem is that the climate crisis demands large-scale collective planning and decision making, and our systems for doing so have been completely co-opted by powerful economic entities. The actions available to the average citizen amount to putting aside everything in one's life to become an activist (which most people don't have the luxury to do), occasionally voting from a menu of pre-selected corporate-backed candidates, or making ultimately insignificant lifestyle changes (and even that has been subverted by economic powers through "eco-friendly" consumer products).

It's always helpful to look at a problem through the lens of power relationships before blaming "people" for being stupid or ignorant. Certainly some people are, but that doesn't mean it would solve the problem if they weren't.

It is ignorance though, both willing and unwilling. It's ignorance at the bottom, ignorance at the top, and ignorance at every level in between. Even our "solutions" are ignorant.

Every improvement in energy efficiency we have ever made has resulted in more energy use, but we still cling to the idea that if we can make everything just a bit more efficient then that will do it and our problem will be solved. It's a lie and it's a scam.

A green new deal isn't the solution and it's our ignorance that makes us believe that it is. All it does is greenwash all of the toxic things we are already doing. We can't solve industrialisation with more industrialisation.

We can look outside of our windows now and see the solution. It's doing less, it's working less, it's not polluting the world, it's consuming less and producing less. Radically so.

I don't disagree with you at all in terms of the solution. I didn't mean to imply that all conceptions of the term "Green New Deal" represent a solution, but simply that there is broad support for doing something. The policy advocates I take seriously absolutely recognize that a solution cannot constitute more industrialization and emissions, but they also recognize that if we radically do less under our current paradigm, the people who are barely scraping by now will be crushed.

In terms of energy efficiency, it is obviously crucial, but under our current system every improvement simply represents surplus capital which then goes towards growth and expansion. Changing that, again, requires collective long-term planning and decision making which is being subverted.

I think it is giving far too much (or too little?) credit to the powerful to say there is "ignorance at the top". There is not ignorance at the top. They have demonstrably understood this looming crisis for a very long time, and what we are seeing is the expansion and fortification of existing power relationships in the face of it.

If ignorance and lies are being spread at other levels of power, again, I think it's worth asking "by what means?" and "for whose benefit?"

> but they also recognize that if we radically do less under our current paradigm, the people who are barely scraping by now will be crushed.

It sounds like we should change that current paradigm too then.

We're on the conveyor belt to planetary destruction asking how do we slow it down instead of how do we get off. It won't be easy to get off, but it would be much better if we managed it ourselves rather than waiting to be flung off.

> I think it is giving far too much (or too little?) credit to the powerful to say there is "ignorance at the top". There is not ignorance at the top. They have demonstrably understood this looming crisis for a very long time, and what we are seeing is the expansion and fortification of existing power relationships in the face of it. > If ignorance and lies are being spread at other levels of power, again, I think it's worth asking "by what means?" and "for whose benefit?"

I do agree with you on all of this.

> It sounds like we should change that current paradigm too then.

That is what the most honest incarnations of the Green New Deal represent.

I agree with basically everything you've said but I'd caution that "broad support for doing something" without much care as to what is a recipe for a lot of bad things to come to pass under the guise of fighting climate change.

Of course, I'm only challenging the notion that there is complete ignorance about the need for action. What that action looks like is up to us. I would say we are actually already on the path for "a lot of bad things to come to pass under the guise of fighting climate change." It is the explanation for a lot of the trends we are seeing like nationalism, the strengthening of borders, and the weakening of labor representation.

If that's truly your fear, you should support real (and acceptable) moves for fighting climate change as a way to head that off at the pass before it comes to be.

Today, if you make a list of all the fascistic bad things that governments have done "under the guise of fighting climate change" I'm pretty sure the set is empty, it's a zero item list. No government anywhere is a green fascist dictatorship, and it seems far-fetched to imagine one. But again, if you think that's a real risk, I urge you to support climate action now so that public support for drastic action doesn't build up.

You appear to be reading a ton of sentiment that isn't there into my comment. All I'm saying is that opportunities for big action give cover to those looking to do bad things that would not otherwise be acceptable and give cover for people who would not otherwise condone those bad things to ignore it. We need to be vigilant so that we don't say we're fighting climate change but instead wind up off in the weeds screwing over people.

And for the record, I am strongly in support of any progressive (as opposed to regressive) measure that has a net positive impact on climate change.

> We can look outside of our windows now and see the solution. It's doing less, it's working less, it's not polluting the world, it's consuming less and producing less. Radically so.

And this requires revolution because our whole economy is built around constantly working (and thus producing and consuming, if not rent-seeking, but we can't all be rent-seekers), even if all our basic needs were already met.

Every improvement in energy efficiency we have ever made has resulted in more energy use

Actually, quite a few countries never went back to their pre-2008 total energy usage, the primary example being the UK which invested heavily in efficiency.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com