Hacker News Reader

Comment by dleslie | Hacker News Reader

> The latter policy really emphasizes to me that that there are a large number of people who do not want to change their behaviour in any way, and would much rather have a corporate scapegoat to point at.

I find this to be a fairly common perspective, when talking to Canadians online; and there's some data to support that it is[0][1].

The truth is that individuals are _hugely_ influential on carbon emissions, and changes to individual consumption, commuting, and so forth are necessary if we're to tackle climate change meaningfully. The Covid lockdowns made the impact of individuals irrefutably clear.[2][3][4]

0: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/election-poll-climate-chang...

1: https://globalnews.ca/news/8139537/canada-climate-change-eco...

2: https://pcc.uw.edu/blog/research/how-did-covid-19-affect-our...

3: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0797-x

4: https://earth.stanford.edu/news/covid-lockdown-causes-record...

View on HN

I don't understand why you would cite Covid lockdowns (a centrally-coordinated government policy) as evidence of individual impact. Is this not an argument against your own point?

It's (partially) centrally coordinated, but it's individual behaviors that change, not "corporations making factories and ships magically better while consumers don't feel a change", which is the average (sl)activist's proposed solution.

I find it interesting that both your reply and mine are being downvoted without explanation as if it’s a controversial idea that consumers are culpable.

And yet there are no replies making a logical argument about why this perspective is wrong?

It's an unpopular proposition to state that there exists a collective responsibility to make individual adaptations to combat climate change.

I also argued that the lockdown was good for combating climate change, and there are many people who are desperate to leave their bedroom communities, hop in their car, and commute to the downtown office.

> there exists a collective responsibility to make individual adaptations to combat climate change.

Individual adaptations do not matter unless they are undertaken collectively. My personal lifestyle changes don’t impact the state of CO2 emissions in any significant way. Leading by example AND talking about it has more impact, but still negligible unless/until enough people do it.

Changing incentives, by making production account for the climate change externality, will shift more people into changing their lifestyle based on price alone. It’s the same reasoning behind targeting drug dealers and cartels more heavily than end-users.

> My personal lifestyle changes don’t impact the state of CO2 emissions in any significant way.

Collective action requires personal changes. You, and everyone else, must alter your personal lifestyle. You are only a little bit responsible for the harm, but in aggregate, the collective you are enormously responsible. Each individual must change.

> It’s the same reasoning behind targeting drug dealers and cartels more heavily than end-users.

I don't like the drug dealer analogy because it implies that targeting drug dealers has been reasonably effective in combating drug use. It hasn't.

To combat substance abuse the users must be targeted; to combat climate change, the consumers must be targeted.

I think we are talking past each other a bit. I guess it boils down to the question “where does the incentive to make widespread personal changes come from?”

Perhaps the CFC problem is a better analogy. CFCs cause problems with the ozone layer, so CFCs were mandated to be removed from products that people bought like ACs and hairspray. In that instance, the supply chain was fixed, so the option to buy CFC hairspray was removed.

I think the same fix applies here. Renewable energy, ending single-use plastic packaging, etc. are all things that should be done in order to decrease negative effects. That’s not to say people don’t have to or shouldn’t also make our own personal changes, only that the impact of changing the supply chain is much greater.

[edit: rogue apostrophe]

I'm old enough to remember when CFC and non-CFC hairsprays were both available, and recall the public discussion over whether you should buy one or the other.

Regardless, even though the edict eventually came from on high to stop using CFCs, it was the individual use of them that was ultimately responsible for harm. Punishing oil companies won't make a lick of difference if it doesn't result in changes to our collective, individual behaviour. Like how we stopped using CFC-laiden hairsprays, we're going to have to stop commuting by car, ICE or EV, and stop buying products from overseas, and stop flying.

There is no technological panacea that will allow us to continue to live our lives as we do now.

I think we all agree that incentives are the single most important factor.

That isn’t an argument against consumers being culpable though. We are all culpable.

Lifestyle choices do matter a lot. Do you buy the tiny condo in a walkable area and put your money into public transit? Or do you live on an acreage and drive a lifted Dodge Ram? How do your behaviours shape the culture of those around you? How will your children choose to live?

In a society where most people are overweight, heart disease and cancer are the biggest killers, our cities are designed around cars, and human social connection and community are fading, being replaced by superficial social media interaction, it matters very much how we personally choose to live. Our way of life tends to rub off on those who are close to us, and our children. A way of life that prioritizes human health, community, political cooperation, and respect for the environment over mindless consumerism is incredibly important to our long term prosperity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com