Yes it’ll be more expensive to remove carbon dioxide from the air in the future but i will be dead by then, so why do I care? Also this moral hazard is made worst by decision makers whose financial outcomes are tied to not adopting extreme climate measures.
Especially those without children, taking the long view of society seems to be very difficult.
No, but people care about their descendants, rich or poor.
It’s only ever something that holds the working and middle class down.
Hey, that's me! But more importantly, I'm not super worried about it in general. I consider it mostly a number of engineering problems (making things more efficient, consuming less energy while doing the same, dealing with climate change).
At the same time, I see plenty of people who say they're super concerned about it hopping from one plane to the next. When questioned, they say that talking about their individual contributions would just deflect from talking about "the system". If you want me to get behind those ideas (and that's a pretty easy sell, tbh, I'd barely have to change my lifestyle), you (not you specifically, I don't know you) need to act as if you mean it.
So far it feels like the upper class saying the lower classes shouldn't travel, eat exotic food or meat, drive cars or heat their homes, while they obviously do all of those things. From my limited circle of friends, that's a pretty common perception, even among those with children.
Air travel could use alternative fuel sources (or even solar) and I'm sure other large carbon emitters like concrete will become more efficient. What I'm not sure is that the richest 1% of the globe are willing to live like everyone else to avoid cooking the planet and passing that cost onto everyone else.
I travel by plane once or twice a year, haven't had meat in years, own a car with good fuel efficiency, heat my home with gas, and it still doesn't register on the scale. If you want me to live like an ascetic to convince you that I am serious about the runaway consequences of increased average surface temperatures I don't know what to tell you. We are already seeing those effects, and it is doubtful that Miami, Dhubai, etc exist at the end of this century.
There is no way to adjust individual consumption fast enough to fully decarbonize industrial economies so as to avoid 2C+ increases. Hence the systems problem. Why is Australia and the US subsidizing fossil fuels? Who is served by firing up retired coalfire power plants to mine Bitcoin?
That's only looking at CO2, forget about our other biosphere limits (nitrogen, phosphorus to name a few) that we're rapidly approaching the ceiling of. Optimizing for profit means you have an incentive to gain today with tomorrow as collateral. Until companies and governments feel the full financial and human cost of their carbon economies we'll continue to get Chevron advertising about how it's all of our responsibility to turn off the lights when not in use, and that will somehow "turn off" climate change.
I think there is, and it's trivial: don't use products from industries that are large contributors.
The problem is that everybody wants to keep using them (understandable) and somehow also make them produce less (also understandable, but wishful thinking). Feels like they're asking other people to stop in order to achieve that goal.
Sure, each person can drive half as much, or we can ask half of the population to stop driving (or travel half as much, or buy half as much x, or use half as much y). Maybe not the top 0.1% (they don't seem to care at all), but these demands reliably come from the top 1-5%, who are also reliably unwilling to make substantial changes personally, with their much larger contributions to the problem. And yet, "the system" is a lot of individuals making decisions. If you won't make them, how do you expect everyone else to?
It's like someone promoting veganism but continuing to eat meat themselves. I wouldn't believe that person is actually worried about meat consumption.
Again, you don't need to sell me on the whole idea, I already have a much lighter footprint than you (barely any traveling, no air-travel, no car, very well-insulated flat and all that jazz). Yet if you want to convince me that you're serious and I should do more, you'll have to do more. If you're racking up 40k miles in a plane every other year, I have trouble believing you. And from looking at the average person, they're not reaching those numbers either, so I find it very understandable if they have doubts as well.
You have a weird definition of trivial.
The complexity comes from "okay, but I don't want to do that, what other ways are there", and I don't think there are many.
Demanding people do stuff that they already told you they know won't help solve the actual problem before you agree with objective reality seems pretty childish?
And why wouldn't e.g. less plane travel help with the problem? Their demands are for people to travel less by plane ... it's just that it should be other people, not them.
Those people sound terrible, and you shouldn't let them convince you, I'm confused as to why you would be so open to their arguments, they sound terrible.
I mistakenly thought you were talking about real people who actually exist, who know that systemic action is required to deal with climate change and called you out on your obvious concern trolling about their personal choices within the current system. Agreeing with those people would make sense, because they are correct, which is generally a good rule of thumb when deciding who to agree with, hence my assumption that you were talking about them when you said you nearly agreed with them (though still confused about why'd you'd hold back on that agreement based on things unrelated to the actual issue).