This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This really just strikes me as sneering. There is always going to be one or two humans that become figures of a thing when people perceive that thing to be against their interests. Decarbonization is against the interests of most people, even if a lot of people favor it politically. Most of the wild eye things they discuss at Davos will be mostly bad for most people if the Davos types get any of their policies pushed through before technology makes their preferences seem weird, outdates their ideas wholly, etc.
Take, for example, dishwashers. Almost everyone acknowledges that the new, Eco-friendly ones don't clean very well. Is this the machination of Klaus Schwab incarnate? No. But he, the WEF, etc are parts of the movement that floated the theories that led to crappy dishwashers being the norm. Does he argue for fiscal deregulation? Sure. This is a non-mover for the modern right. And basically everyone at Davos will eventually say something that embraces left-ish globohomo. Which is basically the enemy of the new right.
That's a pretty contentious assertion to just plop down. I think you're mistaken, and my guess is that the source of the error is you considering people's "interests" quite narrowly. Are you following a logic of "decarbonisation will make many/most things more expensive while delivering equivalent/worse service, therefore it's against most people's interests?"
Yes. This will be true for every person in the world that doesn't have a specific decarbonization profit plan (your Al Gore, Tesla, etc). It will also be true for the descendants thereof. For all "crises" (of which atmospheric CO2 is a dubious one, see the work of David Friedman) typically the better approach is to just outgrow it. We did this with, for example, smog, vacuum tube tvs, leaded petrol, lemon cars, etc. We also have largely done it with incandescent lights and heavy coal. We have yet to do that with gas stoves/heat and ICEs.
Smog and leaded petrol both required government intervention because the pollution is an externality. Leaded petrol is still better than unleaded from the point of view of the engine, which is why Avgas is still leaded.
The same is true of CO2 - the reason why the worst-case scenarios associated with RCP8.5 (which people like David Friedman correctly point out won't happen, despite the amount of research funding going into working out just how bad they are and the media attention this attracts) will not, in fact, happen, is that governments saw the problem and acted to mitigate it - mostly by subsidising the R&D and early adoption of the technologies (PV cells, efficient wind turbines, electric cars etc.) that will support a lower-carbon society.
Achieving RCP4.5 instead of RCP8.5 is in everybody's interest (except for a few selfish Boomers) because it is the difference between your grandchildren thriving and (with an unacceptably high probability) frying. Fortunately, it doesn't require a Great Reset to achieve. But achieving it has required and will continue to require elites to talk to each other about decarbonisation at places like Davos, and COP meetings, and G20 summits. Going further to achieve RCP3.4 or RCP2.6 isn't in the interests of Red Tribe Americans who have large sunk investments in a high-carbon lifestyle, but it would be in the interest of a lot of people if the technology to do it at a reasonable cost exists. (Tip from a physicist - it does, it's called nuclear power).
In a sane world, working out whether RCP3.4 is a good idea or not requires both elites talking to each other about what can be done and what it might cost, and voters talking to each other about whether it is a good idea or not given the facts that emerge from that conversation. In the world we actually live in, this won't happen, among other reasons because the culture war is making us stupid and US climate policy is going to be decided by whether ragetweets about Hunter Biden's laptop are more or less viral than ragetweets about George Santos' CV. Davos is selling (at an extremely high price) the idea that these conversations are happening and that business executives are valued participants in them.
Pardon me, but that's complete and utter nonsense.
Whatever lower carbon intensity is achieved in allegedely civilized regions places like 'Eu' or Canada is going to be completely swamped by Indians, Chinese and whomever is clever enough to build a coal-fired power plant.
Also please do not that countries that in the EU, the countries that most heavily adopted the technologies you name, generally have worse carbon emissions than countries that stuck to their legacy tech such as nuclear power plants.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link