Voters not wanting to lower their living standards is the real elephant in the room. You tell someone that they should eat 1 less hamburger a week and all of a sudden you’re dodging bullets.
I think going after industry makes more sense. Other than the idea of climate change, which for most people feels abstract, they don’t have much of an incentive.
Going after industry, governments can create regulations the companies have to follow, and those companies pay people to solve those problems, and they’re going to solve those problems, because they want to stay in business.
Why are we banning plastic bags at grocery stores, putting it on the consumer to source and buy grocery bags, when a majority of the stuff being sold at those stores comes in some kind of plastic container? Why not push companies to make non-plastic packaging, or have no packaging where it makes sense?
Instead of telling people to get 1 less hamburger, put quotas on a meat production (or just standards to get rid of factory farming which will naturally bring the volume down). This will drive up the price and people will buy less of it. Now, instead of unsold meat being thrown away, there is less being produced in the first place.
How about requiring them to find ways to reduce the amount of resources (energy, water, etc) that go into their production lines?
How about a tax on low quality fast fashion that ends up in the trash after one wear, so it no longer makes sense to buy, and people can go for longer lasting stuff that isn’t made to be consumed and thrown away?
If you want to change the behaviors of a population, you don’t shame them until they comply, you tweak the dials that lead to big change.
As if the voters are any better. They could vote for policy makers that bring change, or go into politics themselves. But they don’t actually want to be affected by such policy changes. It’s always the others, always just finger pointing.
Only about 35 percent of the eligible voters participated, so yeah. Apathy and complacent comfort is a big player in the game. I’m pretty convinced that a lot of people’s apathy comes from the lack of political agency. When business interests conflict with human interests guess who wins every time.
Ok. Well, not all countries are democracies. So, excluded those ones right off the bat. And then narrow it to voters who participate and those who do not.
Unfortunately, it’s actually a political problem.
Another human problem, so solvable.
It’s not like a super volcano or asteroid.
Asteroid problem is more solvable than political problem.
Armageddon solved it like in 2 hours or so.
Is it though?
CEOs don’t want to risk their profits.
Politicians don’t want to risk their terms.
Voters don’t want to lower their living standards.
No one really wants to do something.
Appropriate username, but I (unfortunately) agree
Voters not wanting to lower their living standards is the real elephant in the room. You tell someone that they should eat 1 less hamburger a week and all of a sudden you’re dodging bullets.
I think going after industry makes more sense. Other than the idea of climate change, which for most people feels abstract, they don’t have much of an incentive.
Going after industry, governments can create regulations the companies have to follow, and those companies pay people to solve those problems, and they’re going to solve those problems, because they want to stay in business.
Why are we banning plastic bags at grocery stores, putting it on the consumer to source and buy grocery bags, when a majority of the stuff being sold at those stores comes in some kind of plastic container? Why not push companies to make non-plastic packaging, or have no packaging where it makes sense?
Instead of telling people to get 1 less hamburger, put quotas on a meat production (or just standards to get rid of factory farming which will naturally bring the volume down). This will drive up the price and people will buy less of it. Now, instead of unsold meat being thrown away, there is less being produced in the first place.
How about requiring them to find ways to reduce the amount of resources (energy, water, etc) that go into their production lines?
How about a tax on low quality fast fashion that ends up in the trash after one wear, so it no longer makes sense to buy, and people can go for longer lasting stuff that isn’t made to be consumed and thrown away?
If you want to change the behaviors of a population, you don’t shame them until they comply, you tweak the dials that lead to big change.
I think this is our natural reaction because we aren’t aware of the scope of lobbying and corruption that influence global politics and supply chains.
There’s like 100 people with the power to make the change and they’ve all decided to invest the money and power in self preservation. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoff
As if the voters are any better. They could vote for policy makers that bring change, or go into politics themselves. But they don’t actually want to be affected by such policy changes. It’s always the others, always just finger pointing.
Are you talking about American voters?
Only about 35 percent of the eligible voters participated, so yeah. Apathy and complacent comfort is a big player in the game. I’m pretty convinced that a lot of people’s apathy comes from the lack of political agency. When business interests conflict with human interests guess who wins every time.
No. I’m talking about all voters.
Ok. Well, not all countries are democracies. So, excluded those ones right off the bat. And then narrow it to voters who participate and those who do not.
If you do not participate you’re part of the issue
You think only America is a democracy?
I think America is one of the participatory democratic countries. But many other countries are not. What are you actually confused about??