I wish politics and climate change would stay separate. As an environmentalist, it's really disheartening to see climate change, etc being used as a pawn in political campaigns. As if the government, or presidential hopefuls care.
The solution must be political to be effective. That's what government is for, to solve this kind of problem.
The government won't ''solve'' this problem. They can enact laws to assist with improvements, but the government isn't going to save the planet.
I doubt anyone imagines there is one solution to the problem...but it is clear that it is our actions that are cutting off the branches were are sitting on. Governments action or inactions are part of the problem and part of the solution. And of course ,the planet is in no danger it is ourselves and the next generations (the undeserving beneficiaries of our collective bequest) . I personally am all right ,Jack. Also it suits vested interests in all layers of society to purport to find no credence in the ongoing and fairly settled scientific assessments of what is happening and what needs to be done.
That's better, I'd agree. It just becomes a tiresome argument when the entire blame goes towards our government. When we blame the government for everything that is going wrong in our personal/collective lives, we lose the sense that we have any responsibility at all.
Gates: "Nuclear is ideal for dealing with climate change, because it is the only carbon-free, scalable energy source that’s available 24 hours a day. Problems with today’s reactors, such as the risk of accidents, can be solved through innovation."
Yep. And further, the government (at least here in the US) is an extension of what the people want. By and large, the people want to solve the climate change problem - but they want someone else to do it.
Necessary, not sufficient. But necessary. It never has, except in self-serving Republican propaganda. The central blame has always been placed on the fossil fuel industry. The auxiliary blame in the US belongs on the Republican Party, which has actively served fossil fuel industry interests in this and all other matters. The Republican voting base does not want to solve the climate change problem. They have been told it does not exist. Hence the political problem. It's too expensive, vulnerable, and centralized (it needs a lot of authoritarian government). After seventy years of invoking "innovation", the accident and waste and natural disaster and unnatural disaster problems remain unsolved. The unnatural disaster problem is even getting worse - significantly worse. Solar. The sun will come up tomorrow. The prospects for innovation are greater. And it's half price.
it is starting to be come more apparent that public ideas around solar have been skewed by short term investment profit return scales. these being based on an annual return of around 20%. this delivers a false market bottom line to the industry & the value of government subsidies and asset valuation leverage. there may need to be some type of longer term government bonding insurance based financial valuation for solar to secure its long term low cost balance against fossil fuel high return short term vs its long term damage and far greater cost. e.g in Australia, maybe a package with solar panels, grid over use return balancing & water catchment water tanks with low cost easily replaceable temperature conversion systems built into the water tanks as a form of wall or floor cooling. NOTE Australia probably has enough residual(solar) heating to allow condensation fans built into mini towers in the water tanks to produce electricity to battery's in the home.
You lost it at "collective". The problem of the commons is the kind that only government can solve. While some degree of personal responsibility is of course necessary, this fact is used by those who would rather not take any collective action. In other words, it's a con job.
The problem with "personal responsibility" is that persons vary so greatly in their effectiveness as well as their guilt. A phrase like "personal responsibility" equates the landlord with the tenant, the employer with the employee, a large shareholder in a weapons factory, who supports antisocial candidates and lobbyists, with a tiny-house dweller who got his head bashed in at a political protest.
also in its most common usage is to remove human accountability from people who hide behind companys and injure, poison and kill people. the "personal responsibility" of a corporate is completely different to the "personal responsibility" of a civilian citizen. a citizens personal responsibility is financial accountability a corporate personal responsibility is to assist the company in avoiding being financially accountable.
On a larger scale, of course the government needs to be involved, but unfortunately, as the administrations ebb and flow, the environment suffers. Our planet suffers. We suffer. I don't think the government is our only recourse for protecting our environment. If you think it is, we will have to agree to disagree.
Same deal with government. "We" get the government "we" elect -- but we sure as hell don't have the same degree of influence over what kind of government that is.
