To be clear, Lloyd, I am FULLY on board with the concept of sufficiency.
A bit about me for context. I'm 60. My average annual income from age 18 to present is well under $20k. Likely close to $15k. It did not cross the $10k line till I was past the age of 50. I've never been in debt. I've never been homeless. I've never wanted for food. I've had a rich life. (And no, I'm not a trust fund baby!)
Up until my mid 40's, I really believed that the problem was us (individually) and that I couldn't be critical if I didn't walk my talk 110%. I've done almost a full 180 from that position in the past 15 years. Yes, we still have some responsibility as individuals but I firmly believe that the vast majority of the problem is systemic and not solvable by individuals.
However...
It has been driving me a little crazy as of late that it is so difficult to push for cultural change. I think cultural change is a better way to think about individual change. Any one of us or even a lot of "one of us's" (no idea how the hell to spell that!) Is not going to move the dial. But a lot of us's will. So yeah, cultural change. And the pushback against that is so strong and angry. As you point out here, the false equivalencies are ridiculous. As if there is nothing between living in a mansion and living in a hole in the ground wearing a hair shirt. It's just ridiculous! I have no problem with the idea of some people living in a big house and some people living in small apartments. However, NOONE should be living on the street and NOONE should be living in a mansion! There's no room in my world for billionaires. And just say that today in our culture gets you labeled as a communist, libtard, woke whatever. Even our governments won't talk about it.
This was super long-winded but I just want to say thanks for pushing sufficiency but at the same time, let's keep the pressure on the rich m'kay?
That is why I think that sociologists should be given more prominence and influence. I heard a lecture on 'practice theory' that got close to what we need to understand why groups (not individuals) behave in particular ways and provide clues as to what might effect change. Elizabeth Shove is a case in point in the UK and Dana Fisher is a sociologist at the American University with a new book Saving Ourselves.
>>” However, NOONE should be living on the street and NOONE should be living in a mansion! There's no room in my world for billionaires.“
Why not? And why is YOUR world vision the correct one? Because you’ve lived a life of austerity which most people would never accept for themselves?
Those billionaires that you loathe are, for the most part, just like you and I—only they were more innovative, clever, intelligent, or accepting of risk tolerance than virtually everyone else on the planet. If someone builds a better mousetrap, and EVERYONE wants that mousetrap, does he not build them their mousetraps? Does he not deserve compensation?
What exactly is the problem with capitalism here that sticks in your craw?
No, most billionaires got there by being thoroughly unethical, willing to hurt people, animals and the planet to get what they want. After all, an ethical person would never be a billionaire, as they would use that money and the power associated with it to do good in the world. No-one needs to be a billionaire, it's just pure, selfish, unethical greed, nothing more.
"No, most billionaires got there by being thoroughly unethical, willing to hurt people, animals and the planet to get what they want."
And your concrete proof is...what?
Look, I personally don't know any billionaires so I can't speak to their moral compasses. Maybe I do but never knew they were that successful because they acted like normal people.
However, I do know a number of millionaires and they got that way because they were smart and could recognize opportunity when it appeared and when it did, they were READY because they had put in the effort to train themselves to be ready when it showed up. They also had SEVERELY elevated work ethics and the overarching sense of goal setting for themselves. They plain just outwork "normal" people.
And you are dead wrong about being "thoroughly unethical". And no, I am far from being in that socioeconomic stratosphere so I'm only able to gauge their behavior and not their riches.
While I know a couple that might fit your talking point description, most are kind, friendly, and willing to help when they can. However, know that they have to make hard decisions about their companies because they know that they are providing for their employees. They don't always get it right and that might be what you are complaining about in having to cut people loose but remember, is some aren't let go, EVERYONE is let go.
Oh, if more people could understand the difference between wealth and prosperity. One can have a better life with an e-bike than bearing all the costs and consumption of an SUV.
Good post, including my favorite comic quote of all time. I am with you on riding bikes, personal responsibility, and most everything else in the post. However, I will not let go of the corporate system driver that blinds people to their responsibility. Most people don't read you, most students do not take my classes. They grow up in a world of propaganda, which we mistakenly call advertising. And they believe the media they watch. It is a sad situation. I am not going to blame my neighbors for believing the lies spread by Fox News, though I will try to get them to broaden their sources of information, and try to get them to see that a Ford F150 is not the best choice for a family car. I would tell them while riding my bike, but they tend not to slow down even as they pass on a winding road. Personal responsibility combined with regulation will get us further than personal actions alone. We need the politicians on board and the only way we can do that is to get money out of politics.
Of course this is a Catch 22. You can't get the politicians you want if the money controls who runs, and you can't control the money unless you have the politicians you want. So we will have to struggle to both raise awareness at the personal level and change the political direction at the broad societal level. Corporations will only listen, these days, to investors, and even then barely. It may take a much larger crisis than we have experienced so far to drive people to awareness and action on the environmental degradation our actions cause.
>>”Personal responsibility combined with regulation will get us further than personal actions alone.”
If you want regulation to be the hidden bludgeoning stick of compliance, you don’t NEED personal responsibility. Like, at all. Coercion through fiat is not freedom, nor personal responsibility.
I suppose you could call regulation coercion, but it would not be aimed at individuals, it would be aimed at corporate entities who have an engrained habit of externalizing costs to the environment. The air is a dumping ground for CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, CFCs, HCFCs, SF6 and other greenhouse gases. Do you think if there was no regulation we would be moving to alternative refrigerants now? Companies will always externalize costs. There will always be people who throw plastic and aluminum cans out the window of their cars. If there were no fines for these actions do you think they would stop? Personal responsibility works if everyone participates, but even conservatives like Garret Hardin recognized that "Mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon" was a necessity. We might call it good governance. Without it you get Doug Ford.
"I suppose you could call regulation coercion, but it would not be aimed at individuals"
Then you have not been following the various US Federal agencies regulating appliances (including gas ranges). While the regulations are aimed at corporations, be very sure that the aim of those regulations are individuals.
For instance, remember that Lloyd has said that he only wants people to have electric/induction ranges and not gas ones. Ditto sedans, pickups, and SUVs.
Now look at the EPA, the California CARB, and the NJ version of the EPA where unelected, unaccountable, and unassailable bureaucrats (at the urging of NJ Gov Murphy in the last example) manipulated their regulations in bending to Lloyd's wishes - the removal of ICE vehicles.
This is what happens when activists "capture" Govt's Levers of Power and remove peoples' Freedom to choose what is best for themselves. And the activists pat themselves on the back as they have achieved by the Force of Govt where they utterly failed to market their ideas to individuals.
And in doing so, became no better than the Monarchs and Royal Aristocrats that our Founders threw off 250 years ago.
Do you see the threat of continuing to burn fossil fuels? Do you read the data on indoor air pollution in relation to gas stoves? Do you know how many people die prematurely because of outdoor and indoor air pollution? The data on the impact of fossil fuels is quite clear. No environmentalist wishes to have an intrusive government go into houses and remove gas stoves to take away people's internal combustion engine cars. That is why we favor an induced, entirely non-violent, but with some pressure, change to the system of energy use. We may not see it here, but our burning of fossil fuels is killing people, coercing mass migration, and generating instability. Therefore some effort to increase the pace of change is required. It is better to push/regulate the corporate world to change the options people can choose than it is to make illegal the use of what people already have. Monarchs do the later. What we advocate for is better choices and the removal of choices that unknowingly kill.
By the way, people choose cars based on corporate marketing, not always based on the best choice. In that way you are correct, corporations are better marketers than governments. It is just that their products, whether it is glyphosate, paraquat, ICE, large cars, SUVs, pickups, guns, or leaky gas stoves, can kill.
> Do you think if there was no regulation we would be moving to alternative refrigerants now?
Without regulation, pretty much every heat pump on the market would be running some combination of R290 (propane) and R600a (isobutane), which IMO is a better outcome than what we have right now.
>>"Do you think if there was no regulation we would be moving to alternative refrigerants now?"
If it makes financial sense, absolutely. (Don't forget, PR campaigns are why most things corporations do what they do—both positive and negative.) But there are few companies who specialize in refrigerants, so that's kind of a moot point to raise about specific artificial greenhouse gases. The bigger point to make revolves around who you think corporations are, and how they operate relative to the consumer. If a corporation face onerous regulatory overreach, they will (and do!) pass those costs on to the consumer. And most consumers are invested in some manner with corporations via pensions and retirement investment accounts, even if they don't sit on the board of directors.
I think the bigger question is why do we think we need more, rather than less/make do with what we have.
I have been a champion of passive houses since you brought this to our attention all those years ago. I preach it to people in my Dome Group to where they (by the count) I am ignored. I am also fighting some builders pm me with messages such as domes are already efficient. My point here is, why do the builders (at least some are catching on) fight this? It's as if most want people to live in less energy efficient houses.
The answer, look at the media coverage they get as well as the mind-numbing commercials.
Why does the general public need pick-ups or giant SUVs? The answer, is because of the same mind-numbing commercials that ignore energy efficient houses.
And the list can go on, and the answer always is, the mind-numbing "Keep up with the joneses" or "be a trend-setter" commercials that we are subject to.
Then you have the social media people showing-off the stupid things they do and get publicity, or even people who do nothing at all (think Kardashians), get publicity from whatever they do. They show-off their make-believe life-style and kids (of all ages) fall for it and want to emulate them from the less than sustainable fashions to the private jets (and please let's not get started on private jet travel).
The reason why we're going backward and living in the Roddy Piper movie THEY LIVE is the same reason John Carpenter stated. The mass media is selling consumption. Buy more, consume more. Public relation people do the same with their celebrity talents (again think Kardashians). Yes, we are brain-washed by the media into wanting the latest, greatest, biggest, least affordable, products. I remember a commercial on social media that said "there are two people in the world, those that travel in private jets and those that wish they could."
And let's not forget the environmentalists also have to take the blame for environmental burn-out. How many times do we have to endure studies, warnings that demonize the poor and the middle-class for surviving and yes, falling for the media's message while those that demonize are also buying and consuming and flying in private jets?
Yet nobody is calling the media out on that. And that is the problem, and until companies switch gears and their messages we as a people in general (there are always exceptions) will be brainwashed to want, and spend.
And that makes the media, the celebrities, and those that make us want the real culprits. And yes, big corporations (that are owned by millions of people and expect a profit each quarter) that spend money for these abominable commercials also culpable. Some of us have pulled the plug and not have the mass media in our house, yet that didn't last too long. Now if you don't want commercials on the streaming site, you have to pay extra. The commercials will always follow the people.
So my question is what is the solution when the Media is the Massage?
>>”The reason why we're going backward and living in the Roddy Piper movie THEY LIVE is the same reason John Carpenter stated. The mass media is selling consumption.”
Brain gymnastics exercise here:
We’re currently $34.3+ TRILLION in debt here in the USA. What does the economy look like if you get your wish and Americans stopped consuming? What does the world economy look like if EVERYONE stops consuming?
What will the government tax for them to pay off that insane debt?
No one said to stop consuming, but, do people really need the latest, the greatest, and whatever else the celebrities have (even if it is a knock-off)?
My post should have stated that we need to spend wisely, and not be influenced by what the media shows... Remember Sea Monkeys? Remember the add in the comic book that shows them doing tricks and smiling and stuff? Remember how disappointing it was to discover sea monkeys were just brine shrimp, and brine shrimp don't smile at anyone or even do tricks...
Again, as I stated consume and spend wisely on things that will last, and not go for the latest fad.
I loved my sea monkey brine shrimp, and then my parents had a party and someone used them as an ashtray and they all died and now you have reminded me of all this! (and thanks for the comment otherwise)
"My post should have stated that we need to spend wisely, and not be influenced by what the media shows..."
There's that "WE" bit again. *I* spend my money wisely and so should you (and I assume you do). However, the two of us may well disagree what is "wise" based on our individual outlooks, base natures, and our individual goals. I would never be so foolish to believe that I can make "wise" decisions for you and your family - I'd be an utter failure because I don't know you OR your family. Heck, I wouldn't dare do it for my closest friend (and we think very much alike).
I hope that you wouldn't dare to put such decision making power over me into your hands in return.
As it should be. Unless, of course, you believe there should be a Board of Wise Choices that makes those decisions instead of we ourselves
However, most people, I would think, would know things like, Tennis shoes with a sports star (or ex president's ) name on them should be passed over for a cheaper set, and a medium priced show would be better than a cheap shoe... However, here I am wearing the WalMart special because I like them even though they wear out inside of three months of daily use.
Huzzah! I've been preaching that for 20 years. And now, just servicing the national debt is over $1 trillion and shortly, will be the largest expense in the US Federal budget.
It must be fun spending other people into oblivion - we're getting Cloward-Piven'd into collapse.
And, once again, VB and I keep asking the question when someone keeps bringing it up: "How MUCH is 'whatever is needed' is enough?". But then, again, we're trolled as being trolls for asking a simple political economics question that MUST be asked.
Why?
I maintain that we are almost at the Margaret Thatcher tipping point.
So you agree with Trump then that NATO nations should be devoting far more of their GDP to their own defences rather than having the U.S. shoulder the overwhelming responsibility? Good for you—I agree.
The only caveat is answering this question: Who plays the role of the world's policeman and peacekeeper if it's not the U.S.?
Right now, the only place in the world with rising birth rates is Africa.
We had degrowth - during the Pandemic. That hasn't worked out so well.
So tell me, what is the shining example that you can share where population decrease has resulted in positive outcomes? It's certainly clear that Russia population degrowth is starting to head to disaster. China, too. S. Korea, in a couple more decades, will go from being a current powerhouse to the poor house as well as the working aged population retires and there won't be enough replacement workers to keep things going as they have one of the lowest birth rates going.
But I'm willing to hear DETAILS - not platitudes or talking points.
""There are no innocent bystanders. All are involved. All are consumed.""
This really bothers me - a lot. Why?
Our US Constitution's First Amendment says that we have the Right of Assembly - to be with others of like minded. The converse has also been adjudicated to hold true - we can't be forced to be with those we don't wish to.
"All are involved" violated both of those. It removes personal choice and agency as it forces me to be involved with and in somebody else's business, wants, and needs. Who the heck is he to demand I stand with him. Same thing with "SAY IT! SAY FREE PALESTINE!!!" or I'm judged to be evil. Just leave me the heck alone.
<insert other examples here>.
I can be asked if I would join but don't force anyone to do so. The problem is, more and more, a "No" answer often is returned with either verbal or physical violence. Doubt me
Look at many US College campuses like Columbia, NYU, Berkley, Harvard, and others.
BTW, been there, seen that - this political / propaganda movement is nothing more than a rerun of the 1960s US Anti-war movement. At least those protesters were far better behaved (the SDS et al being the exceptions) than what we are seeing now.
This is tantalising because of the truism "the best things in life are free". While this has been taken to be little or no financial cost, it is equally true that the best things in life are (or could easily be) carbon free - and Universal Basic Income has to deal with the essentials.
He doesn't know that welfare, food stamps, subsidize housing, and etc., has been around a while. Could you imagine what would happen if you took away all these "benefits" and just give them money? They would cry about the lost benefits and still want to keep the money.
"...Universal Basic Income has to deal with the essentials"
Daniel, remember that any monies that Government has must first be taken from taxpayers either directly or through the cost of borrowing - UBI doesn't just come from a Magical Dollar Tree.
So the resulting question is - how much will be needed? What is the transactional cost to both those that money is taken from as well as to those that get "those other peoples" private property (as money IS Private Property).
Heh! Looks like you just quoted me a couple of times. Unfortunately, I can't take the time to respond right now as I have to take the Grandson to his specialist in northern NH and there's no public transit available from central NH where I could use my laptop. But, given that NH is 80% and very low density, that is as it should. So the trusty F-150 will do the transport for the 2.5 hours each way.
However, you quoted the RIGHT things from me. Let's see how this plays out when I reread this post.
BTW, some of your commenters (besides me!) are starting to "write long". Would you consider "guest posts", even if Point-Counterpoint in nature, from your community? Heh! It could turn into your own custom "TH" with more readership (and more readership may convert to more paying subscribers - see, I DO think of you!)
As I see it, Earth Day is primarily observed by people participating in some litter clean-up activity, organized by the City, surrounding towns and villages, or any of a number of community organizations, over-arched by our County resource recovery agency, which provides collection sites. While I'm happy to have the litter picked up--I participate as well--I find that a lot of people feel like this, paired with filling their recycling bins weekly, means they can check the environmental box and be done.
I'm fully on board with sufficiency, i just felt that your last post was letting the oil companies off the hook by not considering how these entities are stacking the deck in their favour. thank you for elaborating, it makes more sense now. I think it's important we work on both the demand and the supply side!
ps when will we get a link to watch the recording of your presentation? I'm looking forward to it!
Thanks. I needed that post today. When I’ve read your work on sufficientcy in earlier posts and what you saw as the response from the PHI conference, I felt myself step back and wonder if I could even consider trying to control the beast within. I’m not good at dealing with a constant state of self evaluation especially when I’m pushing myself to be “less than” my contemporaries: less of a consumer, less of a buyer, less of a… PH and working on reducing building energy was easier since the numbers spoke and guided the work. This is much harder as it’s also got other human attributes wrapped up in it like ego, caring for your family, limited material choices pushing you down a tighter decision tree. I wish us luck but am glad that you keep pushing the conversation. -Even tho it still makes me uncomfortable.
To be clear, Lloyd, I am FULLY on board with the concept of sufficiency.
A bit about me for context. I'm 60. My average annual income from age 18 to present is well under $20k. Likely close to $15k. It did not cross the $10k line till I was past the age of 50. I've never been in debt. I've never been homeless. I've never wanted for food. I've had a rich life. (And no, I'm not a trust fund baby!)
Up until my mid 40's, I really believed that the problem was us (individually) and that I couldn't be critical if I didn't walk my talk 110%. I've done almost a full 180 from that position in the past 15 years. Yes, we still have some responsibility as individuals but I firmly believe that the vast majority of the problem is systemic and not solvable by individuals.
However...
It has been driving me a little crazy as of late that it is so difficult to push for cultural change. I think cultural change is a better way to think about individual change. Any one of us or even a lot of "one of us's" (no idea how the hell to spell that!) Is not going to move the dial. But a lot of us's will. So yeah, cultural change. And the pushback against that is so strong and angry. As you point out here, the false equivalencies are ridiculous. As if there is nothing between living in a mansion and living in a hole in the ground wearing a hair shirt. It's just ridiculous! I have no problem with the idea of some people living in a big house and some people living in small apartments. However, NOONE should be living on the street and NOONE should be living in a mansion! There's no room in my world for billionaires. And just say that today in our culture gets you labeled as a communist, libtard, woke whatever. Even our governments won't talk about it.
This was super long-winded but I just want to say thanks for pushing sufficiency but at the same time, let's keep the pressure on the rich m'kay?
That is why I think that sociologists should be given more prominence and influence. I heard a lecture on 'practice theory' that got close to what we need to understand why groups (not individuals) behave in particular ways and provide clues as to what might effect change. Elizabeth Shove is a case in point in the UK and Dana Fisher is a sociologist at the American University with a new book Saving Ourselves.
>>” However, NOONE should be living on the street and NOONE should be living in a mansion! There's no room in my world for billionaires.“
Why not? And why is YOUR world vision the correct one? Because you’ve lived a life of austerity which most people would never accept for themselves?
Those billionaires that you loathe are, for the most part, just like you and I—only they were more innovative, clever, intelligent, or accepting of risk tolerance than virtually everyone else on the planet. If someone builds a better mousetrap, and EVERYONE wants that mousetrap, does he not build them their mousetraps? Does he not deserve compensation?
What exactly is the problem with capitalism here that sticks in your craw?
No, most billionaires got there by being thoroughly unethical, willing to hurt people, animals and the planet to get what they want. After all, an ethical person would never be a billionaire, as they would use that money and the power associated with it to do good in the world. No-one needs to be a billionaire, it's just pure, selfish, unethical greed, nothing more.
"No, most billionaires got there by being thoroughly unethical, willing to hurt people, animals and the planet to get what they want."
And your concrete proof is...what?
Look, I personally don't know any billionaires so I can't speak to their moral compasses. Maybe I do but never knew they were that successful because they acted like normal people.
However, I do know a number of millionaires and they got that way because they were smart and could recognize opportunity when it appeared and when it did, they were READY because they had put in the effort to train themselves to be ready when it showed up. They also had SEVERELY elevated work ethics and the overarching sense of goal setting for themselves. They plain just outwork "normal" people.
And you are dead wrong about being "thoroughly unethical". And no, I am far from being in that socioeconomic stratosphere so I'm only able to gauge their behavior and not their riches.
While I know a couple that might fit your talking point description, most are kind, friendly, and willing to help when they can. However, know that they have to make hard decisions about their companies because they know that they are providing for their employees. They don't always get it right and that might be what you are complaining about in having to cut people loose but remember, is some aren't let go, EVERYONE is let go.
And the true minimum wage is $0.
Kind of like all politicians are crooks? Or is it just "most"?
I do not tolerate personal attacks on readers. I have deleted your last comment.
Oh, if more people could understand the difference between wealth and prosperity. One can have a better life with an e-bike than bearing all the costs and consumption of an SUV.
Good post, including my favorite comic quote of all time. I am with you on riding bikes, personal responsibility, and most everything else in the post. However, I will not let go of the corporate system driver that blinds people to their responsibility. Most people don't read you, most students do not take my classes. They grow up in a world of propaganda, which we mistakenly call advertising. And they believe the media they watch. It is a sad situation. I am not going to blame my neighbors for believing the lies spread by Fox News, though I will try to get them to broaden their sources of information, and try to get them to see that a Ford F150 is not the best choice for a family car. I would tell them while riding my bike, but they tend not to slow down even as they pass on a winding road. Personal responsibility combined with regulation will get us further than personal actions alone. We need the politicians on board and the only way we can do that is to get money out of politics.
Of course this is a Catch 22. You can't get the politicians you want if the money controls who runs, and you can't control the money unless you have the politicians you want. So we will have to struggle to both raise awareness at the personal level and change the political direction at the broad societal level. Corporations will only listen, these days, to investors, and even then barely. It may take a much larger crisis than we have experienced so far to drive people to awareness and action on the environmental degradation our actions cause.
>>”Personal responsibility combined with regulation will get us further than personal actions alone.”
If you want regulation to be the hidden bludgeoning stick of compliance, you don’t NEED personal responsibility. Like, at all. Coercion through fiat is not freedom, nor personal responsibility.
I suppose you could call regulation coercion, but it would not be aimed at individuals, it would be aimed at corporate entities who have an engrained habit of externalizing costs to the environment. The air is a dumping ground for CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, CFCs, HCFCs, SF6 and other greenhouse gases. Do you think if there was no regulation we would be moving to alternative refrigerants now? Companies will always externalize costs. There will always be people who throw plastic and aluminum cans out the window of their cars. If there were no fines for these actions do you think they would stop? Personal responsibility works if everyone participates, but even conservatives like Garret Hardin recognized that "Mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon" was a necessity. We might call it good governance. Without it you get Doug Ford.
"I suppose you could call regulation coercion, but it would not be aimed at individuals"
Then you have not been following the various US Federal agencies regulating appliances (including gas ranges). While the regulations are aimed at corporations, be very sure that the aim of those regulations are individuals.
For instance, remember that Lloyd has said that he only wants people to have electric/induction ranges and not gas ones. Ditto sedans, pickups, and SUVs.
Now look at the EPA, the California CARB, and the NJ version of the EPA where unelected, unaccountable, and unassailable bureaucrats (at the urging of NJ Gov Murphy in the last example) manipulated their regulations in bending to Lloyd's wishes - the removal of ICE vehicles.
This is what happens when activists "capture" Govt's Levers of Power and remove peoples' Freedom to choose what is best for themselves. And the activists pat themselves on the back as they have achieved by the Force of Govt where they utterly failed to market their ideas to individuals.
And in doing so, became no better than the Monarchs and Royal Aristocrats that our Founders threw off 250 years ago.
Do y'all see the lesson here?
Do you see the threat of continuing to burn fossil fuels? Do you read the data on indoor air pollution in relation to gas stoves? Do you know how many people die prematurely because of outdoor and indoor air pollution? The data on the impact of fossil fuels is quite clear. No environmentalist wishes to have an intrusive government go into houses and remove gas stoves to take away people's internal combustion engine cars. That is why we favor an induced, entirely non-violent, but with some pressure, change to the system of energy use. We may not see it here, but our burning of fossil fuels is killing people, coercing mass migration, and generating instability. Therefore some effort to increase the pace of change is required. It is better to push/regulate the corporate world to change the options people can choose than it is to make illegal the use of what people already have. Monarchs do the later. What we advocate for is better choices and the removal of choices that unknowingly kill.
By the way, people choose cars based on corporate marketing, not always based on the best choice. In that way you are correct, corporations are better marketers than governments. It is just that their products, whether it is glyphosate, paraquat, ICE, large cars, SUVs, pickups, guns, or leaky gas stoves, can kill.
> Do you think if there was no regulation we would be moving to alternative refrigerants now?
Without regulation, pretty much every heat pump on the market would be running some combination of R290 (propane) and R600a (isobutane), which IMO is a better outcome than what we have right now.
>>"Do you think if there was no regulation we would be moving to alternative refrigerants now?"
If it makes financial sense, absolutely. (Don't forget, PR campaigns are why most things corporations do what they do—both positive and negative.) But there are few companies who specialize in refrigerants, so that's kind of a moot point to raise about specific artificial greenhouse gases. The bigger point to make revolves around who you think corporations are, and how they operate relative to the consumer. If a corporation face onerous regulatory overreach, they will (and do!) pass those costs on to the consumer. And most consumers are invested in some manner with corporations via pensions and retirement investment accounts, even if they don't sit on the board of directors.
Wayne Teel 👌🏻
I think the bigger question is why do we think we need more, rather than less/make do with what we have.
I have been a champion of passive houses since you brought this to our attention all those years ago. I preach it to people in my Dome Group to where they (by the count) I am ignored. I am also fighting some builders pm me with messages such as domes are already efficient. My point here is, why do the builders (at least some are catching on) fight this? It's as if most want people to live in less energy efficient houses.
The answer, look at the media coverage they get as well as the mind-numbing commercials.
Why does the general public need pick-ups or giant SUVs? The answer, is because of the same mind-numbing commercials that ignore energy efficient houses.
And the list can go on, and the answer always is, the mind-numbing "Keep up with the joneses" or "be a trend-setter" commercials that we are subject to.
Then you have the social media people showing-off the stupid things they do and get publicity, or even people who do nothing at all (think Kardashians), get publicity from whatever they do. They show-off their make-believe life-style and kids (of all ages) fall for it and want to emulate them from the less than sustainable fashions to the private jets (and please let's not get started on private jet travel).
The reason why we're going backward and living in the Roddy Piper movie THEY LIVE is the same reason John Carpenter stated. The mass media is selling consumption. Buy more, consume more. Public relation people do the same with their celebrity talents (again think Kardashians). Yes, we are brain-washed by the media into wanting the latest, greatest, biggest, least affordable, products. I remember a commercial on social media that said "there are two people in the world, those that travel in private jets and those that wish they could."
And let's not forget the environmentalists also have to take the blame for environmental burn-out. How many times do we have to endure studies, warnings that demonize the poor and the middle-class for surviving and yes, falling for the media's message while those that demonize are also buying and consuming and flying in private jets?
Yet nobody is calling the media out on that. And that is the problem, and until companies switch gears and their messages we as a people in general (there are always exceptions) will be brainwashed to want, and spend.
And that makes the media, the celebrities, and those that make us want the real culprits. And yes, big corporations (that are owned by millions of people and expect a profit each quarter) that spend money for these abominable commercials also culpable. Some of us have pulled the plug and not have the mass media in our house, yet that didn't last too long. Now if you don't want commercials on the streaming site, you have to pay extra. The commercials will always follow the people.
So my question is what is the solution when the Media is the Massage?
>>”The reason why we're going backward and living in the Roddy Piper movie THEY LIVE is the same reason John Carpenter stated. The mass media is selling consumption.”
Brain gymnastics exercise here:
We’re currently $34.3+ TRILLION in debt here in the USA. What does the economy look like if you get your wish and Americans stopped consuming? What does the world economy look like if EVERYONE stops consuming?
What will the government tax for them to pay off that insane debt?
No one said to stop consuming, but, do people really need the latest, the greatest, and whatever else the celebrities have (even if it is a knock-off)?
My post should have stated that we need to spend wisely, and not be influenced by what the media shows... Remember Sea Monkeys? Remember the add in the comic book that shows them doing tricks and smiling and stuff? Remember how disappointing it was to discover sea monkeys were just brine shrimp, and brine shrimp don't smile at anyone or even do tricks...
Again, as I stated consume and spend wisely on things that will last, and not go for the latest fad.
I loved my sea monkey brine shrimp, and then my parents had a party and someone used them as an ashtray and they all died and now you have reminded me of all this! (and thanks for the comment otherwise)
"My post should have stated that we need to spend wisely, and not be influenced by what the media shows..."
There's that "WE" bit again. *I* spend my money wisely and so should you (and I assume you do). However, the two of us may well disagree what is "wise" based on our individual outlooks, base natures, and our individual goals. I would never be so foolish to believe that I can make "wise" decisions for you and your family - I'd be an utter failure because I don't know you OR your family. Heck, I wouldn't dare do it for my closest friend (and we think very much alike).
I hope that you wouldn't dare to put such decision making power over me into your hands in return.
As it should be. Unless, of course, you believe there should be a Board of Wise Choices that makes those decisions instead of we ourselves
A Board of Wise Choices? Perish forbid.
However, most people, I would think, would know things like, Tennis shoes with a sports star (or ex president's ) name on them should be passed over for a cheaper set, and a medium priced show would be better than a cheap shoe... However, here I am wearing the WalMart special because I like them even though they wear out inside of three months of daily use.
So who am to judge or give advice?
Maybe the US should stop starting and funding wars and spend that money elsewhere, like paying off the national debt...
"paying off the national debt"
Huzzah! I've been preaching that for 20 years. And now, just servicing the national debt is over $1 trillion and shortly, will be the largest expense in the US Federal budget.
It must be fun spending other people into oblivion - we're getting Cloward-Piven'd into collapse.
And, once again, VB and I keep asking the question when someone keeps bringing it up: "How MUCH is 'whatever is needed' is enough?". But then, again, we're trolled as being trolls for asking a simple political economics question that MUST be asked.
Why?
I maintain that we are almost at the Margaret Thatcher tipping point.
So you agree with Trump then that NATO nations should be devoting far more of their GDP to their own defences rather than having the U.S. shoulder the overwhelming responsibility? Good for you—I agree.
The only caveat is answering this question: Who plays the role of the world's policeman and peacekeeper if it's not the U.S.?
Right now, the only place in the world with rising birth rates is Africa.
We had degrowth - during the Pandemic. That hasn't worked out so well.
So tell me, what is the shining example that you can share where population decrease has resulted in positive outcomes? It's certainly clear that Russia population degrowth is starting to head to disaster. China, too. S. Korea, in a couple more decades, will go from being a current powerhouse to the poor house as well as the working aged population retires and there won't be enough replacement workers to keep things going as they have one of the lowest birth rates going.
But I'm willing to hear DETAILS - not platitudes or talking points.
In the word is the great poet, Martin Carter of Guyana: "There are no innocent bystanders. All are involved. All are consumed."
That requires a Collectivist point of view. I don't accept that social contract.
""There are no innocent bystanders. All are involved. All are consumed.""
This really bothers me - a lot. Why?
Our US Constitution's First Amendment says that we have the Right of Assembly - to be with others of like minded. The converse has also been adjudicated to hold true - we can't be forced to be with those we don't wish to.
"All are involved" violated both of those. It removes personal choice and agency as it forces me to be involved with and in somebody else's business, wants, and needs. Who the heck is he to demand I stand with him. Same thing with "SAY IT! SAY FREE PALESTINE!!!" or I'm judged to be evil. Just leave me the heck alone.
<insert other examples here>.
I can be asked if I would join but don't force anyone to do so. The problem is, more and more, a "No" answer often is returned with either verbal or physical violence. Doubt me
Look at many US College campuses like Columbia, NYU, Berkley, Harvard, and others.
BTW, been there, seen that - this political / propaganda movement is nothing more than a rerun of the 1960s US Anti-war movement. At least those protesters were far better behaved (the SDS et al being the exceptions) than what we are seeing now.
This is tantalising because of the truism "the best things in life are free". While this has been taken to be little or no financial cost, it is equally true that the best things in life are (or could easily be) carbon free - and Universal Basic Income has to deal with the essentials.
Where the hell does UBI come from? LMAO!
He doesn't know that welfare, food stamps, subsidize housing, and etc., has been around a while. Could you imagine what would happen if you took away all these "benefits" and just give them money? They would cry about the lost benefits and still want to keep the money.
"...Universal Basic Income has to deal with the essentials"
Daniel, remember that any monies that Government has must first be taken from taxpayers either directly or through the cost of borrowing - UBI doesn't just come from a Magical Dollar Tree.
So the resulting question is - how much will be needed? What is the transactional cost to both those that money is taken from as well as to those that get "those other peoples" private property (as money IS Private Property).
Heh! Looks like you just quoted me a couple of times. Unfortunately, I can't take the time to respond right now as I have to take the Grandson to his specialist in northern NH and there's no public transit available from central NH where I could use my laptop. But, given that NH is 80% and very low density, that is as it should. So the trusty F-150 will do the transport for the 2.5 hours each way.
However, you quoted the RIGHT things from me. Let's see how this plays out when I reread this post.
BTW, some of your commenters (besides me!) are starting to "write long". Would you consider "guest posts", even if Point-Counterpoint in nature, from your community? Heh! It could turn into your own custom "TH" with more readership (and more readership may convert to more paying subscribers - see, I DO think of you!)
Just a thought...
I will see if I can figure anything out on that
Good post Lloyd! Sometimes the hardest truths are that we have to change our mindset and habits to make things better.
As I see it, Earth Day is primarily observed by people participating in some litter clean-up activity, organized by the City, surrounding towns and villages, or any of a number of community organizations, over-arched by our County resource recovery agency, which provides collection sites. While I'm happy to have the litter picked up--I participate as well--I find that a lot of people feel like this, paired with filling their recycling bins weekly, means they can check the environmental box and be done.
to add to my comment on your previous post:
I'm fully on board with sufficiency, i just felt that your last post was letting the oil companies off the hook by not considering how these entities are stacking the deck in their favour. thank you for elaborating, it makes more sense now. I think it's important we work on both the demand and the supply side!
ps when will we get a link to watch the recording of your presentation? I'm looking forward to it!
Thanks. I needed that post today. When I’ve read your work on sufficientcy in earlier posts and what you saw as the response from the PHI conference, I felt myself step back and wonder if I could even consider trying to control the beast within. I’m not good at dealing with a constant state of self evaluation especially when I’m pushing myself to be “less than” my contemporaries: less of a consumer, less of a buyer, less of a… PH and working on reducing building energy was easier since the numbers spoke and guided the work. This is much harder as it’s also got other human attributes wrapped up in it like ego, caring for your family, limited material choices pushing you down a tighter decision tree. I wish us luck but am glad that you keep pushing the conversation. -Even tho it still makes me uncomfortable.