Grandfather-based allotment on an ETS is a perverse incentive that rewards emissions. The EU made a huge mistake there, possible a world-ending one. They should’ve used another allotment scheme. 😭
An Amish-like life (minus the patriarchy) seems like a more sustainable future.
I wouldn’t expect people to voluntarily go Amish—our society is a candy shop designed to induce buy buy buy—but that’s why people are looking sternly at each other for “unnecessary” purchases.
We need to legislate leaving the fossils in the ground and if that means legislatin’ some Amish livin’, then that’s the way it is.
A lot of society’s wealth is illusory because of the fossil economy, and will be eroded and we’ll all have to scale way back down or die and a lot of denialist gasoline populists will fight that tooth and nail.
I advocate for rationing as part of the solution and yeah, ETS is one form that can take (with a different allotment scheme—it’s not just about “strictness”, it’s about who gets rewarded. We have literally been paying people to blast fossil CO2e gasses! The worst emitters got the most cash!)
ETS means cap-and-trade. The T in ETS means “trade”. I do advocate for a cap (as opposed to a carbon tax). The trade part I could give two tugs about. If that’s what get the suits motivated then that’s fine by me, and if it has to go then I’ll wave it off with a relieved smile. The trade part is like auctioning life boat seats at the titanic; sickening and the opposite of what the climate justice movement is fighting for.
People say “but just call your MEP and have them tighten up the EU ETS a li’l bit”.
Patching the current system might be good, yes. Re-use some of the infrastructure we already have. But we need a heck of a brutal patch in that case.
Ballot box, phone box, those are both fine by me. I’m not anti-reformist. If that can go the distance, I won’t complain. Activism of a more revolutionary nature is also appealing in these dire straits. Seems like desperate measures but sometimes it’s got to be done.
Truth is, it’s shocking to me that gov’ts are fining, jailing, even killing climate activists who are the only sane people in this mad world.
The one group that really should skärp themselves and get their asses in gear and fix climate change are the politicians.
It’s very unlikely that any of these three groups sober up and start doing the right thing. For me, it seems like the leap would be “shortest” for politicians. But it’s a prisoner’s dilemma since if one wing goes fossil austere the other will go fossil populist.
I also again and again call for economists, game designers, network technicians, semioticists and other nerds to help come up with new, sustainable economics. The “Street Performer’s Protocol” changed the world (only nudged it a bit) and that was in our lifetime. Let’s see some more of that but for sustainability and fossil externalities accountability. Obviously that will never be super appealing since as long as we have the externalities bug, the fossil in the ground is like free gold on the table. Everyone wants to steal it even though as soon as we take too much, everyone dies. Game theorists can have a field day with this.
The activism I like (not that any activist is or should be held to just doing activism that has Sandra’s stamp of approval. I mean I might be into that but yeah, I’m well aware that that’s not it currently works) is activism that provides tangible & actual change. Occupying a grove so that it’s torn down three weeks later than it would’ve been torn down is not a win. It’s just theatre. We want change in actual legal policy or other kinds of improvements to our actual physical reality: Occupying the grove so that it’s never torn down is a huge win.
“Activism for visibility” a.k.a. “activism as a bill board” has inspired huge changes in the past. Suffragettes, civil rights, and more recently BLM. It’s a heck of a lot better than silence.