undefined | Better HN

0 pointstitzer3y ago0 comments

> A large part of the population is like this. Whining at and shaming them is not going to get the result you want.

It's unfortunate, but it does appear to have the opposite effect on some section of the populace. They just get pissed off and consume more out of spite. One thing to temper that is to massively tax (over-) consumption. Use taxes tend to be regressive, so to avoid targeting the poor, there needs to be some thought put into the tax structure.

0 comments

dfxm123y ago

If one reads my comment and construes it as whining and shaming, I don't think we're dealing with reasonable people. The problem is that conservative politicians like MTG make this ID pol issue, vis a vis her comments about Pete Buttigieg and EVs being emasculating. Because of these influences, they see any attempt to curb fossil fuel use as a personal attack, even if it isn't.

lucb1e3y ago

> The problem is that [politics]

If politics is the issue, let's not start about politics and partisanship? I don't know much about USA politics but it seems to me that this automatically turns your comment into something to ignore and dismiss for precisely half your population, as they're part of the party you're blaming as a whole (which might or might not be a fair thing to do).

dfxm123y ago

It's not just politics, and I did specifically mention the attempt to make this about ID politics. In politics, there's discussion, there's give and take, OK. But when one uses their power from the top down to convince their constituency: using fossil fuels is a part of who you are, and they are trying to take a piece of your identity away from you, then it becomes something different.

mrshadowgoose3y ago

When one decides to pass over clearly defined technical solutions that actually solve the problem, and instead decide to shame those who live differently than them, perhaps that individual isn't a bastion of reasonableness themselves.

Clean energy production is an everyone problem. I'd encourage not letting politicians pit you against other parts of the population, which is just an emotionally satisfying substitute to actually addressing fundamental problems.

piva003y ago

It's not an either option though. If one can't have 100% clean energy right now, spending a lot more of non-renewable energy resources just because "I like to be in a t-shirt while it's -20C outside" doesn't sound very reasonable.

You can both work with the current reality, where energy produced by non-renewable means should be used with more thought while advocating for a better solution for the future so you can have your luxury of heating the house to 25C if you so wish and can afford to...

I agree on not letting politicians pit one against other parts of the population, I also believe that people should take responsibility and be mindful of the luxuries they want and what's the cost to the general society, not only that you can afford to do it even though it's detrimental to others.

1 more reply

robocat3y ago

> massively tax (over-) consumption.

And thus create a Veblen good, or a political status good.

Big trucks are a status symbol in part because they are gas guzzlers.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse