I read rhe interview first for a class and then I found this ti get the full effect. She's an inspiration to anyone frustrated by the lack of more unified and decisive official action on climate.
Love you Ayana! You are so brave and help those of us who do our best to speak to these issues and the impact of personal choices. Interesting how your words trigger so many people in the comments.
How much CO2 is the result of unnecessary manufacturing due to Planned Obsolescence? Economists don't even talk about planned obsolescence. Where is the data on the annual depreciation of durable consumer goods?
This was very inspiring but in the end a huge disappointment. All touchy feely. You're right, we're never going to solve the problem without effective government policy. So, why talk about everything but policy in the interview? Without a price on carbon we're just treading water, and it's getting higher and higher all the time. Asking people what they'd be willing to give up is completely pointless. Educating people about what a carbon price is and why it's needed would be helpful. Until people understand that they will never provide the political support needed to enact such a policy. That's what makes me mad. We have companies that want to protect the status quo. We have a media that focuses on nothing but drama and human emotion. And we have an environmental movement that does the same to raise awareness (and funding). It's like we all have a collective death wish talking and talking with a dirt simple solution hidden in plain sight. This is so discouraging
There are many good policies for decarbonizing, and people need to have some degree of understanding about the policies to be onboard with them. Research shows that emotions are an important part of the process.
this is the second NYtimes climate related pod i've listened to where the supposed expert says something along the lines of "we have all these solutions and we can just do them." the level of actual experience with these problems and implementing solutions from these supposed experts is sadly shallow. to transform the most climate impactful industries is much more difficult than just saying replace all firm, dispatchable, carbon intensive power with solar, wind, and nuclear. these are not perfect substitutes and have enormous implementation and cost challenges. NYtimes please get people that do more than just write books.
This sounds fine and dandy, high on sentiment and common sense but many many people/families are just struggling from week to week and don't have time for the bigger picture.
Conversely millions of families have buckets of wealth. Those that can must. Let's focus on these folks instead of throwing a roadblock based on those that can't. We're fortunate enough and over several years we've moved to 100% electrification with going results. First adopters are nothing new. They help by paying a premium early on. In turn manufacturers can use the money and data to scale product and lower cost. This is exactly what happened with personal computers then cell phones. Both today are infinitely better at lower cost.
You mean, struggle like in parts of Africa? Syria? They will struggle more as long as they ignore verifiable facts and vote against their own interest.
Those who are struggling financially are highly unlikely to be major contributors to the problem, at least in terms of their personal lifestyles. The main thing they can do is vote for candidates who take the bigger picture seriously. (Or if that's too hard to figure out, at least vote something OTHER than the ones who are active deniers.)
I wonder if people are worried not so much about sacrifice, per se, the idea of giving up some indicator or functional benefit of fossil-fuel based wealth. Rather I wonder if what they fear is insecurity. Wouldn't we find it easier to accept relative scarcity and energy frugality, if we knew that the new arrangements were at least as reliable as the old? Maybe it's not the relative comfort and outward appearance of wealth that we treasure most. Maybe it's the relative financial security that gives us those things. So maybe the dilemma is how to change in a way that reduces chaos, profiteering, piracy, exploitation, shortages, outages and uncertainty. I know, I know...good luck with that. America has made a religion out of relative comfort and the outward appearance of wealth. But still, maybe that's what we should be thinking about.
Incorrect. A lot is being done and has been done. Not enough, no, but it doesn't sit well with me to erase the hard work many people have been doing. Yes, life will get harder, but just how much harder is still up in the air. Of course mitigation and adaptation are ALSO important; that doesn't mean we shouldn't also keep trying to cut emissions. Look - I'm a congenital pessimist, myself, but I'm a stubborn pessimist. There's no sense in giving up just because things look hopeless. After all, *life* is ultimately hopeless (given that we all die), but most of us do our best while we're here. One must imagine Sisyphus happy... Or at least spitefully unwilling to give up, if only to deny those who expect him to the satisfaction! (And occasionally, there's joy)
@LarryCleveland We are busy spinning plates while we ignore the tidal waves that are about to crash over and wipe away our world. .... Okay, not the best metaphor or mixed metaphor. You get the idea.
People like this speaker is the reason why even normal people who support fighting climate change hate environmental activists, because they are so full of privilege and themselves
@@AndreasDelleske I don’t care if u care what I think and I’m not arguing facts that I have no idea about. I thought obsessing over that stuff was for jihadis
@@Keith_Mikell No he said it in the second interview. He is selfish. It's a Climate Emergency and the NYT is distracting the nation with divisive politics and framing international warfare as inevitable and expected. We're not focused on the thing that is actually going to kill everyone.
In this interview, it seems like it's a case of trying to reach people where they're at, engage emotionally, and then move forward from there, which I think shows some finesse in a good way. Near the end of the interview, she actually talks about the necessity of giving up personal privilege, and how the bunker mentality is so sad, and being responsible to community, and being part of the collective solution. Are those things that you disagree with?
Physics is the most reliable window on reality. Laws of Nature never fail. It allows predictions, better than any religion, any single person has ever offered. It is the reason why you have totthpaste and electronic devices. Physics is tested a million times and if we ignore it we will perish., Verifiable things are still verifiable, no matter how we tweak our brains just to not feel the pain and grief of humanity's failure, so far.
And yet, most people who are able buy insurance for their valuables. And look after their oral hygiene, at least to some extent. Why bother doing either, if the future is so uncertain?
@@AndreasDelleske Can not verify future facts that have not occurred. You can extrapolate from present facts to the future but you now have to bake in assumptions which may or may not play out.
