Interesting piece, but I think most people and communities would be more willing to do the hard work needed towards mitigating the climate catastrophe (let's face it, prevention time has passed a few decades ago) if they saw those at the "top of the food chain" (billionaires, millionaires, famous actors, politicians, etc) actually working towards it, not by merely investing in tech companies with their "solutions" or writing and acting in movies and documentaries about it, but by stop using their private jets, reducing their consumption of expensive and unsustainable foods, start living in smaller houses instead of their mansions, fighting and protesting along side us against fossil fuels and other unsustainable practices.
The dream of the ordinary working class individuals across the world (due in large part to decades of american influence) isn't of making sacrifices in order to fight towards a better future for all, it is of being able to consume similarly to those at the top. So as long as the regular individual don't see the "big ones" making ever larger sacrifices towards the common good, they won't feel compeled to do it either. This was noticeable during the pandemic where politians and actors made parties, flew around and "suffered" having to stay inside their large properties while the rest of us had to actually follow what the government and health officials said.
1. More people would support Climate Action if they saw that the Elites were living less like Bill Gates and more like Gretta Thunberg. IE you cannot ask people to give up air travel, if what you really mean, "is everyone has to give up air travel except important/rich people".
2. Nobody wants to give up hard won economic gains made during the last 100 years. Again, if Elites want to ASK everyone to do this, they need to personally demonstrate their willingness to "share the pain". Otherwise their expressions of concern, alarm, and exhortations for everyone to "do their part" seem hypocritical.
You summarize with "Lead by Example".
Hey, no argument with that. A core precept of "Command Authority" is the idea that you are willing to do anything you order others to do. That if you ask someone to "stand and die" to make a retreat possible, you are willing to do the same if it is necessary.
Going from there though, the debate gets more complex.
What are we going to work towards?
What is going to be necessary to achieve our goals?
What sacrifices are we going to have to ask of people?
What benefits can we promise them in return for those sacrifices?
I read an excellent article by Erik Assadourian on Medium where he compares "Apocalypse Life" in a civilizational collapse to "Sustainable Life" in a Managed Retreat scenario. The surprising thing is that they aren't that different MATERIALLY.
Erik's point is that they are VERY DIFFERENT in terms of INTANGIBLES LIKE SECURITY AND STABILITY.
He argues that we "sell" Climate Adaptation/Mitigation/Justice incorrectly. The focus is on what you might have to give up instead of what you will gain. He argues that we should reframe the question to emphasize our core priorities.
What's it worth to you to have police and a justice system instead of paying tribute to a local warlord for "protection"?
What's it worth to you to have common goods like schools, libraries, hospitals, sewage treatment systems, fire departments, reliable power, medicines, clothing, and a place to live?
What are you willing to "give up" in order to secure those things for your children and grandchildren's futures?
What are the minimum things that you think we should strive for EVERYONE on Earth to have and how much more should we allow people to have in excess of that?
Right now the debate is being framed by the Conservatives in terms of "What Liberals want to TAKE from You". Climate Activists talk about "sacrifice" and "giving up" things like meat. What we need to do, is shift the conversation to what we all GAIN by restructuring our global culture in response to the Climate Crisis.
Interesting piece, but I think most people and communities would be more willing to do the hard work needed towards mitigating the climate catastrophe (let's face it, prevention time has passed a few decades ago) if they saw those at the "top of the food chain" (billionaires, millionaires, famous actors, politicians, etc) actually working towards it, not by merely investing in tech companies with their "solutions" or writing and acting in movies and documentaries about it, but by stop using their private jets, reducing their consumption of expensive and unsustainable foods, start living in smaller houses instead of their mansions, fighting and protesting along side us against fossil fuels and other unsustainable practices.
The dream of the ordinary working class individuals across the world (due in large part to decades of american influence) isn't of making sacrifices in order to fight towards a better future for all, it is of being able to consume similarly to those at the top. So as long as the regular individual don't see the "big ones" making ever larger sacrifices towards the common good, they won't feel compeled to do it either. This was noticeable during the pandemic where politians and actors made parties, flew around and "suffered" having to stay inside their large properties while the rest of us had to actually follow what the government and health officials said.
Lead by example.
Breaking down what I see you saying.
1. More people would support Climate Action if they saw that the Elites were living less like Bill Gates and more like Gretta Thunberg. IE you cannot ask people to give up air travel, if what you really mean, "is everyone has to give up air travel except important/rich people".
2. Nobody wants to give up hard won economic gains made during the last 100 years. Again, if Elites want to ASK everyone to do this, they need to personally demonstrate their willingness to "share the pain". Otherwise their expressions of concern, alarm, and exhortations for everyone to "do their part" seem hypocritical.
You summarize with "Lead by Example".
Hey, no argument with that. A core precept of "Command Authority" is the idea that you are willing to do anything you order others to do. That if you ask someone to "stand and die" to make a retreat possible, you are willing to do the same if it is necessary.
Going from there though, the debate gets more complex.
What are we going to work towards?
What is going to be necessary to achieve our goals?
What sacrifices are we going to have to ask of people?
What benefits can we promise them in return for those sacrifices?
I read an excellent article by Erik Assadourian on Medium where he compares "Apocalypse Life" in a civilizational collapse to "Sustainable Life" in a Managed Retreat scenario. The surprising thing is that they aren't that different MATERIALLY.
Erik's point is that they are VERY DIFFERENT in terms of INTANGIBLES LIKE SECURITY AND STABILITY.
He argues that we "sell" Climate Adaptation/Mitigation/Justice incorrectly. The focus is on what you might have to give up instead of what you will gain. He argues that we should reframe the question to emphasize our core priorities.
What's it worth to you to have police and a justice system instead of paying tribute to a local warlord for "protection"?
What's it worth to you to have common goods like schools, libraries, hospitals, sewage treatment systems, fire departments, reliable power, medicines, clothing, and a place to live?
What are you willing to "give up" in order to secure those things for your children and grandchildren's futures?
What are the minimum things that you think we should strive for EVERYONE on Earth to have and how much more should we allow people to have in excess of that?
Right now the debate is being framed by the Conservatives in terms of "What Liberals want to TAKE from You". Climate Activists talk about "sacrifice" and "giving up" things like meat. What we need to do, is shift the conversation to what we all GAIN by restructuring our global culture in response to the Climate Crisis.