The chickens!! Great point about resisting cynicism. I see some comparable fatalism from other political directions too, where people will (somewhat correctly) point out that the lifestyle many boomers had was both environmentally unsustainable and happened in a unique economic period, with the implication the problem is more expectations than policy. It's true people will have to adapt their consumption and adapt to a changing climate, but like GenSqueeze points out, not caring about economic fairness makes that harder. Young adults who need to work more to pay for housing (or more in taxes) have less time and money left over to care about the future. Much easier sell to cut back on environmentally-harmful consumption if it can mean working a little less (or a little differently) than if your work choices are still completely determined by more and more money going to the same housing. It's a great message that fairness between current generations will help avoid pressure to kick costs to future ones, and maybe a little motivation for the surprising number of other young-ish people I meet who can't bring themselves to care on their own behalf.
Even aside from the dollars and cents part, housing really constrains people's choices about how to adapt! A price on pollution will feel more unfair to someone who already has little choice but a long commute (like if they live with parents or got priced out of the area where they work entirely) than someone who can choose to move closer to work. Same with renters who aren't the ones making choices about insulation or heating systems, and maybe can't afford to move, but are still exposed to costs. If people feel they can't actually adapt their behaviour in response to prices, that price is likely to feel like an arbitrary punishment.
Super well said Valerie. That's why Gen Squeeze has a variety of concrete policy solutions to reduce our wallet problems -- like more affordable child care, parental leave, housing, and even lower income taxes (made possible, for example, by higher taxes on high levels of housing wealth). As we reduce our wallet pressures, like you say, people will be more open to adapting in ways that are necessary to reduce our climate pressures.
I couldnt agree more with you Glen! I spent the entire second half of the concert trying to figure out how to make Drake, and others in positions like his, realize and advocate for the idea that "Nobody should be in a position to be so charitable", etc.
So interesting what you mentioned about the Indeigenous cultures. Any chance you have some resources where I could learn more?
I think you might find this related article that I wrote on my personal blog to be interesting. It's about how generosity from super wealthy people seems helpful, but really it just blinds us from the problem - that wealth is so concentrated: https://kareemk.substack.com/p/the-problem-disguised-as-the-solution
The chickens!! Great point about resisting cynicism. I see some comparable fatalism from other political directions too, where people will (somewhat correctly) point out that the lifestyle many boomers had was both environmentally unsustainable and happened in a unique economic period, with the implication the problem is more expectations than policy. It's true people will have to adapt their consumption and adapt to a changing climate, but like GenSqueeze points out, not caring about economic fairness makes that harder. Young adults who need to work more to pay for housing (or more in taxes) have less time and money left over to care about the future. Much easier sell to cut back on environmentally-harmful consumption if it can mean working a little less (or a little differently) than if your work choices are still completely determined by more and more money going to the same housing. It's a great message that fairness between current generations will help avoid pressure to kick costs to future ones, and maybe a little motivation for the surprising number of other young-ish people I meet who can't bring themselves to care on their own behalf.
Even aside from the dollars and cents part, housing really constrains people's choices about how to adapt! A price on pollution will feel more unfair to someone who already has little choice but a long commute (like if they live with parents or got priced out of the area where they work entirely) than someone who can choose to move closer to work. Same with renters who aren't the ones making choices about insulation or heating systems, and maybe can't afford to move, but are still exposed to costs. If people feel they can't actually adapt their behaviour in response to prices, that price is likely to feel like an arbitrary punishment.
Super well said Valerie. That's why Gen Squeeze has a variety of concrete policy solutions to reduce our wallet problems -- like more affordable child care, parental leave, housing, and even lower income taxes (made possible, for example, by higher taxes on high levels of housing wealth). As we reduce our wallet pressures, like you say, people will be more open to adapting in ways that are necessary to reduce our climate pressures.
Glad you like the chickens!!
I love how you put it, that Marx's answer was too extreme (which I agree with), but so is ours, in the opposite direction.
I couldnt agree more with you Glen! I spent the entire second half of the concert trying to figure out how to make Drake, and others in positions like his, realize and advocate for the idea that "Nobody should be in a position to be so charitable", etc.
So interesting what you mentioned about the Indeigenous cultures. Any chance you have some resources where I could learn more?
I think you might find this related article that I wrote on my personal blog to be interesting. It's about how generosity from super wealthy people seems helpful, but really it just blinds us from the problem - that wealth is so concentrated: https://kareemk.substack.com/p/the-problem-disguised-as-the-solution