This post says interesting and specific things about climate change, and then suddenly gets very dismissive and non-specific when it comes to individual action. And as you predict in your other posts, this leads to mistakes. You say “your causal model of how your actions will affect greenhouse gas concentrations is missing the concept of an economic equilibrium”. But the whole problem of climate change is that the harm of carbon emissions affects the equilibrium point of economic activity so little. You even identify the key point (“our economy lets everyone emit carbon for free”) without realizing that this implies replacement effects are very weak. Who will fly more if I fly less? In fact, since many industries have economies of scale, me flying less or eating less meat quite plausibly increases prices and decreases the carbon emissions of others.
And yes, there are complications—farm subsidies, discontinuities in response curves, etc. But decreasing personal carbon footprint also has effects on cultural norms which can add up to larger political change. That seems pretty important—even though, in general, it’s the type of thing that it’s very difficult to be specific about even for historical examples, let alone future ones. Dismissing these sort of effects feels very much like an example of the “valley of bad rationality”.
me flying less or eating less meat quite plausibly increases prices
That does not sound very plausible, but what DOES is if you then find yourself in the market for long distance rail travel, or meat substitutes (vegetarian meals in restaurants) (because the market for low impact substitutes is smaller than the conventional market, so your effect there is greater).
You even identify the key point (“our economy lets everyone emit carbon for free”) without realizing that this implies replacement effects are very weak. Who will fly more if I fly less? In fact, since many industries have economies of scale, me flying less or eating less meat quite plausibly increases prices and decreases the carbon emissions of others.
It only has weak replacement effects in the “non-government-oversight model”. My claim is that if we’re in that model, then ROI of efforts toward coordination, or else end-runs like technological progress, dominates ROI of offsetting efforts.
But decreasing personal carbon footprint also has effects on cultural norms which can add up to larger political change.
That view is what I claim is indefinite and problematic.
That seems pretty important—even though, in general, it’s the type of thing that it’s very difficult to be specific about even for historical examples, let alone future ones. Dismissing these sort of effects feels very much like an example of the “valley of bad rationality”.
Well the crux is that I think you’re describing a situation (personal behavior change → cultural norm shift → meeting Paris Agreement target) that won’t actually happen, and specificity is a valuable tool to pinpoint why not.
cultural norm shift → … meeting Paris Agreement target
I don’t think this chain of causes and effect can be ruled out a priori.
Before the Copenhagen agreement banned CFCs, there were activists boycotting aerosol cans!
Tesla (and, before them, Toyota, makers of the Prius) benefitted greatly from buyers’ guilty consciences! (And that’s a good thing!)
Wind energy was expensive and countercultural in the 70s; hippies did early R&D!
There’s another weak link in identifying “people paying for an indefinite solution to a problem” with “cultural norm shift”. Tesla’s master plan didn’t need to have any such “BS steps”. I prefer if we don’t have to start modeling the psychology of whether it helps society when people are kidding themselves in a certain way, instead of just definitely steering toward where we need to go.
This post says interesting and specific things about climate change, and then suddenly gets very dismissive and non-specific when it comes to individual action. And as you predict in your other posts, this leads to mistakes. You say “your causal model of how your actions will affect greenhouse gas concentrations is missing the concept of an economic equilibrium”. But the whole problem of climate change is that the harm of carbon emissions affects the equilibrium point of economic activity so little. You even identify the key point (“our economy lets everyone emit carbon for free”) without realizing that this implies replacement effects are very weak. Who will fly more if I fly less? In fact, since many industries have economies of scale, me flying less or eating less meat quite plausibly increases prices and decreases the carbon emissions of others.
And yes, there are complications—farm subsidies, discontinuities in response curves, etc. But decreasing personal carbon footprint also has effects on cultural norms which can add up to larger political change. That seems pretty important—even though, in general, it’s the type of thing that it’s very difficult to be specific about even for historical examples, let alone future ones. Dismissing these sort of effects feels very much like an example of the “valley of bad rationality”.
That does not sound very plausible, but what DOES is if you then find yourself in the market for long distance rail travel, or meat substitutes (vegetarian meals in restaurants) (because the market for low impact substitutes is smaller than the conventional market, so your effect there is greater).
It only has weak replacement effects in the “non-government-oversight model”. My claim is that if we’re in that model, then ROI of efforts toward coordination, or else end-runs like technological progress, dominates ROI of offsetting efforts.
That view is what I claim is indefinite and problematic.
Well the crux is that I think you’re describing a situation (personal behavior change → cultural norm shift → meeting Paris Agreement target) that won’t actually happen, and specificity is a valuable tool to pinpoint why not.
I don’t think this chain of causes and effect can be ruled out a priori.
Before the Copenhagen agreement banned CFCs, there were activists boycotting aerosol cans! Tesla (and, before them, Toyota, makers of the Prius) benefitted greatly from buyers’ guilty consciences! (And that’s a good thing!) Wind energy was expensive and countercultural in the 70s; hippies did early R&D!
There’s another weak link in identifying “people paying for an indefinite solution to a problem” with “cultural norm shift”. Tesla’s master plan didn’t need to have any such “BS steps”. I prefer if we don’t have to start modeling the psychology of whether it helps society when people are kidding themselves in a certain way, instead of just definitely steering toward where we need to go.