What could governments do to encourage a real transition?

the_lyniezian · Post by **the_lyniezian** » 06 Apr 2012, 10:45

Coming from the fact that there are many discussions about how governments might respond or be responding to PO and associated problems, and usually they seem to be of the assumption that it's all about trying to prop up BAU or some semblance of it as much as possible; or at least ensure they get access to oil and other fossil fuels, even if it means conflict or potential environmental damage; or other means of damage limitation or emergency measures.

But what, hypothetically, could governments actually try to do, instead of this, to actually transition away from our dependance on oil and maintaining BAU, towards something genuinely sustainable? And just how would we try to actually go about having an economy not dependent upon growth? And if internatonal agreements are not forthcoming, how could individual nations or blocs do anything to turn the tide, seeing that assumptions thatwe are dependent upon globalisation seem to be dogma?

Please note I'm not necessarily talking within the context of authoritarian states imposing their will, and especially the likes of draconian Chinese-style one-child policies or suchlike. Though of course they exist and talking about what existing governments of htat type could do, I'm wondering what if a party were trying to get elected to power in, say, the UK could propose, and do in practice.

If you think it would be impossible, fine, though I'd like to hope for a thread that focusses upon positive idea and not descend into doomerism...

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 06 Apr 2012, 11:03

If they have to get elected, they can do very little. We would have to have a completely honest and open discussion of the true nature of the problems as part of the political process, and it's not going to happen. It won't happen because not enough people would actually vote for the sort of action that would actually make a serious difference.

It could only work if there were some scientists and philosophers present during the political debates in order to prevent the politicians from continually lying their b****cks off and spouting illogical bullshit.

There is a fundamental conflict of interest between the desire to actually get elected and the need to tell people the truth.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 06 Apr 2012, 11:21

What could governments do to encourage a real transition? Easy. Adopt TEQs.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 06 Apr 2012, 11:24

biffvernon wrote:What could governments do to encourage a real transition? Easy. Adopt TEQs.

Except the truth is this:

(1) This wouldn't be nearly enough to avoid the catastrophe.
(2) It would be far too much to be politically acceptable.

We can get nowhere until there is a widespread, absolute and unconditional acceptance that we can't keep economic growth going. I think most of us know this already.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 06 Apr 2012, 12:10

Your #1 is false as TEQs allows within its own system control of what is defined as 'enough'.

#2 is the problem. Which is why we are doomed.

the_lyniezian · Post by **the_lyniezian** » 06 Apr 2012, 13:04

UndercoverElephant wrote:If they have to get elected, they can do very little. We would have to have a completely honest and open discussion of the true nature of the problems as part of the political process, and it's not going to happen. It won't happen because not enough people would actually vote for the sort of action that would actually make a serious difference.

It could only work if there were some scientists and philosophers present during the political debates in order to prevent the politicians from continually lying their b****cks off and spouting illogical bullshit.

There is a fundamental conflict of interest between the desire to actually get elected and the need to tell people the truth.

In reality I suspect there is a fair amount of truth in that. I also suspect though there is potential for a real desire to change- lots of people disenfranchised with the present political and economic systems- if the climate of the debate were there.

If we assume the public will to see real change was behind it, then what?

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 06 Apr 2012, 13:37

the_lyniezian wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:If they have to get elected, they can do very little. We would have to have a completely honest and open discussion of the true nature of the problems as part of the political process, and it's not going to happen. It won't happen because not enough people would actually vote for the sort of action that would actually make a serious difference.

It could only work if there were some scientists and philosophers present during the political debates in order to prevent the politicians from continually lying their b****cks off and spouting illogical bullshit.

There is a fundamental conflict of interest between the desire to actually get elected and the need to tell people the truth.
In reality I suspect there is a fair amount of truth in that. I also suspect though there is potential for a real desire to change- lots of people disenfranchised with the present political and economic systems- if the climate of the debate were there.

If we assume the public will to see real change was behind it, then what?

Then it's time to get my/our "policy document" going again...

http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... hp?t=20414

If there is one really useful thing the community on this board could do, it would be to extend this document into something that could act as basis for wider discussion when the time comes.

the_lyniezian · Post by **the_lyniezian** » 06 Apr 2012, 15:16

UndercoverElephant wrote:
the_lyniezian wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:If they have to get elected, they can do very little. We would have to have a completely honest and open discussion of the true nature of the problems as part of the political process, and it's not going to happen. It won't happen because not enough people would actually vote for the sort of action that would actually make a serious difference.

It could only work if there were some scientists and philosophers present during the political debates in order to prevent the politicians from continually lying their b****cks off and spouting illogical bullshit.

There is a fundamental conflict of interest between the desire to actually get elected and the need to tell people the truth.
In reality I suspect there is a fair amount of truth in that. I also suspect though there is potential for a real desire to change- lots of people disenfranchised with the present political and economic systems- if the climate of the debate were there.

If we assume the public will to see real change was behind it, then what?
Then it's time to get my/our "policy document" going again...

http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... hp?t=20414

If there is one really useful thing the community on this board could do, it would be to extend this document into something that could act as basis for wider discussion when the time comes.

Yes, but as long as it is realised you are wasting your time with draconian population measures, if you want to sell it, let alone getting bogged down in metaphysics.

[EDIT: As in, doomed to failure at the first hurdle wasting your time. We need radical action, true, but not something which most people will see as highly immoral and a violation of what are considered basic human rights.]

[EDIT #2: And we'd better be sure whose policy document it is- yours or ours? I'm a bit worried it might be becoming the former but hope that is not your intention.]

JavaScriptDonkey · Post by **JavaScriptDonkey** » 06 Apr 2012, 20:13

Politicians need to stand up and tell people what is going to happen.

Then they can turn the problem of transition over to the engineers and scientists and economists to crunch the numbers and provide options.

Then it's back to the politicians to get the people to work as one and accept the inevitable limitations on everyday life.

It'll only work if we all agree to it and we know why we are doing it.

Every other plan will fail.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 06 Apr 2012, 20:16

JavaScriptDonkey wrote:Politicians need to stand up and tell people what is going to happen.

But they don't know what is going to happen. Even I'm not quite certain.

hodson2k9 · Post by **hodson2k9** » 06 Apr 2012, 21:17

JavaScriptDonkey wrote:Politicians need to stand up and tell people what is going to happen.

Then they can turn the problem of transition over to the engineers and scientists and economists to crunch the numbers and provide options.

Then it's back to the politicians to get the people to work as one and accept the inevitable limitations on everyday life.

It'll only work if we all agree to it and we know why we are doing it.

Every other plan will fail.

I agree, and no they don't know what is going to happen, but they can still tell about the problem and the higly probable outcomes.

Just a shame that it isn't going to happen.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 07 Apr 2012, 12:00

biffvernon wrote:What could governments do to encourage a real transition? Easy. Adopt TEQs.

+1

Too simple, too fair, too obvious, too effective, so ain't gonna happen.

Still +1

SleeperService · Post by **SleeperService** » 07 Apr 2012, 14:42

JavaScriptDonkey wrote:Politicians need to stand up and tell people what is going to happen.

Then they can turn the problem of transition over to the engineers and scientists and economists to crunch the numbers and provide options.

Then it's back to the politicians to get the people to work as one and accept the inevitable limitations on everyday life.

It'll only work if we all agree to it and we know why we are doing it.

Every other plan will fail.

+1

Tell people what is certain and make decisions based on that but guided by what is most likely. TEQs seem to be a partial solution almost a green BAU model in some ways.

Starting point? Well how about cutting down the numbers of Earths we'd need to support ourselves? That would get us heading in a good direction no matter what the detail of the future.

Or Only allowing top earners a multiple of the lowest earner in a company? With wages spread through the population more money would be available to enable people to make the changes they decide on.

I DO NOT accept that the 'Wealth Generators' will all leave to get more money elsewhere. In fact, if they threaten it I'll insist on putting them on a plane and cancelling their UK passport as soon as they land. Changing that Business Model MUST be a early priority as well.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 10 Apr 2012, 12:00

SleeperService wrote:TEQs seem to be a partial solution

Actually, TEQs/C&S cover most bases (it's hard to think of a negative issue which is unaffected), which is part of the reason why they'll never be introduced. Governments rely on piecemeal solutions.

SleeperService wrote:almost a green BAU model in some ways.

Is BAU reducing resource use, pollution, species loss, inequality? If it is, bring it on.

SleeperService · Post by **SleeperService** » 11 Apr 2012, 00:45

emordnilap wrote:
SleeperService wrote:TEQs seem to be a partial solution
Actually, TEQs/C&S cover most bases (it's hard to think of a negative issue which is unaffected), which is part of the reason why they'll never be introduced. Governments rely on piecemeal solutions.

SleeperService wrote:almost a green BAU model in some ways.
Is BAU reducing resource use, pollution, species loss, inequality? If it is, bring it on.

BAU allowing some to carry on as usual and bribe others to let them.

IMHO TEQs don't do enough to encourage reduced demand in the greediest countries, and, at the other end I doubt much of the money would benefit the general population. As now, most would go into government hands and never emerge. 'Here's your 10mil USD for your TEQs Mr Mugabe' Hmmm.....