<story><title>Fighting climate change may be cheaper and more beneficial than we think</title><url>https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-mitigation-co-benefits-1.5205552</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>ggm</author><text>The problem is not the general economics, the problem is the vested interests. Most upsides are qualitatively important and improve ordinary life but the profit is diffuse. Most abatement cost is huge incumbents like oil and coal and car industry and tax income. Their costs are being resisted and they outspend everyone else.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>emckay</author><text>This is a big part of the problem, but there is some hope!&lt;p&gt;Shareholders of the big oil and gas companies have started to recognize the long-term threat of climate change. There were 87[0] shareholder proposals last year that asked firms to adopt emission reduction targets, disclose lobbying expenses, or take other action that would result in lower emissions.&lt;p&gt;Most of these failed, largely because the big institutional investors voted against them.&lt;p&gt;Shameless plug: I&amp;#x27;m trying to solve this problem by creating a governance-first index fund [1].&lt;p&gt;[0] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;voting.greengovernance.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;voting.greengovernance.org&lt;/a&gt;
[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;greengovernance.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;greengovernance.org&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>Fighting climate change may be cheaper and more beneficial than we think</title><url>https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-mitigation-co-benefits-1.5205552</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>ggm</author><text>The problem is not the general economics, the problem is the vested interests. Most upsides are qualitatively important and improve ordinary life but the profit is diffuse. Most abatement cost is huge incumbents like oil and coal and car industry and tax income. Their costs are being resisted and they outspend everyone else.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>trentnix</author><text>On the contrary, most changes proposed reduce the quality of life, reduce choices, and require rationing and rationed distribution of some sort. It is consistently pointed out that the first world quality of life is a &lt;i&gt;problem&lt;/i&gt; and a growing population (which is almost entirely the product of people living longer, considering first-world birth rates are abysmal) is a problem. And it is rarely acknowledged that developing nations contribute greatly to pollution and curbing that would almost certainly handicap their growth (and likely result in various forms of protest, violence, and war).&lt;p&gt;To simply assign resistance to how humanity uses and consumes energy to &lt;i&gt;oil and coal and car industry and tax income&lt;/i&gt; is absurd. &lt;i&gt;General economics&lt;/i&gt; is the only surefire way to get the changes we are told are necessary entrenched in society and our way of life. And that means it&amp;#x27;s technology, not government control and regulation, that is the solution that should be pursued.&lt;p&gt;Carrots might work. Sticks won&amp;#x27;t.</text></comment>