Yes of course, externalised cost are still paid by someone else. That’s exactly what the term means.
However the point of the article was that deteriorating environmental conditions will increase energy prices, which in turn will drive inflation everywhere else. But the way the argument is presented is contradictory in my opinion (for the reasons shown above).
I got some general concerns with doomsday prediction like that. Irrespectively of whether they have factual grounding or not, I feel the doomsday angle prevents the development of counter strategies and has a tendency to polarise. It doesn’t foster alliances that can create change.
On the other hand, understating the problem removes the urgency for action and can lead to complacency. When people don’t appreciate the scope of the disaster or the fact that there is very little time left, they often end up choosing performative solutions like focusing on personal lifestyle choices. We need large scale systemic change, and that can only happen when people fully appreciate the scope of the disaster we’re facing.
True. But elsewhere you wrote that you think people know what’s the matter, they only try to ignore it or push it aside. But I think many people don’t understand it yet. I know several people personally which refuse the concept of climate change. They stick to “Let the market sort out things” and “Oh, driving car is becoming more expensive, what a pitty”.
Unfortunately, I think that most people will continue ignoring the problem until they start feeling the effects personally. That’s why I think connecting things like supply shortages to climate change is important. People need to understand that extreme weather induced by climate change is already having a negative impact on everyone, and that’s only going to get worse. The more people are able to make this connection the more likely some meaningful action is. All we can do is try to educate as many people as possible.
Yes of course, externalised cost are still paid by someone else. That’s exactly what the term means.
However the point of the article was that deteriorating environmental conditions will increase energy prices, which in turn will drive inflation everywhere else. But the way the argument is presented is contradictory in my opinion (for the reasons shown above).
I got some general concerns with doomsday prediction like that. Irrespectively of whether they have factual grounding or not, I feel the doomsday angle prevents the development of counter strategies and has a tendency to polarise. It doesn’t foster alliances that can create change.
On the other hand, understating the problem removes the urgency for action and can lead to complacency. When people don’t appreciate the scope of the disaster or the fact that there is very little time left, they often end up choosing performative solutions like focusing on personal lifestyle choices. We need large scale systemic change, and that can only happen when people fully appreciate the scope of the disaster we’re facing.
True. But elsewhere you wrote that you think people know what’s the matter, they only try to ignore it or push it aside. But I think many people don’t understand it yet. I know several people personally which refuse the concept of climate change. They stick to “Let the market sort out things” and “Oh, driving car is becoming more expensive, what a pitty”.
Unfortunately, I think that most people will continue ignoring the problem until they start feeling the effects personally. That’s why I think connecting things like supply shortages to climate change is important. People need to understand that extreme weather induced by climate change is already having a negative impact on everyone, and that’s only going to get worse. The more people are able to make this connection the more likely some meaningful action is. All we can do is try to educate as many people as possible.