To think that a Chinese “social credit” system might’ve the answer to saving the planet?

[BogstandardBelle]

www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/01/china-bans-23m-discredited-citizens-from-buying-travel-tickets-social-credit-system?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

AIBU to think that this kind of system is going to be needed to change behaviour to the extent required to meet the challenge posed by climate change?

Definitely playing devils advocate: I’ve no desire to see this level of social control imposed here. But the Chinese Communist Party doesn’t need to win any popularity contests, and with a system like this in place, they could easily achieve net zero emissions (from individuals at least) if they wanted to.

there’s no reason why number of children couldn’t be included in the criteria: gain some credit for 1 or no children, 0 for 2, lose credit for more than two

Pretty sure China already has a one child policy. It's not really going too well, especially for first born girls....

C.Ahern wrote a very good book on something similar, it's called "Flawed", and I would thoroughly recommend reading it before suggesting something like this.

there’s no reason why number of children couldn’t be included in the criteria: gain some credit for 1 or no children, 0 for 2, lose credit for more than two

People in the UK aren’t even having kids at replacement levels (we’re having 1.7 kids per two people) so this is ridiculous.

Also I hate to break it to you but we could nuke the UK tomorrow and it would make virtually no difference. We contribute less than 2% to global warning.

Chinese are now allowed to have two children - they need to support their ageing population...

policy changed in 2016, I think.
Ironically now that Han Chinese are permitted to have more than one child, many families decide not to expand their family due to the expense of having more children.

Oh, and birth rates are falling rapidly, even countries like Botswana are having on average 2.4 children. The earlier 11BN predictions are wrong simply because they haven't predicted this turn of events. As to the aging, we are on the verge of global natural death age as those born 1945-1965 reach end of life en masse. By about 2055 we should see a general stabilization and, barr massive extinction events, likely remain at about 5-7 billion in the long run. Environmental control is becoming crucial if planet is to sustain that in the long run, mainly focusing on fossil fuels and plastics ban and a switch to vegetarianism. Not veganism, because of all the consequences it carries, peripheral neuropathy due to B12 deficiency (an excruciatingly painful condition), megaloblastic anaemia, muscle spasms and osteoporotic fractures due to calcium and vitamin D deficiency, enzymatic metabolic disorders due to lysine absence in such diets etc.

You drive to work (facial / licence plate recognition), you lose some credits.
This only works if there’s an affordable alternative that comes along more than once an hour between the hours of 8 am and 5 pm.
So great of you’re in a city, not so fear for those living rurally.
I kind of see what you’re saying but it doesn’t work and I do agree this has to come at a business level.
Supermarkets could reduce the amount of packaging.
Advertising - most advertising and marketing is hugely wasteful, and encourages unnecessary consumerism.
I don’t think punishing rural people trying to get their kids to school is the answer.

Also I hate to break it to you but we could nuke the UK tomorrow and it would make virtually no difference. We contribute less than 2% to global warning.

Does that figure refer to emissions and impact that occurs purely within the UK's geographical airspace? Or does it include the whole impact, including the emissions created by the manufacture of goods abroad that we use and import daily?

So great of you’re in a city, not so fear for those living rurally.
Even in the cities that could be a pain if you live/work slightly outside public transport routes/unsociable hours. Plus people with various disabilities can't rely on public transport

Birth rates across the world are actually decreasing so it’s not a population issue!!

Where is this from?

I read recently that for every 2 people in the world that die, 4 babies are born worldwide.

On the population issue, read the book 'Factfulness'. Birth rates are dropping quickly worldwide. Most rich countries including UK would have a falling population if it were not for immigration. Global population will peak in 2050s and then start to decline.

So great of you’re in a city, not so fear for those living rurally.

But what if it’s decided that living rurally is environmentally undesirable behaviour (unless you work there). The need for cars, the lack of high density housing, the dispersed nature of the communities resulting in inefficient provision of services... rural dwellers tend not to pay the full environmental cost of their choices.

Of course I personally wouldn’t want to live under such control.

What I can’t see though is how a liberal democracy like ours, where politics is a popularity contest and where we are generally free to choose how we live (within the bounds of the law and the depth of our pockets) can successfully change the behaviour of its citizens to the extent we are told is necessary to prevent global warming. We’re current relying on pricing mechanisms (making undesirable behaviour cost more thus impacting on the poor more), and the hope that raising awareness will inspire people to make “better” choices. If the stakes are as high as we are told they are, that seems a bit wishy-washy.

It will take more than that.

The seizure and compulsory purchase of all the worlds rainforests, creating new rainforest states with armies to protect it on a scale greater than the DDay landings and First Gulf War.

The rationing of international travel and/or the imposition of heavy taxes to fund environmental protection.

An almost religious fervour that economic decline is acceptable in order to underpin falling consumption.

Essentially you believe that a penal social system should be used to control people and that it is justified for a greater good. Like Marx, Hilter, Mao and Pol Pot. Oppression used as tool for change.

None of that ever ends well. Trying to control someone through punishment doesn’t work on a personal level or on a population level. The immediate reaction is that people don’t conform so you double down on oppression and control. Because you haven’t got any other forms of persuasion or influence.

OP you have very dangerous thought processes and you don’t understand people. Human societies are broadly speaking progressive. Until someone like you comes along. Then it goes wrong no matter how good your intentions to fix something. You are really just trying to fix humans and they don’t want to be fixed.

If we don't consciously choose to fix humans, we die and take most of the ecosphere with us.

I would rather our descendents curse our names as horrific tyrannical monsters than there be no descendents left at all.

@LemonTT

I’ve already said twice that I have no desire to live under a system like this, so don’t worry about my “dangerous thought processes” ;-)

What I am asking is how do we, living in a liberal democracy, force (for want if a better word) people to make the radical changes to their behaviour that we are told are necessary to prevent cataclysmic global warming? I personally can’t see how a system where individual freedom to choose how to live can achieve the scale of change that is necessary.

So if liberal democracy isn’t going to cut it, and “savage, crushing authoritarianism” (thanks Mephistopheles) isn’t an option - what would work?

Human societies are broadly speaking progressive.

Are they? How do you define progressive and how do you measure it?

Probably derailing my own thread here.

Whilst limiting stuff like air travel to a minimum would help to a point and for once, affect the more privileged first, I 100% that a child's education should be impacted for their parents' choices!

Subsidising and improving public transport at a national level (rather than just London) would help as well as changing people's attitudes to non drivers in general.

I disagree sorry

Why don’t we stop subsiding air travel?

Why are we still have no tax on aircraft fuel?

where politics is a popularity contest and where we are generally free to choose how we live (within the bounds of the law and the depth of our pockets)

There's your issue right there. We used to have a system that did not glorify individual freedoms over everything else - there were checks and balances in place. Politics was less of a popularity contest once, there was less interest in 'charisma' and more interest in administrating appropriately. That's what we need to bring back, not the dystopic totalitarian nightmare that we will walk into if we don't. We need the notion of public service and, in fact, the whole notion of public, revitalised and reinvigorated. This is exactly why it was created in the first place.

... rural dwellers tend not to pay the full environmental cost of their choices
What choice?
What is your basis for that statement?
And do you like food?! Where are the people that grow your food meant to live?
And please do buy me a house in town. I live in a village because I couldn’t afford one.

rural dwellers tend not to pay the full environmental cost of their choices

1. A number of rural dwellers hate the idea of living on suburban hell.

1. Most rural dwellers could easily live carbon nutural.

Backwoodsgirl TBF if we're talking about making sacrifices then people's preferences are a bit redundant, but I agree people who live rurally could make other eco friendly choices to offset their need for a car for example.

I mean, we probably could give up our car as there's decent public transport where we live (though only during 'bank hours', fairly rubbish late or early) whereas someone living rurally doesn't have this option. On the other hand, I live in a flat so no chance of growing my own food or composting, but someone with a decent garden could.