-
By not discussing specific solutions now, will this just defer the point at which the specific solutions emerge & turn people off the idea?
Or put another way... How will government be able impose solutions that folks are not prepared to discuss openly at present as they already acknowledge that many people won't like them?
rhb-
There are many, many changes that can be made in almost every business sector that could be made relatively easily and quickly with only minor costs. No businesses (except those marketed as ‘green’) will adopt these widely if it puts them at a competitive disadvantage. Change has to come from above.
A people’s assembly would research and detail changes and put them forward for government. Once a government is broadly committed to a people’s assembly the political cost (to the gov) of implementing change is reduced because responsibility lies largely with the assembly.
miro_o
It's important to recognise how XR are dealing with this. They are specifically not blaming individuals, but are (correctly, IMHO) saying that this should be dealt with by the government.
They also are not suggesting specific solutions, as this has the possibility of being divisive and turning people off the message, which is that we are in a crisis that needs immediate action.
They want the government to commit to cutting carbon emissions to zero by 2025 and to hold a people's assembly to work out the exact details of how that happens.
If the government commits to that goal, then large scale action can happen very quickly and all of our behaviours will change, whether we like it or not.