-
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-
Questions asked from a desire to better understand, not undermine (there may be an article covering this I can be directed to):
How will the People Assembly be recruited? Democratically? How many people will sit on it & represent the rest of us? How will regions be represented, will it relate to area or population density? Who will chair the assembly? Who will ensure those within aren't acting in other interests? Who will protect those in the assembly from media witchhunts, or worse, physical attacks from those in disagreement with their ideas? How will agreement be determined - e.g. could 52/48 scenarios further divide the country? What are the propsed timescales for moving research into action (we've already got <6yrs reducing daily, remember)?
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.
Why the reluctance by xr to highlight/propose these solutions now if affecting business not household? Fear of solutioneering?
I want this to work, the detail is key to this though despite the exciting "headlines".
-
Why do you need a people's assembly to research and recommend interventions when there are already countless existing institutions, academics, ngo's that already have sufficient knowledge and recommendations that could do this ? Plenty of paths forwards have already been proposed, why add in an extra layer of bureaucracy, if you have got government to the point of agreeing a timeline, the how will be fairly straightforwards to identify
-
Completely agree that the government needs to lead. Corporations won't go green until they have to and they have the ability to have far larger impacts on mitigation than expecting individuals to make lifestyle choices which is just playing around the edges. I see day in day out, senior individuals at major emitters saying how terrible climate change is and then make decisions that are environmentally bad but good for the shareholders and not see the impact they are having because they believe if it was that important the laws and regulations would of been changed....they probably use bags for life and paper straws though so feel they are doing thier bit
rhb
greentricky
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?