Personally, I think it’s more the traditional HN egoism which in a lot of way is the traditional American egoism. Most HNers seem very happy to talk about fighting climate change as long as you don’t point out the role of their own privilege life style in it.
I agree. It’s interesting to see people make big lofty statements about “the nature of the climate movement” or how climate change is the result of some inherent economic flaw in the way consumption is priced, or (to me, most comically) internalizing externalities.
In reality, these seem like a fancy and pedantic way to avoid saying “I am willing to leverage both my wealth and the looming threat of the deaths of poor people from climate change to secure the fealty and deference to my feelings that my status entitles me to.”
I’ve noticed posters bringing up two concerns:
A) Framing anything as being the fault of “the rich” is divisive or offensive.
B) Anything that’s divisive or offensive is counterproductive.
without explaining the bridge between A and B:
A2) People are willing to support policies that hurt the climate out of spite because they believe that everyone votes entirely out of emotion.