4 ms·

Want to reduce CO2? Stop eating meat. Want to seem edgy and cool without doing anything requiring effort? Claim we are doomed.

x5n1 11y ago
Civilization does not function on the personal responsibility level. But keep claiming that, that's a very big part of the rhetorical frame of laissez faire capitalism. The responsible thing to do would be reduce population, reduce consumption, and stop pursing endless creative destruction. But that's too far out there man!
shoo 11y ago
I get your point, and think it is valid. My opinion is consistent with your opinion, at least in terms of what a reasonable next action might be: stopping eating meat would be a good place to start. Here is another perspective: > Have no illusions. To achieve our goal of getting > off fossil fuels, these reductions in demand and > increases in supply must be big. Don’t be distracted > by the myth that “every little helps.” If everyone > does a little, we’ll achieve only a little. We must > do a lot. What’s required are big changes in demand > and in supply. > “But surely, if 60 million people all do a little, > it’ll add up to a lot?” No. This “if-everyone” > multiplying machine is just a way of making something > small sound big. The “if-everyone” multiplying machine > churns out inspirational statements of the form > “if everyone did X, then it would provide enough > energy/water/gas to do Y,” where Y sounds impressive. > Is it surprising that Y sounds big? Of course not. We > got Y by multiplying X by the number of people involved > -- David MacKay [1] My opinion: Want to seriously reduce CO2? Stop eating meat and have fewer children and limit spend on products to $1k / year and limit spend on services to $2k / year and don't fly on planes and encourage everyone around you to take similarly progressive measures and apply pressure to your local political representatives and rejig our ideas regarding how to run society... That said, "the best is the enemy of the good". What more can we do than take progressive steps in the right direction, even if we are unable or unwilling to personally change far enough? At least we can influence those around us. I claim no moral high ground: I am still eating meat as it is easy to do so, and I like doing it, and thinking about the longer term picture causes me distress, even after reading a dozen books about this stuff this year. [1] http://www.withouthotair.com/c19/page_114.shtml http://www.withouthotair.com/c19/page_114.shtml
- happyscrappy 11y ago
  With regard to McKay, every journey starts with a tiny step forward. I believe we have for the first time seen economic growth increase faster than emissions and worst case scenarios have been dialed back, but that won't sell newspapers. "rejig our ideas regarding how to run society..." To what exactly? Has it worked in real life somewhere? How much suffering should the weakest members of society be subject to in this experiment? If it is likely more than the suffering they would suffer from climate change is it still justified? Totally agree on don't fly on planes, especially so if claim you want to stop climate change.

x5n1 11y ago

Civilization does not function on the personal responsibility level. But keep claiming that, that's a very big part of the rhetorical frame of laissez faire capitalism. The responsible thing to do would be reduce population, reduce consumption, and stop pursing endless creative destruction. But that's too far out there man!

shoo 11y ago

I get your point, and think it is valid. My opinion is consistent with your opinion, at least in terms of what a reasonable next action might be: stopping eating meat would be a good place to start. Here is another perspective: > Have no illusions. To achieve our goal of getting > off fossil fuels, these reductions in demand and > increases in supply must be big. Don’t be distracted > by the myth that “every little helps.” If everyone > does a little, we’ll achieve only a little. We must > do a lot. What’s required are big changes in demand > and in supply. > “But surely, if 60 million people all do a little, > it’ll add up to a lot?” No. This “if-everyone” > multiplying machine is just a way of making something > small sound big. The “if-everyone” multiplying machine > churns out inspirational statements of the form > “if everyone did X, then it would provide enough > energy/water/gas to do Y,” where Y sounds impressive. > Is it surprising that Y sounds big? Of course not. We > got Y by multiplying X by the number of people involved > -- David MacKay [1] My opinion: Want to seriously reduce CO2? Stop eating meat and have fewer children and limit spend on products to $1k / year and limit spend on services to $2k / year and don't fly on planes and encourage everyone around you to take similarly progressive measures and apply pressure to your local political representatives and rejig our ideas regarding how to run society... That said, "the best is the enemy of the good". What more can we do than take progressive steps in the right direction, even if we are unable or unwilling to personally change far enough? At least we can influence those around us. I claim no moral high ground: I am still eating meat as it is easy to do so, and I like doing it, and thinking about the longer term picture causes me distress, even after reading a dozen books about this stuff this year. [1] http://www.withouthotair.com/c19/page_114.shtml http://www.withouthotair.com/c19/page_114.shtml

happyscrappy 11y ago
With regard to McKay, every journey starts with a tiny step forward. I believe we have for the first time seen economic growth increase faster than emissions and worst case scenarios have been dialed back, but that won't sell newspapers. "rejig our ideas regarding how to run society..." To what exactly? Has it worked in real life somewhere? How much suffering should the weakest members of society be subject to in this experiment? If it is likely more than the suffering they would suffer from climate change is it still justified? Totally agree on don't fly on planes, especially so if claim you want to stop climate change.