4 ms·

Less consumption -> Less CO2 emissions, so that’s awesome I guess ?

BadassFractal 8y ago
Or skipping children altogether: https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/children-carbon-footprint-climate-change-damage-having-kids-research-a7837961.html https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/children-carbon-fo...
- thatfrenchguy 8y ago
  The paper (https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/pdfs/OSUCarbonStudy.pdf https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_... ) cited by the paper (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/meta http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/m...) cited by the article says an interestingly different story: lifetime emissions of CO2 that are saved by different actions (US) Increase car’s fuel economy from 20 to 30 mpg 148 Reduce miles driven from 231 to 155 per week 147 Reduce number of children by one: Constant-emission scenario 9,441 Optimistic scenario 562 Pessimistic scenario 12,730 So basically fighting climate change, or having kids who consume less, has a much greater impact.
graeme 8y ago
That's just an individual. If consumption for an individual is down due to price, that's consistent with risin carbon demand. (Global carbon use is up)
- quadrangle 8y ago
  um, if people are being priced out, that could come from either supply or demand (or both or other factors). But I think the core point is that if individuals drop out of a market, that relieves demand which can keep prices down and thus allow others to keep consuming! In other words, if many of us do the environmental thing and drive less, that just enables wasteful irresponsible others to more cheaply use up all the same gasoline in the end. Or because LED lights got so efficient, places (in China incidentally) can plaster them over most of the surface of a building for no reason other than showing off, thus using up all the efficiency gains. To actually reduce overall consumption and pollution, we need widespread social changes that make such consumption and pollution seem shameful (and/or illegal) even though the market price isn't itself discouraging. The only market solution would involve effectively internalizing the now-externalized costs of pollution.

Or skipping children altogether: https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/children-carbon-footprint-climate-change-damage-having-kids-research-a7837961.html https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/children-carbon-fo...

thatfrenchguy 8y ago
The paper (https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/pdfs/OSUCarbonStudy.pdf https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_... ) cited by the paper (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/meta http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/m...) cited by the article says an interestingly different story: lifetime emissions of CO2 that are saved by different actions (US) Increase car’s fuel economy from 20 to 30 mpg 148 Reduce miles driven from 231 to 155 per week 147 Reduce number of children by one: Constant-emission scenario 9,441 Optimistic scenario 562 Pessimistic scenario 12,730 So basically fighting climate change, or having kids who consume less, has a much greater impact.

graeme 8y ago

That's just an individual. If consumption for an individual is down due to price, that's consistent with risin carbon demand. (Global carbon use is up)

quadrangle 8y ago
um, if people are being priced out, that could come from either supply or demand (or both or other factors). But I think the core point is that if individuals drop out of a market, that relieves demand which can keep prices down and thus allow others to keep consuming! In other words, if many of us do the environmental thing and drive less, that just enables wasteful irresponsible others to more cheaply use up all the same gasoline in the end. Or because LED lights got so efficient, places (in China incidentally) can plaster them over most of the surface of a building for no reason other than showing off, thus using up all the efficiency gains. To actually reduce overall consumption and pollution, we need widespread social changes that make such consumption and pollution seem shameful (and/or illegal) even though the market price isn't itself discouraging. The only market solution would involve effectively internalizing the now-externalized costs of pollution.