5 ms·

If you make more than $25k USD you are in that top 10%. This shows just how unsustainable our lifestyles have become and how in need of de-growth we are. But ho

If you make more than $25k USD you are in that top 10%. This shows just how unsustainable our lifestyles have become and how in need of de-growth we are. But how do you make people step back from owning cars, taking flights, or eating imported food? People are not going to do so willingly, and our infrastructure in many countries was built in such a wasteful spread-out way that we will have to burn even more fuel to reinvent it.

yters 7y ago
Wouldn't stopping our production of carbon dioxide essentially mean ending our industrial civilization? We would have to go back to an agricultural civilization like during the Middle Ages? Frankly, that seems impossible to bring about unless there is worldwide systemic collapse brought on by global warming or some other global catastrophe.
- makerofspoons 7y ago
  We don't have to stop emitting all carbon dioxide, we need to develop the technology to capture and sequester what we do emit, however.
  - ddxxdd 7y ago
    That technology has existed for billions of years: https://e360.yale.edu/digest/planting-1-2-trillion-trees-could-cancel-out-a-decade-of-co2-emissions-scientists-find https://e360.yale.edu/digest/planting-1-2-trillion-trees-cou... I personally calculated that planting trees would be thousands of times more cost-effective than driving Tesla vehicles: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19714034 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19714034 Cutting down a fraction of industrial activity- which represents a fraction of human-made CO2 output, which is only about 5% of mother nature's CO2 output- seems a lot less efficient than improving upon mother nature's own carbon sequestration schemes. It's better to sequester potentially all of the CO2 in the atmosphere instead of targeting a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of atmospheric CO2
    - aeternus 7y ago
      Yes, I'm not sure why so many people attempt to shame people into using less energy. That strategy has a long history of not working. The answer has to be to apply technology. Cleaner energy generation and new (or old) methods to sequester CO2.
- _rpd 7y ago
  Nuclear power can support our industrial civilization just fine.
- imtringued 7y ago
  No it wouldn't because renewable energy and nuclear power exist. Our quality of life might drop by 50% but there is no reason we can't maintain our industrial civilization to some degree. Intermittency beyond a day isn't even a problem because wind and solar basically cancel each others seasonal shortages out. There will be a few days in the year during which output drops by 60% but is that the end of the world for us? It absolutely isn't. CO2 pollution is mostly about short sighted greed than about maintaining our advanced civilization.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
This is why we will not get meaningful climate change legislation in the developed countries. People do not want to make a sacrifice in the name of a future danger forestalled. Look at Australia's most recent election. Embrace of climate change legislation probably tipped the balance away from Labour.
- wtdata 7y ago
  Developed countries actually are doing relatively well when it comes to CO2 emissions. EU reduced theirs in 25% the last 30 years. USA and most of others maintained them in those 30 years. It's mainly China (it increased theirs in 300% in 30 years) that is the problem. Legislation and treaties ate mostly worthless, when only the developed world does what they actually agree to, while China keeps making empty promises that they never fulfill. ---- P.S. I also don't think that environmental data per capita makes much sense. What we should be looking at is environment metrics per land/sea area: you (a country) has control over a part of the planet, so they have to use that part in a way that they don't over tax those natural resources (for CO2 this is basically directly proportional to the full area of the country).
  - perfunctory 7y ago
    > It's mainly China (it increased theirs in 300% in 30 years) that is the problem. "This is because such a large share of China’s emissions is from the production of goods consumed in rich countries."
  - anthuman 7y ago
    EU didn't reduce anything. The just shifted a significant part of their emissions to china. Just like they shifted a ton of their plastic and garbage to china. Most of china's emissions, pollution, environment damage has been to manufacture goods for EU and the US. Europe and the US are responsible for most of the pollution and emissions. It's the price for a high standard of living in a consumer economy. It's why chinese cities and rivers are polluted and why american and european cities and rivers are clean. But going forward, as china shifts from a manufacturing to a consumer economy, they are going to be responsible for a tremendous amount of emissions themselves. And the manufacturing will shift to poorer/cheaper ASEAN countries or India and eventually africa. What happens after that, I haven't a clue. The global economic system has been to exploit cheaper labor. What happens when the last cheap labor source has been exploited? If the chinese want to live like an american or a european, then the environment is going to suffer. Then India, ASEAN and africa would want to live like the chinese. Then the environment is going to suffer even more. It's a hard sell to get the west to lower our standard of living. It's an even harder sell to tell the developing world to accept their lower standard of living.
oreo83 7y ago
Do you own a car, fly anywhere, or eat imported food?
- ecoled_ame 7y ago
  They are probably including their self in the question they pose. Why do you think that the individual who suggests an idea has to perfectly embody it, else be a hypocrite?
  - deogeo 7y ago
    On the other hand, just because an idea is suggested by a hypocrite, doesn't mean it's a bad/wrong idea. Presumably a discussion is held to arrive at some sort of solution or truth, and not to advertise the moral virtue of the participants.
    - oreo83 7y ago
      "Presumably a discussion is held to arrive at some sort of solution or truth, and not to advertise the moral virtue of the participants." Unfortunately that hasn't been the case for some time now.
  - oreo83 7y ago
    How does he expect others to take his idea seriously when he's not willing to do what he himself is suggesting? When did I call him a hypocrite? I simply asked him if he is behaving the way he wants others to behave.

yters 7y ago

Wouldn't stopping our production of carbon dioxide essentially mean ending our industrial civilization? We would have to go back to an agricultural civilization like during the Middle Ages? Frankly, that seems impossible to bring about unless there is worldwide systemic collapse brought on by global warming or some other global catastrophe.

makerofspoons 7y ago
We don't have to stop emitting all carbon dioxide, we need to develop the technology to capture and sequester what we do emit, however.
- ddxxdd 7y ago
  That technology has existed for billions of years: https://e360.yale.edu/digest/planting-1-2-trillion-trees-could-cancel-out-a-decade-of-co2-emissions-scientists-find https://e360.yale.edu/digest/planting-1-2-trillion-trees-cou... I personally calculated that planting trees would be thousands of times more cost-effective than driving Tesla vehicles: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19714034 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19714034 Cutting down a fraction of industrial activity- which represents a fraction of human-made CO2 output, which is only about 5% of mother nature's CO2 output- seems a lot less efficient than improving upon mother nature's own carbon sequestration schemes. It's better to sequester potentially all of the CO2 in the atmosphere instead of targeting a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of atmospheric CO2
  - aeternus 7y ago
    Yes, I'm not sure why so many people attempt to shame people into using less energy. That strategy has a long history of not working. The answer has to be to apply technology. Cleaner energy generation and new (or old) methods to sequester CO2.
_rpd 7y ago
Nuclear power can support our industrial civilization just fine.
imtringued 7y ago
No it wouldn't because renewable energy and nuclear power exist. Our quality of life might drop by 50% but there is no reason we can't maintain our industrial civilization to some degree. Intermittency beyond a day isn't even a problem because wind and solar basically cancel each others seasonal shortages out. There will be a few days in the year during which output drops by 60% but is that the end of the world for us? It absolutely isn't. CO2 pollution is mostly about short sighted greed than about maintaining our advanced civilization.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago

This is why we will not get meaningful climate change legislation in the developed countries. People do not want to make a sacrifice in the name of a future danger forestalled. Look at Australia's most recent election. Embrace of climate change legislation probably tipped the balance away from Labour.

wtdata 7y ago
Developed countries actually are doing relatively well when it comes to CO2 emissions. EU reduced theirs in 25% the last 30 years. USA and most of others maintained them in those 30 years. It's mainly China (it increased theirs in 300% in 30 years) that is the problem. Legislation and treaties ate mostly worthless, when only the developed world does what they actually agree to, while China keeps making empty promises that they never fulfill. ---- P.S. I also don't think that environmental data per capita makes much sense. What we should be looking at is environment metrics per land/sea area: you (a country) has control over a part of the planet, so they have to use that part in a way that they don't over tax those natural resources (for CO2 this is basically directly proportional to the full area of the country).
- perfunctory 7y ago
  > It's mainly China (it increased theirs in 300% in 30 years) that is the problem. "This is because such a large share of China’s emissions is from the production of goods consumed in rich countries."
- anthuman 7y ago
  EU didn't reduce anything. The just shifted a significant part of their emissions to china. Just like they shifted a ton of their plastic and garbage to china. Most of china's emissions, pollution, environment damage has been to manufacture goods for EU and the US. Europe and the US are responsible for most of the pollution and emissions. It's the price for a high standard of living in a consumer economy. It's why chinese cities and rivers are polluted and why american and european cities and rivers are clean. But going forward, as china shifts from a manufacturing to a consumer economy, they are going to be responsible for a tremendous amount of emissions themselves. And the manufacturing will shift to poorer/cheaper ASEAN countries or India and eventually africa. What happens after that, I haven't a clue. The global economic system has been to exploit cheaper labor. What happens when the last cheap labor source has been exploited? If the chinese want to live like an american or a european, then the environment is going to suffer. Then India, ASEAN and africa would want to live like the chinese. Then the environment is going to suffer even more. It's a hard sell to get the west to lower our standard of living. It's an even harder sell to tell the developing world to accept their lower standard of living.

oreo83 7y ago

Do you own a car, fly anywhere, or eat imported food?

ecoled_ame 7y ago
They are probably including their self in the question they pose. Why do you think that the individual who suggests an idea has to perfectly embody it, else be a hypocrite?
- deogeo 7y ago
  On the other hand, just because an idea is suggested by a hypocrite, doesn't mean it's a bad/wrong idea. Presumably a discussion is held to arrive at some sort of solution or truth, and not to advertise the moral virtue of the participants.
  - oreo83 7y ago
    "Presumably a discussion is held to arrive at some sort of solution or truth, and not to advertise the moral virtue of the participants." Unfortunately that hasn't been the case for some time now.
- oreo83 7y ago
  How does he expect others to take his idea seriously when he's not willing to do what he himself is suggesting? When did I call him a hypocrite? I simply asked him if he is behaving the way he wants others to behave.