5 ms·

Too much traveling. Too much consumption. Not enough minimalism. Not enough contentment. Government promises, minimal actions. I'm not bitter, I'm being realist

Too much traveling. Too much consumption. Not enough minimalism. Not enough contentment. Government promises, minimal actions. I'm not bitter, I'm being realistic. 2018 3rd highest annual mean growth rate in CO2 of all time. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html We need to urgently implement solutions now. They are controversial but necessary to protect humanity and keep the planet culpable for future generations. We know we need less people and birth control, less consumption, and a goal of carbon neutrality. How do we get there?

nabergh 7y ago
Do we really need fewer people and less consumption if we have carbon neutrality?
- mutt2016 7y ago
  In the end, it'll sort itself out.
- paulintrognon 7y ago
  We kind of need fewer consumption if we want to get anywhere near carbon neutrality. We don't have time to invent the future technology that will enable us to replace petrol everywhere. Hell, if that technology was invented already, we don't have enough time to replace our cars anyway. And even if we did, it would emit too much greenhouse gas just to manufacture all the new electric cars. So yeah, in my humble opinion the only solution in the time that we have is, less cars, planes, boats...
- crispinb 7y ago
  Actually yes - climate breakdown is just one of literally thousands of causes of ecosystem collapse. It's the most dramatic, and in many cases (eg. the Great Barrier Reef) it's the coup de grace, but it's 'economic growth' per se that is incompatible with the continued existence of planetary life. Theoretically if human technology could approach the level of sophistication of complex evolved systems (biomimicry) we might achieve a truly circular economy, but that's a long way off. For now, economic growth just physically is the dismantling of ecosystems, and these systems are reaching the limits of their capacity to absorb insults. So, yes, some combination of reduced consumption and/or population will be necessary even if this one issue of climate change is successfully tackled in time (distinctly doubtful at this stage).
- elorant 7y ago
  You definitely need less people once you realize that most of Earth's population lives in developing or underdeveloped countries. Which means that as they progress consumption will skyrocket. India alone has more citizens than Europe and US combined.
malvosenior 7y ago
Less people is pretty much a non-starter for most people. What we really need is a lot more nuclear power.. Edit: I'd love to hear why someone is against nuclear power instead of just getting downvotes.
- crispinb 7y ago
  It's not a non-starter (indeed most demographic projections are that populations will decrease after a late 21st century peak). But it's too slow to be relevant to the climate collapse issue.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
jalgos_eminator 7y ago
I hate to sound defeatist, but we're screwed. Most economic incentives drive people to pollute more because oil based energy sources are still quite cheap compared to alternatives. It would take a herculean effort by all the major governments of the world to actually stop this from happening. Humans will still survive, as we always have, but the world will be a much more hostile place to live for all its future residents.

nabergh 7y ago

Do we really need fewer people and less consumption if we have carbon neutrality?

mutt2016 7y ago
In the end, it'll sort itself out.
paulintrognon 7y ago
We kind of need fewer consumption if we want to get anywhere near carbon neutrality. We don't have time to invent the future technology that will enable us to replace petrol everywhere. Hell, if that technology was invented already, we don't have enough time to replace our cars anyway. And even if we did, it would emit too much greenhouse gas just to manufacture all the new electric cars. So yeah, in my humble opinion the only solution in the time that we have is, less cars, planes, boats...
crispinb 7y ago
Actually yes - climate breakdown is just one of literally thousands of causes of ecosystem collapse. It's the most dramatic, and in many cases (eg. the Great Barrier Reef) it's the coup de grace, but it's 'economic growth' per se that is incompatible with the continued existence of planetary life. Theoretically if human technology could approach the level of sophistication of complex evolved systems (biomimicry) we might achieve a truly circular economy, but that's a long way off. For now, economic growth just physically is the dismantling of ecosystems, and these systems are reaching the limits of their capacity to absorb insults. So, yes, some combination of reduced consumption and/or population will be necessary even if this one issue of climate change is successfully tackled in time (distinctly doubtful at this stage).
elorant 7y ago
You definitely need less people once you realize that most of Earth's population lives in developing or underdeveloped countries. Which means that as they progress consumption will skyrocket. India alone has more citizens than Europe and US combined.

malvosenior 7y ago

Less people is pretty much a non-starter for most people. What we really need is a lot more nuclear power.. Edit: I'd love to hear why someone is against nuclear power instead of just getting downvotes.

crispinb 7y ago
It's not a non-starter (indeed most demographic projections are that populations will decrease after a late 21st century peak). But it's too slow to be relevant to the climate collapse issue.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

jalgos_eminator 7y ago

I hate to sound defeatist, but we're screwed. Most economic incentives drive people to pollute more because oil based energy sources are still quite cheap compared to alternatives. It would take a herculean effort by all the major governments of the world to actually stop this from happening. Humans will still survive, as we always have, but the world will be a much more hostile place to live for all its future residents.