> not if you want to live a modern life with all the benefits that comes from that. That seems like a rather imprecise and thereby meaningless refutation of th

> not if you want to live a modern life with all the benefits that comes from that. That seems like a rather imprecise and thereby meaningless refutation of the parent's point. IMO a more honest statement of that idea would be: "Not if you want to live a totally unconstrained life, drawing on all currently available benefits, whether neccessary or not". I do think, that "modern life" would be compatible with zero CO2 emission (for some definition of "modern life"), people would merely have to face more constraints and regulation.