5 ms·

> itself isn't a big contributor to global warming but rather the manufacture and supply chains. Manufacture and supply chains (and services for that matter) t

by mbesto 5y ago

> itself isn't a big contributor to global warming but rather the manufacture and supply chains. Manufacture and supply chains (and services for that matter) that provide to the middle class. At least that's my interpretation of the parent's point.

throwaway894345 5y ago
Right, and my point is that the middleclass lifestyle doesn't care whether those industries/supply-chains are fueled by solar or fossil fuel.
- orwin 5y ago
  No, they doesn't care, but "middleclass lifestyle" is only available for a fifth of the world, and the remaining four fifth want to partake to. And they slowly do. The total installed renewable electricity capacity was greater than the totla installed fossil capacity for the first time in 2020. It was not replacing old fossil capacity, it was just added to the mix. And capacity != production, so i guess it's even worse than that.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    It’s even worse than that because we not only need to replace existing electrical energy production but we need to electrify sectors that aren’t electrified at all i.e. heavy industry and transportation.
- mbesto 5y ago
  You're right except, they will when the price goes up. I think that's the implication here - middle class would have to adjust their lifestyles to good/services that are no longer cheap.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    That’s the “who pays for it?” political decision I was alluding to in my original post. Besides, today our economy is optimized around the assumption that pollution is free—as we learn to optimize around a carbon constraint, we will find some efficiencies here and there which will reduce the “cost” of sustainability (“cost” is in quotes because pollution is just cooking the books and it’s weird to characterize “not fraud” as a “cost”). Moreover, even if you’re of the persuasion that wealth redistribution doesn’t really work and the costs will still trickle down to the middle class, that’s still better than runaway warming.

by mbesto 5y ago

throwaway894345 5y ago

Right, and my point is that the middleclass lifestyle doesn't care whether those industries/supply-chains are fueled by solar or fossil fuel.

orwin 5y ago
No, they doesn't care, but "middleclass lifestyle" is only available for a fifth of the world, and the remaining four fifth want to partake to. And they slowly do. The total installed renewable electricity capacity was greater than the totla installed fossil capacity for the first time in 2020. It was not replacing old fossil capacity, it was just added to the mix. And capacity != production, so i guess it's even worse than that.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  It’s even worse than that because we not only need to replace existing electrical energy production but we need to electrify sectors that aren’t electrified at all i.e. heavy industry and transportation.
mbesto 5y ago
You're right except, they will when the price goes up. I think that's the implication here - middle class would have to adjust their lifestyles to good/services that are no longer cheap.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  That’s the “who pays for it?” political decision I was alluding to in my original post. Besides, today our economy is optimized around the assumption that pollution is free—as we learn to optimize around a carbon constraint, we will find some efficiencies here and there which will reduce the “cost” of sustainability (“cost” is in quotes because pollution is just cooking the books and it’s weird to characterize “not fraud” as a “cost”). Moreover, even if you’re of the persuasion that wealth redistribution doesn’t really work and the costs will still trickle down to the middle class, that’s still better than runaway warming.