12 ms·

Those 36 gigatons aren't largely a result of consumer behaviors, but industry (which, admittedly, increases as a function of demand) Reducing footprints throug

Those 36 gigatons aren't largely a result of consumer behaviors, but industry (which, admittedly, increases as a function of demand) Reducing footprints through innovation will go a ways. Changing "culture" (i.e. coerced minimalism) is a thing, but it's a band-aid solution on a leaking hoover-dam; virtue signaling for the most part. Carbon footprints scale up with population. Everyone eats, wants gadgets, wants a home, good infrastructure. If these demands can't be met without excess encroachment of land and destruction of the environment, then there's too many people. Innovation and increased efficiency can't outrun growth. Yes, it's poised to level off in the next 100 or so years after adding an extra few billion to the total, but the interventions needed are more urgent and by extension the reduced rate should be more urgent. Though changes to the energy sector alone can make a substantial dent in emissions in the near-term, given political will. All of this would be a moot point if the global population were halved and remained stagnant. The rampant op-ed push for minimalism on the part of the consumer, for housing especially, seems almost like a nefarious ploy to plant the idea that commoners should now be content with less, with environmentalism as the red herring. So being unable to afford a detached home is to be thought of as a happy virtuous accident.

burgessaccount 5y ago
I actually think all people in the developed world - rich people of course most of all, but “commoners” too - do need to learn to be content with a lot less. Before the industrial era, the average person in England owned 36 objects. And that’s counting like 1) table 2) bowl 3) cup 4) knife. The way people in America and Europe have been taught to live in the last century - even the lower-middle and working class, let alone the rich - is inherently unsustainable, and can never be sustainable. “Buy less sh*t” should be the first and most powerful front in our fight against climate change, but it isn’t because we are selfish and gluttonous beasts.
- slothtrop 5y ago
  > Before the industrial era, the average person in England owned 36 objects. Life at the advent of the industrial revolution sucked. The Victorian age was also one of high inequality. I'm not sure what that's supposed to inspire. > inherently unsustainable What part? You're not addressing that. I did, however: increase in population increases demand for things. Environmental destruction is scaling with population, not consumer voraciousness. > “Buy less sh*t” should be the first and most powerful front in our fight against climate change, but it isn’t because we are selfish and gluttonous beasts. Look at the stuff you have lying around in your domicile. That's somewhere near the average of what people in the West own. Digital consumption has increased on average, people aren't tripping over things in their ever-shrinking domiciles with ever-shrinking purchasing power owing to stagnant wages. Not only are you overestimating consumption of "shit", you're failing to make a meaningful connection between consumer habits and lack of sustainability. It's a question of scale.
  - burgessaccount 5y ago
    Of course rising population is at the heart of this. But unless you’re planning to Thanos our way out of the situation, the people in the Western world need to consume less. Less beef, which is hugely polluting. Less sugar, which is toxic and useless. Less paper products. Less air conditioning. And yes, fewer objects. The average American child owns between 70 and 100 toys. The average American woman owns 100+ items of clothing. The average American spends $16,000 on retail items per year. It is too much; it is more than we need. It all takes energy to manufacture, and to ship, and it all ends up in the trash.
    - slothtrop 5y ago
      > But unless you’re planning to Thanos our way out of the situation, the people in the Western world need to consume less. There are more viable and compassionate solutions to accelerate stagnation of global growth. One is universal access to contraceptives, the other is eliminating global poverty and improving economic stability. This is no less politically viable than coercing Westerners to consume less, and far more effective. Add to that, our governments *target a growth rate of 3-4% per year through immigration*. That is purely through policy, and the entire point to increase GDP through, you guessed it, consumption. As you well know, our minimum carbon footprints are higher in the West. The minimum. If decimating consumption is such a priority for green advocates, then it should follow that they staunchly oppose increases in immigration rates, and in fact favor reductions. That would actually be consistent with the argument. This is an obvious connection that people coyly dance around. And while it's a separate discussion, many economists agree today that GDP is not a reliable measure of a nation's prosperity and chasing perpetual growth is not required. > Less beef, which is hugely polluting. There have been some interesting strides in innovation that reduce methane emissions some 90+% using a fraction of kelp/seaweed in feed, and this may be rolled out as a matter of policy. That would eliminate issues related to methane emissions in a fell swoop, in a way that discouragement of consumption can't touch. It's a ways off, but it doesn't have to be, it's right there. Land-use, contrary to popular belief, is actually decreasing in the U.S. for cattle in spite of the small uptick in demand growth. However, it has been growing in Brazil, presumably due to the growing Chinese market and they're supplying of soy to just about everyone. > The average American child owns between 70 and 100 toys. Citation? > The average American woman owns 100+ items of clothing. Citation? > It is too much; it is more than we need. There is no metric offered for what is enough / too much. It's entirely arbitrary. And yet, the difference between a perceived low consumption and average consumption, in aggregate, across the population, would not result in a significant change as the environment is concerned, since we all still use power, water, transportation, food, as the most basic form of living. The industry giants are responsible for most destruction. We can pat ourselves on the back for buying fewer material goods but it doesn't put a dent in the problem. Given the approx 36 gigatons of annual emissions, you won't even get down to 35 with a persuasive campaign. You won't even get down to 35.5. Blaming the consumer is foolhardy. Most problems with regards to energy and waste can be resolved through policy. People want these problems fixed but feel dismayed when most of what they throw in the recycling bin, typically related to food stuffs, ends up at the dump. Living well means more than mere survival. You don't "need" your little device you use to browse hackernews and your daily caffeinated drink and all the comforts you take for granted, and no one gets to decide for you that you don't need them, in a free country. This is important because blaming consumers will not save the environment, strong policy and innovation will.
ant6n 5y ago
The co2 producer most lagging behind in terms of reduction is transportation. This is a field where endusers have giant impacts, and it will likely not be solved by making those giant SUVs electric. This is also where the US is pretty bad, because of a culture that aspires to urban sprawl. More dense cities, more mixed use planning, more active transportation, less detached housing, less parking etc. are ways in which developed countries could really reduce their transportation carbon footprints (and incidentally also footprints related to AC/heating).

burgessaccount 5y ago

I actually think all people in the developed world - rich people of course most of all, but “commoners” too - do need to learn to be content with a lot less. Before the industrial era, the average person in England owned 36 objects. And that’s counting like 1) table 2) bowl 3) cup 4) knife. The way people in America and Europe have been taught to live in the last century - even the lower-middle and working class, let alone the rich - is inherently unsustainable, and can never be sustainable. “Buy less sh*t” should be the first and most powerful front in our fight against climate change, but it isn’t because we are selfish and gluttonous beasts.

slothtrop 5y ago
> Before the industrial era, the average person in England owned 36 objects. Life at the advent of the industrial revolution sucked. The Victorian age was also one of high inequality. I'm not sure what that's supposed to inspire. > inherently unsustainable What part? You're not addressing that. I did, however: increase in population increases demand for things. Environmental destruction is scaling with population, not consumer voraciousness. > “Buy less sh*t” should be the first and most powerful front in our fight against climate change, but it isn’t because we are selfish and gluttonous beasts. Look at the stuff you have lying around in your domicile. That's somewhere near the average of what people in the West own. Digital consumption has increased on average, people aren't tripping over things in their ever-shrinking domiciles with ever-shrinking purchasing power owing to stagnant wages. Not only are you overestimating consumption of "shit", you're failing to make a meaningful connection between consumer habits and lack of sustainability. It's a question of scale.
- burgessaccount 5y ago
  Of course rising population is at the heart of this. But unless you’re planning to Thanos our way out of the situation, the people in the Western world need to consume less. Less beef, which is hugely polluting. Less sugar, which is toxic and useless. Less paper products. Less air conditioning. And yes, fewer objects. The average American child owns between 70 and 100 toys. The average American woman owns 100+ items of clothing. The average American spends $16,000 on retail items per year. It is too much; it is more than we need. It all takes energy to manufacture, and to ship, and it all ends up in the trash.
  - slothtrop 5y ago
    > But unless you’re planning to Thanos our way out of the situation, the people in the Western world need to consume less. There are more viable and compassionate solutions to accelerate stagnation of global growth. One is universal access to contraceptives, the other is eliminating global poverty and improving economic stability. This is no less politically viable than coercing Westerners to consume less, and far more effective. Add to that, our governments *target a growth rate of 3-4% per year through immigration*. That is purely through policy, and the entire point to increase GDP through, you guessed it, consumption. As you well know, our minimum carbon footprints are higher in the West. The minimum. If decimating consumption is such a priority for green advocates, then it should follow that they staunchly oppose increases in immigration rates, and in fact favor reductions. That would actually be consistent with the argument. This is an obvious connection that people coyly dance around. And while it's a separate discussion, many economists agree today that GDP is not a reliable measure of a nation's prosperity and chasing perpetual growth is not required. > Less beef, which is hugely polluting. There have been some interesting strides in innovation that reduce methane emissions some 90+% using a fraction of kelp/seaweed in feed, and this may be rolled out as a matter of policy. That would eliminate issues related to methane emissions in a fell swoop, in a way that discouragement of consumption can't touch. It's a ways off, but it doesn't have to be, it's right there. Land-use, contrary to popular belief, is actually decreasing in the U.S. for cattle in spite of the small uptick in demand growth. However, it has been growing in Brazil, presumably due to the growing Chinese market and they're supplying of soy to just about everyone. > The average American child owns between 70 and 100 toys. Citation? > The average American woman owns 100+ items of clothing. Citation? > It is too much; it is more than we need. There is no metric offered for what is enough / too much. It's entirely arbitrary. And yet, the difference between a perceived low consumption and average consumption, in aggregate, across the population, would not result in a significant change as the environment is concerned, since we all still use power, water, transportation, food, as the most basic form of living. The industry giants are responsible for most destruction. We can pat ourselves on the back for buying fewer material goods but it doesn't put a dent in the problem. Given the approx 36 gigatons of annual emissions, you won't even get down to 35 with a persuasive campaign. You won't even get down to 35.5. Blaming the consumer is foolhardy. Most problems with regards to energy and waste can be resolved through policy. People want these problems fixed but feel dismayed when most of what they throw in the recycling bin, typically related to food stuffs, ends up at the dump. Living well means more than mere survival. You don't "need" your little device you use to browse hackernews and your daily caffeinated drink and all the comforts you take for granted, and no one gets to decide for you that you don't need them, in a free country. This is important because blaming consumers will not save the environment, strong policy and innovation will.

ant6n 5y ago

The co2 producer most lagging behind in terms of reduction is transportation. This is a field where endusers have giant impacts, and it will likely not be solved by making those giant SUVs electric. This is also where the US is pretty bad, because of a culture that aspires to urban sprawl. More dense cities, more mixed use planning, more active transportation, less detached housing, less parking etc. are ways in which developed countries could really reduce their transportation carbon footprints (and incidentally also footprints related to AC/heating).