14 ms·

Has anyone heard from the President a message to reduce consumption in the U.S.? We waste so much, there need be no hint of tightening belts or doing without th

• s5300 5y ago
  Yeah… that’s not how Americans work. A significant portion of politicians would be parroting impeachment minutes after a statement like that.
• tcbawo 5y ago
  I can imagine a good portion of the population would not be inclined to take the advice of any President on self-moderation. The number of people struggling to keep their head above water is very high. The best chance we have is to make the environmentally friendly approaches profitable, especially if it creates local jobs and opportunity.
  • tonyedgecombe 5y ago
    >The number of people struggling to keep their head above water is very high. Yet American emissions per capita are among the highest in the world. Something doesn't add up.
    • scollet 5y ago
      Being poor is incredibly expensive.
      • tonyedgecombe 5y ago
        In reality climate change is a problem caused by the rich, not the poor. Poor people can't afford to consume much, it's the rich who can afford big cars, large houses and flights to Bali.
        • scollet 5y ago
          I don't think consumers on the lower class strata could be blamed for climate change, but we have a series of massive industrial complexes and incentives which creates a lot of feedback. Those without the means don't really have the leverage against this economic apparatus. I think you're right, but we'll need to see a lot of empathy and humility exemplified in our societal power structures. I don't like that we built those structures as pyramids, but I also don't think anyone likes the idea of the foundation collapsing.
• 75central 5y ago
  Wouldn't make much of a difference. The MAGA crowd would just start using even more gas "to own the libs".
• maxerickson 5y ago
  Consumption does correlate with quality of life, health and happiness. Keeping in mind that degrowth isn't going to happen (for good or bad), it probably isn't a great use of time to advocate for it.
  • k8sToGo 5y ago
    If I go to Costco and look at the amount of meat you get per $, I am not sure if we aren't way beyond basic "quality of life, health and happiness." I am saying this as someone who lived for years in the US and now lives again in Europe.
    • ragnot 5y ago
      It really makes me sad when I go to Costco to buy food. I don't know how people will feed their kids right at these prices honestly.
      • ckdarby 5y ago
        Reduce protein intake to the recommended amount. Rest of meals come from, carrots, onions, potatoes, rice, eggs, flour and beans. Sticking with the above food is very affordable for the median income.
      • handrous 5y ago
        Rice, beans, block American cheese, stew meat, whichever fruits and veggies are on sale, make your own baked goods. People found ways even when prices were much, much higher relative to incomes. Eat-whatever-you-like-whenever-you-like is not the historic norm for the working class. Not saying this is a positive development, mind you, but there are whole cuisines designed around these kinds of needs, for good reason. Stretching out meats over multiple dishes, finding ways to use worse cuts, re-using fats, using all those parts most Americans won't eat anymore, but used to. Making stock from veggie scraps so they're not wasted (then using what's left for the garden, if you don't have chickens and/or pigs to recycle it into eggs and meat for you). Food waste should drop as prices go up, as it's largely a convenience thing. Assuming we remember how to really cook....
• dandanua 5y ago
  Waste will not be a problem after Mars colonization. /s
• aero142 5y ago
  This is like a cook at a restaurant burning dinner and then telling the patrons they needed to go on a diet anyway.
• OminousWeapons 5y ago
  > Has anyone heard from the President a message to reduce consumption in the U.S.? We waste so much, there need be no hint of tightening belts or doing without things we like. Most Americans could drop our emissions and waste 50 percent just improving our lives. We live this huge lie that consumption correlates with quality of life, health, or happiness for most of us. To be blunt, I wouldn't vote for a politician that told me I need to reduce my quality of life, nor would most people, which is why you never hear a politician say things like that. The average person does not want to hear that they need to tighten their belt so that someone else's belt now or in the future can be loosened. That's just not how people work.
  • elliekelly 5y ago
    And this is why doing anything about climate change is such an uphill battle.
    • OminousWeapons 5y ago
      Correct, if we are serious about solving climate change, we need to come to grips with the fact that people will not lower their quality of life, and so we need to find impactful changes that either maintain the QoL status quo or improves it. For example, a Tesla or the new Ford Lightening pickup is something people can live with. Extremely good public transportation that saves people time and money is something people can live with. A bike is not something most people will live with.
      • elliekelly 5y ago
        Yes, as the saying goes, when you find yourself in a hole keep digging until you find a better shovel.
        • OminousWeapons 5y ago
          Another popular saying: the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Tell us again about all the awful things that will happen in the future and all the huge sacrifices we need to make today to prevent them so that people can shrug yet again and go back to ignoring you. We can either live in a fantasy or accept reality / human nature for what it is and actually start being productive.
• mchusma 5y ago
  Fossil fuel will die only when the alternatives are better. Focusing positively there is where the effort should be. So reduce environmental review for solar, massively reduce red tape for fission, invest in fusion, and invest in carbon capture technology are the main things here IMO. We should strive for energy abundance, not austerity.
  • francisofascii 5y ago
    The thing is, consuming large amount more fossil fuels now is the opposite of energy abundance long term.
  • zeckalpha 5y ago
    Alternatives delay the end of oil rather than bringing it about. If we use more oil now, we have to switch to alternatives sooner. There’s currently ~42 years until the end of oil: https://www.worldometers.info/ https://www.worldometers.info/
    • dredmorbius 5y ago
      A key problem is that environmental consequences of burning that oil will be catastrophic. We'll run out eventually, but we've got to stop using it well before then.
• mym1990 5y ago
  This is something that people will need to come to their own senses about. Politicians run to get elected/re-elected and economy is almost always the #1 driver for building a platform. In the economic sense, if everyone reduced consumption then unemployment would go up, GDP down, recession, etc… This is just my observation of how some dominoes might fall. There will always be upsides and downsides.
• beckman466 5y ago
  > Has anyone heard from the President a message to reduce consumption in the U.S.? We waste so much Who is 'we'? It's big companies and the military that are causing massive amounts of resource waste and overuse. Telling the working class to 'improve their lives' is quite ridiculous. This is a production problem at a systems level, not an individual consumption problem. That narrative of individual change is simply gaslighting by the propertied class.
  • AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    While I agree in general, I think as long as the rest of us persist in our mindset that we don't need to change we will resist all efforts to do so on a societal level as well.
  • CapricornNoble 5y ago
    >>>It's big companies and the military that are causing massive amounts of resource waste and overuse. While often wasteful, the military is only 4% of US GDP,[1] and almost 40% of its expenditures is Pay & Benefits.[2] The rest, about $400 Billion, is <2% of the US's ~$21 Trillion economy (real 2019 GDP). It's...interesting...to single that sector of the economy out in particular. [1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=US https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locat... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_...
    • beckman466 5y ago
      > It's big companies and the military that are causing massive amounts of resource waste and overuse. oops i mixed up two different points in my original sentence. this is what i am talking about: 1) big companies are causing massive amounts of resource waste and overuse: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/jan/14/aid-in-reverse-how-poor-countries-develop-rich-countries https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals... 2) the US military is the biggest contributor to CO2 emissions: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/11/worlds-militaries-avoiding-scrutiny-over-emissions https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/11/worlds-m...
• snarf21 5y ago
  Improve our lives according to whom? You? Have you cut your consumption by 50% this year? Have you installed solar (if you own a house)? Have you started growing your own vegetables? Have you bought a house that is 50% smaller to reduce heating/cooling needs? Do you want someone telling you that you have to do all these things and more?
  • AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    > Have you cut your consumption by 50% this year? Have you installed solar (if you own a house)? Have you started growing your own vegetables? Have you bought a house that is 50% smaller to reduce heating/cooling needs? Do you want someone telling you that you have to do all these things and more? My consumption isn't very high to begin with, there wasn't much to cut. My house is shaded by large trees and solar wouldn't provide much benefit, so instead I've cut electrical use. I do have a garden, yes. I have a modestly sized house and 2 roomates. Could I do more? Sure, not that it'd make much difference with the apparent sentiment being "fuck the future if it makes things inconvenient for me now". Especially for the incredibly well off portions of our society that consume ludicrously more resources than the median and then tell us all there's nothing we can do. Sadly, I'm convinced that only an authoritarian dictatorship could actually pull this off, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like that either. I'd much prefer if people would just not throw up their hands because they're asked to be a little less comfortable for the sake our descendants' future.
  • spodek 5y ago
    Since you ask, I've reduced over 90 percent, which I've shared publicly, anticipating I may be like a Roger Bannister to some. Will you join? Here is a graph: https://joshuaspodek.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/ReduceFootprintGraphics2-1-scaled.jpg https://joshuaspodek.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/ReduceFo... On my blog https://www.joshuaspodek.com https://www.joshuaspodek.com I post my electric bills, that I pick up litter daily, that I haven't flown since 2016, haven't filled a load of garbage since 2019, and more. Most importantly, that each of these changes improves my life. Or watch my TEDx talks on sustainability leadership: https://joshuaspodek.com/tedx https://joshuaspodek.com/tedx. Leadership, not individual action is the point. Yet more important and magnifying my effect, I lead workshops in food deserts, coach executives and politicians, and host a podcast helping change American and global culture from the attitude I read in your post, that sustainability and stewardship are burdens, deprivation, or sacrifice, to expecting it will improve their lives, help the most vulnerable, and create stability and abundance.
• ssully 5y ago
  Where have you been the last 2 years? People got pissed from being told to wear a mask to help slow the spread of a disease. I think it's safe to say telling people to tighten their belts when it comes to consumption would piss off members of all political parties.
  • robobob5000 5y ago
    Its kind of an interesting parallel the politicians that are forcing mask use laws have been shown time and time again not wearing masks themselves. the politicians forcing environmental laws have been shown time and time again leading extravagant environmentally damaging lifestyles. You can't escape the feeling that these mandates are meant for the poor and not the rich and powerful political class
• ffggvv 5y ago
  that’s what jimmy carter did and it didn’t work out great for him whether or not it’s true. it’s the same reason politicians don’t tell americans to get exercise or eat healthy