4 ms·
I agree, and chimed in with a few comments to a similar effect. What's especially frustrating is how shortsighted the Malthusian "degrowth" response is. It hon
by lambdadmitry 5y ago
I agree, and chimed in with a few comments to a similar effect.
What's especially frustrating is how shortsighted the Malthusian "degrowth" response is. It honestly feels like people don't realise that "the West" is just one billion people out of eight and its carbon impact is shrinking both in relative and absolute numbers. Therefore any measure that might work have to be acceptable to the developing world. In fact, I'd say we need to introduce the MAP test: can you convince Modi, Assad, and Putin to implement your proposed measure? If you can't, bin it, we don't have time for it.
The only general approach I can see working under that test is tech. We "just" need to make low carbon options more economically attractive, and then it'll happen automatically. No amount of Western self-sacrifice in the name of degrowth, no amount of high minded rhetoric about "overconsumption" will do that. US becoming an eco fascist state and going to net zero overnight will barely move the needle.
But it's so easy to forget about that in the tiny bubble of Western eco activists.
- wizardofdos 5y agoThe emissions of the top 10% richest people globally where 17.60 tCO2 while the bottom poorest 50% globally emitted 1.57 tCO2 (2015). Or in absolute numbers, the top 10% emitted 3x the amount of the whole bottom 50%. And that is without taking historic emmisions into consideration. What we don't have time for is doing nothing (ie continuing the destruction of our habitat). The 1.5° C goal is already getting out of reach.