3 ms·
Whatever people say, the solution is less buying power for everyone. For now, that's the only solution. It's hard to hear, but any economic crisis is beneficial
by jokoon 5y ago
Whatever people say, the solution is less buying power for everyone. For now, that's the only solution. It's hard to hear, but any economic crisis is beneficial for the environment.
There is no way we can make enough changes in 10 years, so things must go the other way. Jean Marc Jancovici says emissions must be shrink 5% per day. You can't have a thriving economy anymore.
Of course nobody wants to make any effort, because it means selling your car, turning off heating/AC, forgetting that vacation, forgetting that steak, even quitting your job, etc etc.
On one hand, we think people who live in the forest, far from everything, are crazy people. But the reality is that a life of sobriety, economic degrowth, austerity, those are the things that are needed to *save the world*.
We need to accept to eat pasta, rice and vitamins for a long time unless civilization moves away entirely from fossil fuels so that it can properly adapt.
If you refuse to accept that you must reduce your living standard, you are part of the problem, plain and simple. Politicians and companies will do exactly NOTHING if it angers consumers or if consumers keep giving those companies money.
I'm often quite pessimistic about the ability of politicians to change course about co2 emissions. Consumers have too much powers.
- throwaway-m3232 5y agoYes, I too think that GDP growth goal is not very compatible with sustainable production. But not to the point where you have less kinds of food. But the main problem I think is: there is no option to work less. Lets say you want to consume less, what will you do with your money, throw away? So I think that the workday should be reduced.