4 ms·
Is there any solution that doesn’t either involve developed countries lowering their quality of life or preventing developing nations from cheaply industrializi
by endisneigh 5y ago
Is there any solution that doesn’t either involve developed countries lowering their quality of life or preventing developing nations from cheaply industrializing?
- titzer 5y ago> developed countries lowering their quality of life I seriously disagree with this framing. Developed countries have been artificially inflating their quality of life through cheap energy available from burning fossil fuels. This is an unsustainable practice that will a.) come to end due to exhaustion of said fuels b.) have significant, compounding externalities that are subject to incredible levels of reality distortion from entities benefiting from the economies they intentionally structured to be dependent on said energy sources. The truth is that western countries have developed too fast through the planetary equivalent of roid rage. We've gone massively into debt, dug into a huge reservoir that is emptying, and the waste products produced by our flagrant exploitation of dirty energy reserves are very bad for the planet. So yeah, I completely disagree with the "lowering their quality of life" framing. It's true that if you've been going into debt your whole life, and suddenly stop spending like a drunken sailor, your quality of life might go down.
- endisneigh 5y agoFraming aside it’s a fact that the quality of life will be lowered for some. What you’re saying isn’t wrong, but it is what it is. This is a political issue, acting as if switching entirely to renewables will not result in some short term sacrifices is well, disingenuous.
- titzer 5y agoI will still challenge these assertions. Lowering quality of life....to only a bazillion times better than a couple generations ago. When in reality the things people would be giving up are gluttonous wastes of energy like private jets and affordable vacations in the Caribbean (a new thing!).
- titzer 5y agoI'll even go further to say that reducing fossil fuel usage for transportation (cars) and heating (natural gas) will improve quality of life for many. Air pollution is majorly bad for people's lungs, brains, and overall health. Not to mention the complete waste of time that rush hour represents.
- endisneigh 5y agoSure that’s true if it were free to do so. Tell me, how do you do so in practice without lowering the quality of life for some? Trivially you could just ban those things. I think we’d agree in saying that would be very bad for many.
- Reimersholme 5y ago
- waqf 5y agoThat seems like obviously the wrong question, since it has at least the potential to rule out viable solutions a priori. For example, what would be wrong with preventing developing nations from cheaply industrialising, while also subsidising them to do something else instead?
- endisneigh 5y agoThe question you pose is effectively why we’re in the situation we’re in. To solve the climate crisis all externalities need to effectively be captured in the price in order to stabilize the market failure with respect to said externalities. Subsidies are what we do now already which is why we’re in the situation we’re in.
- waqf 5y agoConditional subsidies ("we'll give you money if you don't build that nasty coal plant") do capture an externality, so I'm not sure what point you're making.
- endisneigh 5y agoThat just goes back to the original question then - where’s the money coming from? Who is paying? How much do they have to sacrifice?
- Reimersholme 5y ago
- hotpotamus 5y agoAh, so you want a half-assed solution - my specialty. Solar radiation management looks good to me.
- samuel 5y agoYes, making developing nations richer faster so they reach developed countries birth rates sooner. Educating girls and empowering them on those countries also will make birth rates to decline faster.