7 ms·

How about everyone in the world consume as less per capita as some of the poorest countries on the planet instead of poisoning everyone? Any negative consequen

How about everyone in the world consume as less per capita as some of the poorest countries on the planet instead of poisoning everyone? Any negative consequences, if any, will automatically put more burden on the poorer countries that don’t have the resources to fix things when they go wrong. All options should not be considered imho.

theplumber 4y ago
I think technology is the solution not cave living conditions. Nobody will signup for poverty.
- michaelchisari 4y ago
  Why assume the only alternative to American overconsumption is a a primitive existence?
  - serf 4y ago
    > Why assume the only alternative to American overconsumption is a a primitive existence? did I fall asleep in class when they mentioned that it was the American pollution that was particularly bad for the world? if blame-pointing is the primary concern here, doesn't China produce something like double the amount of CO2 emissions compared to the US?
    - bigfudge 4y ago
      >doesn't China produce something like double the amount of CO2 emissions compared to the US? Certainly not per capita. And China and other developing countries have been emitting large amounts of co2 for only a very short period relatively speaking. We have gained the benefits of industrialisation but other poorer nations are beating the costs. This is why American and European pollution is different and must be addressed as a priority.
      - marginalia_nu 4y ago
        I don't think that makes sense. The only thing that matters is how much CO2 is emitted. The climate doesn't care about what is fair.
        dontlaugh 4y ago
        Historical emissions are still in the atmosphere, continually heating it up. And per-capita emissions today are still vastly higher in North America and (most of) Western Europe than the rest of the world.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        marginalia_nu 4y ago
        Sure, but history is immutable. The only thing we can change is future emissions.
        tchaffee 4y ago
        History can determine who should have the highest remaining allowance.
        marginalia_nu 4y ago
        What you will find is that everyone will have a reason why they aren't as bad as the other group, and forge on as though it's someone else's problem. There is always someone else who is more to blame, more at fault.
        tchaffee 4y ago
        That sounds like a cop out. The historical data is accurate. And there is a historical basis for reparations being a thing that works. Similar things have been done successfully before. The best way to get countries to drop out and not participate is for countries to feel like it's not a fair deal. Make it a fair deal and you attract everyone to the table.
    - camillomiller 4y ago
      Not per capita. Plus, the American army alone, which doesn’t need to adhere to any carbon limiting rule and isn’t counted into the US’s carbon emissions, is known to produce more CO2 than many industrialized nations. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/06/13/report-the-u-s-military-emits-more-co2-than-many-industrialized-nations-infographic/amp/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/06/13/report...
    - tchaffee 4y ago
      Why does China produce so much CO2? Making products for Westerners hugely contributes to that, doesn't it? So yeah, the blame really does need to point to Western consumption habits.
- ornornor 4y ago
  Most of the world lives using far less resources and polluting less than the US. Not all live in poverty, far from it.
laverya 4y ago
> How about everyone in the world consume as less per capita as some of the poorest countries on the planet Hmm, live the life of someone from the Congo, or do literally anything else. Not a tough decision. I think that in practice a lot of countries would choose active genocide over deindustrialization. And it wouldn't even be close. Passive genocide, like that caused by Global Warming... There might be a lot of noise, but absolutely no significant action. So providing choices other than "deindustrialize" and "passive genocide" is critical if you don't want the decision to be "passive genocide".
- woodruffw 4y ago
  To be clear: we can (at least us Americans) consume far less and produce far less pollution per capita than we currently do without meaningfully impacting our quality of life. This is directly evidenced by Northern Europe.
  - willnonya 4y ago
    I think you are stretching the meaning of 'meaningfully impacting' to near absurdity.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      Not really, unless there’s something about the quality of life in most of Europe that you fundamentally wouldn’t find acceptable. In other words: your perception of your quality of life would have to have unreasonable roots (such as a large, disproportionately wasteful car and needing to consume large amounts of relatively low quality chicken and pork) in order for you to actually experience a decline, rather than just change.
  - kelnos 4y ago
    I think "can" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Sure, it's theoretically possible, but I don't think it's at all realistic to expect most Americans to change their attitudes toward consumption. I think the only way to do that would be to tax everything to the point that most people just couldn't afford more than basic consumption. But that's... pretty regressive, and no politicians would survive more than a term (if that!) without repealing those taxes. Otherwise, what motive do most Americans have to reduce consumption? Even people who believe climate change is real and are worried about it likely barely move the needle. That's before we even consider people who don't believe or don't care. Now, I think we can reasonably meaningfully reduce the amount of pollution we produce per "unit of consumption" such that consumption levels could remain relatively unchanged, but still allow us to save the world. Whether or not we can get there, with powerful short-term-thinking, status-quo-loving lobbying groups hindering progress every step of the way, is another matter.
hedora 4y ago
Why would we do that when clean energy + carbon capture is cheaper than fossil fuels were?
- hnbad 4y ago
  Carbon capture largely isn't a thing. Most carbon capture programmes simply buy up temporary guarantees not to chop down trees that weren't at risk in the first place (or at least not in that timeframe). There is some innovation happening in technologies to extract carbon from air but they're extremely inefficient and mostly exist as greenwashing of plastics while effectively wasting energy that in turn ultimately results in pollution.
robbrown451 4y ago
Strong suspicion you've never studied game theory, or even Adam Smithian economics. "Everybody just agree to what is best for everyone" pretty much never works. People don't work like that. Frankly, it is hopelessly naive of the human condition and akin to saying "why don't we all stop wasting money on locks and just all of us agree to stop stealing?" Or "why do we need money? Can't we just all do our part and only take what we need?" Or "why can't we agree to end wars?" People tend to (mostly) calculate what is best for them. Most people would just say "the only thing I can control is what I do, not what everyone else does. The best outcome for me is to live like I want to live, regardless of what everyone else does." Some people have more awareness of what is good for all than others, but very few will make huge individual sacrifices for the sake of making a hard-to-detect positive impact on the common good. See "prisoners' dilemma", "tragedy of the commons", "invisible hand", and so on. A government, on the other hand -- especially one as big as the US government -- is generally the only way to address this sort of thing. I'm not saying this is a great plan, but I suspect things like this are worth looking into.
- kelnos 4y ago
  Hell, we couldn't even get people in individual countries (let alone across the world) to agree on what to do with a global pandemic that was hospitalizing and/or killing people in droves. Climate change is unfortunately still -- even with all the obvious weather changes that are already happening -- too abstract to get a lot of people to even admit it's a problem, let alone agree on what should be done.
  - prottog 4y ago
    > all the obvious weather changes that are already happening All the obvious weather changes that are doing what, exactly? The way that global agricultural output has increased over time[0]? The way that England is a degree or two warmer on average in the past five hundred years[1] (somewhere between the difference in going from London to Paris and London to Bordeaux, quelle horreur)? The change is there, sure, but in what way is the problem pressing enough that dealing with it is clearly better than the cost of dealing with it? Because remember, every bit of time and resource we spend on climate change could be alternatively spent in other uses that might also benefit humanity. [0]: https://ourworldindata.org/food-supply https://ourworldindata.org/food-supply [1]: https://i0.wp.com/judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/slide03.png?ssl=1 https://i0.wp.com/judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11...
roenxi 4y ago
Why not everyone have 1 child, until the world's population is down to a few hundred million people and they can all live lives of extreme wealth? The issue with this sort of thinking - most plans that assume a good outcome, really - is the real question here is how many people will inhabit the world. The default strategy that math (and human instinct) drives towards is just enough people that on average they start starving. And if people are going to keep going until they starve _anyway_, what is the problem with some living well?
- onikolas7 4y ago
  It will put very strong pressure during the transition with a few young people supporting a larger aging population (see Japan). It's also opposed by capitalists as it goes against the infinite growth mantra (see for example Musk's comments on the subject). More importantly, it won't do anything in the short term where we need it urgently.
  - roenxi 4y ago
    I think your comment is pretty reasonable, but I really can't resist making this observation. > It will put very strong pressure during the transition... As opposed to exponential growth? With the number of people we've got wandering around, we're one slightly-worse-than-COVID disaster away from 100s of millions to billions of people starving to death. An outcome like Japan's is significantly better than what is likely to happen in Africa.
    - onikolas7 4y ago
      No, I agree, it is the sensible thing to be doing, but it looks like we are at a point where radical short term fixes are needed.
    - nextaccountic 4y ago
      The human population growth is not rising exponentially, the growth is actually declining since the 1960s and by 2100 we may not even grow anymore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#Population_growth_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#Population_g... https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds-population-is-projected-to-nearly-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the-century/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds-popu...

theplumber 4y ago

I think technology is the solution not cave living conditions. Nobody will signup for poverty.

michaelchisari 4y ago
Why assume the only alternative to American overconsumption is a a primitive existence?
- serf 4y ago
  > Why assume the only alternative to American overconsumption is a a primitive existence? did I fall asleep in class when they mentioned that it was the American pollution that was particularly bad for the world? if blame-pointing is the primary concern here, doesn't China produce something like double the amount of CO2 emissions compared to the US?
  - bigfudge 4y ago
    >doesn't China produce something like double the amount of CO2 emissions compared to the US? Certainly not per capita. And China and other developing countries have been emitting large amounts of co2 for only a very short period relatively speaking. We have gained the benefits of industrialisation but other poorer nations are beating the costs. This is why American and European pollution is different and must be addressed as a priority.
    - marginalia_nu 4y ago
      I don't think that makes sense. The only thing that matters is how much CO2 is emitted. The climate doesn't care about what is fair.
      - dontlaugh 4y ago
        Historical emissions are still in the atmosphere, continually heating it up. And per-capita emissions today are still vastly higher in North America and (most of) Western Europe than the rest of the world.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        marginalia_nu 4y ago
        Sure, but history is immutable. The only thing we can change is future emissions.
        tchaffee 4y ago
        History can determine who should have the highest remaining allowance.
        marginalia_nu 4y ago
        What you will find is that everyone will have a reason why they aren't as bad as the other group, and forge on as though it's someone else's problem. There is always someone else who is more to blame, more at fault.
        tchaffee 4y ago
        That sounds like a cop out. The historical data is accurate. And there is a historical basis for reparations being a thing that works. Similar things have been done successfully before. The best way to get countries to drop out and not participate is for countries to feel like it's not a fair deal. Make it a fair deal and you attract everyone to the table.
  - camillomiller 4y ago
    Not per capita. Plus, the American army alone, which doesn’t need to adhere to any carbon limiting rule and isn’t counted into the US’s carbon emissions, is known to produce more CO2 than many industrialized nations. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/06/13/report-the-u-s-military-emits-more-co2-than-many-industrialized-nations-infographic/amp/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/06/13/report...
  - tchaffee 4y ago
    Why does China produce so much CO2? Making products for Westerners hugely contributes to that, doesn't it? So yeah, the blame really does need to point to Western consumption habits.
ornornor 4y ago
Most of the world lives using far less resources and polluting less than the US. Not all live in poverty, far from it.

laverya 4y ago

> How about everyone in the world consume as less per capita as some of the poorest countries on the planet Hmm, live the life of someone from the Congo, or do literally anything else. Not a tough decision. I think that in practice a lot of countries would choose active genocide over deindustrialization. And it wouldn't even be close. Passive genocide, like that caused by Global Warming... There might be a lot of noise, but absolutely no significant action. So providing choices other than "deindustrialize" and "passive genocide" is critical if you don't want the decision to be "passive genocide".

woodruffw 4y ago
To be clear: we can (at least us Americans) consume far less and produce far less pollution per capita than we currently do without meaningfully impacting our quality of life. This is directly evidenced by Northern Europe.
- willnonya 4y ago
  I think you are stretching the meaning of 'meaningfully impacting' to near absurdity.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    Not really, unless there’s something about the quality of life in most of Europe that you fundamentally wouldn’t find acceptable. In other words: your perception of your quality of life would have to have unreasonable roots (such as a large, disproportionately wasteful car and needing to consume large amounts of relatively low quality chicken and pork) in order for you to actually experience a decline, rather than just change.
- kelnos 4y ago
  I think "can" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Sure, it's theoretically possible, but I don't think it's at all realistic to expect most Americans to change their attitudes toward consumption. I think the only way to do that would be to tax everything to the point that most people just couldn't afford more than basic consumption. But that's... pretty regressive, and no politicians would survive more than a term (if that!) without repealing those taxes. Otherwise, what motive do most Americans have to reduce consumption? Even people who believe climate change is real and are worried about it likely barely move the needle. That's before we even consider people who don't believe or don't care. Now, I think we can reasonably meaningfully reduce the amount of pollution we produce per "unit of consumption" such that consumption levels could remain relatively unchanged, but still allow us to save the world. Whether or not we can get there, with powerful short-term-thinking, status-quo-loving lobbying groups hindering progress every step of the way, is another matter.

hedora 4y ago

Why would we do that when clean energy + carbon capture is cheaper than fossil fuels were?

hnbad 4y ago
Carbon capture largely isn't a thing. Most carbon capture programmes simply buy up temporary guarantees not to chop down trees that weren't at risk in the first place (or at least not in that timeframe). There is some innovation happening in technologies to extract carbon from air but they're extremely inefficient and mostly exist as greenwashing of plastics while effectively wasting energy that in turn ultimately results in pollution.

robbrown451 4y ago

Strong suspicion you've never studied game theory, or even Adam Smithian economics. "Everybody just agree to what is best for everyone" pretty much never works. People don't work like that. Frankly, it is hopelessly naive of the human condition and akin to saying "why don't we all stop wasting money on locks and just all of us agree to stop stealing?" Or "why do we need money? Can't we just all do our part and only take what we need?" Or "why can't we agree to end wars?" People tend to (mostly) calculate what is best for them. Most people would just say "the only thing I can control is what I do, not what everyone else does. The best outcome for me is to live like I want to live, regardless of what everyone else does." Some people have more awareness of what is good for all than others, but very few will make huge individual sacrifices for the sake of making a hard-to-detect positive impact on the common good. See "prisoners' dilemma", "tragedy of the commons", "invisible hand", and so on. A government, on the other hand -- especially one as big as the US government -- is generally the only way to address this sort of thing. I'm not saying this is a great plan, but I suspect things like this are worth looking into.

kelnos 4y ago
Hell, we couldn't even get people in individual countries (let alone across the world) to agree on what to do with a global pandemic that was hospitalizing and/or killing people in droves. Climate change is unfortunately still -- even with all the obvious weather changes that are already happening -- too abstract to get a lot of people to even admit it's a problem, let alone agree on what should be done.
- prottog 4y ago
  > all the obvious weather changes that are already happening All the obvious weather changes that are doing what, exactly? The way that global agricultural output has increased over time[0]? The way that England is a degree or two warmer on average in the past five hundred years[1] (somewhere between the difference in going from London to Paris and London to Bordeaux, quelle horreur)? The change is there, sure, but in what way is the problem pressing enough that dealing with it is clearly better than the cost of dealing with it? Because remember, every bit of time and resource we spend on climate change could be alternatively spent in other uses that might also benefit humanity. [0]: https://ourworldindata.org/food-supply https://ourworldindata.org/food-supply [1]: https://i0.wp.com/judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/slide03.png?ssl=1 https://i0.wp.com/judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11...

roenxi 4y ago

Why not everyone have 1 child, until the world's population is down to a few hundred million people and they can all live lives of extreme wealth? The issue with this sort of thinking - most plans that assume a good outcome, really - is the real question here is how many people will inhabit the world. The default strategy that math (and human instinct) drives towards is just enough people that on average they start starving. And if people are going to keep going until they starve _anyway_, what is the problem with some living well?

onikolas7 4y ago
It will put very strong pressure during the transition with a few young people supporting a larger aging population (see Japan). It's also opposed by capitalists as it goes against the infinite growth mantra (see for example Musk's comments on the subject). More importantly, it won't do anything in the short term where we need it urgently.
- roenxi 4y ago
  I think your comment is pretty reasonable, but I really can't resist making this observation. > It will put very strong pressure during the transition... As opposed to exponential growth? With the number of people we've got wandering around, we're one slightly-worse-than-COVID disaster away from 100s of millions to billions of people starving to death. An outcome like Japan's is significantly better than what is likely to happen in Africa.
  - onikolas7 4y ago
    No, I agree, it is the sensible thing to be doing, but it looks like we are at a point where radical short term fixes are needed.
  - nextaccountic 4y ago
    The human population growth is not rising exponentially, the growth is actually declining since the 1960s and by 2100 we may not even grow anymore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#Population_growth_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#Population_g... https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds-population-is-projected-to-nearly-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the-century/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds-popu...