5 ms·
No, because the people of the US absolutely do not want to decrease their living standards to the extent it would require. The government would most likely be p
by ericd 4y ago
No, because the people of the US absolutely do not want to decrease their living standards to the extent it would require. The government would most likely be promptly fired if it went the austerity route.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- partiallypro 4y agoThe world is bigger than the US, and cutting living standards for people in Africa, China, etc that JUST came out of poverty is not ideal or moral.
- dont__panic 4y agoThis assumes that current US and EU living standards are inherently better than other ways of living. But what if you could live sustainably and maintain a higher quality of living? Why not use tech like solar panels, geothermal heating/cooling, and more to help those countries "skip over" the dirty, coal-burning period of industrialization and invent something better (and more sustainable)? We tend to assume that living in the US, driving around a polluting car, buying up polluting gadgets, throwing away tons of plastic per person, burning propane and natural gas and oil for heating, watering your lawn in the desert, etc. are all... the best way to live. But you could supply small towns in Africa with solar panels and let them figure out a better way, no? And they have certain advantages -- like distributed small farms, walkable towns, no "technical debt" of inefficient gadgets and gizmos in their houses -- that put them in a much better position than countries like the USA. Take the massive US military budget and spend it on this instead.
- concordDance 4y agoI think you've misread the comment you're replying to. He's saying the US could do the aerosol thing, which would not require a big decrease in living standards.
- ericd 4y agoAh yep, you’re right, thanks for the correction. It’s not a fix, though, just buys us a little time. We have to stop polluting if we want to avoid catastrophe - we likely have to get to net negative. So we’d still have the multi-billion people coordination problem.
- concordDance 4y agoIt would be a fix for global warming, just not other things like ocean acidification.