5 ms·

The world's population has more grown by 4.5B since I was born. The idea that this hasn't impacted climate change is naive at best.

by greedo 3y ago

hnbad 3y ago
If those 4.5B lived like Americans, yeah, that'd be the cause of all of our problems. Luckily they don't. But if you want to cull population based on carbon footprint, you should start with the billionaire class, then work your way down the income brackets of the US and then the rest of the West. The Earth's resources could comfortably sustain the current population. In terms of resources we could also feed and provide shelter to every single person alive today, which would reduce population growth as child mortality, lack of access to reproductive care (including safe and legal abortions) and parental socio-economic distress are the biggest contributors to high birth rates. But we can't do all of that AND run the Global North's economy the way we do AND afford a billionaire class. Alas that seems to be what we are currently doing.
- gruez 3y ago
  >If those 4.5B lived like Americans, yeah, that'd be the cause of all of our problems Good luck convincing everyone on earth to downgrade their lifestyles. The amount of people who are committed to living a ascetic lifestyle to save the planet is negligible. >The Earth's resources could comfortably sustain the current population Without lifestyle downgrades? Given how much environmental problems we're running into already I find this to be unlikely. >But we can't do all of that AND run the Global North's economy the way we do AND afford a billionaire class. Alas that seems to be what we are currently doing. How much is the "billionaire class"'s contribution to global warming?
  - hnbad 3y ago
    > How much is the "billionaire class"'s contribution to global warming? https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000190 https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal... For the US, the top 1% income bracket generates 15-17% of all emissions, the top 10% generates 40%. Also: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rich-americans-have-higher-carbon-footprints-than-other-wealthy-people/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rich-americans-ha... This article states that the top 10% in the US generates more than double of the top 10% in Europe and still nearly double than the top 10% in Asia per person. The article also correctly points out that the poorest half of the US also generates as many emissions as the middle 40% of Europe while being "almost twice as poor", so this is not at all about "downgrading their lifestyles". Even poor people in the US have a larger footprint than wealthier people than them in Europe. If you consider anything moving away from all produce available year-round, nearly identical products released every year with an artificially shortened lifespan, AC/heating running constantly because of a complete lack of insulation, car-centric infrastructure because of a complete lack of walkable cities or public transport and disposable everything a "lifestyle downgrade", then yes, it will require lifestyle downgrades. But without a billionaire class (i.e. raising marginal tax rates to 90% so wealth is reinvested into the economy rather than hoarded) many of these things can be resolved without serious downgrades for most people and actually upgrading the lifestyles of the poorest (e.g. because you no longer have to maintain an expensive gas-guzzling vehicle to get anywhere).
    - gruez 3y ago
      >https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal... >For example, in the producer framework households receiving wage or investment income from a power plant are responsible for the direct emissions it generates, while in the supplier framework households receiving wage or investment income from selling financial services or fossil fuel to that power plant are responsible for the plant’s emissions, proportional to their importance as a supplier This approach seems questionable. In that model there's some sort of joint responsibility between the producer and the consumer. However, I argue that if someone is driving a SUV, he alone is responsible for all the emissions. I'm not sure why you'd get to blame whoever owns the oil company. After all, the only reason why the oil company is drilling for oil is that people want the oil, so it's questionable to blame the owner. If the driver switched to EVs, the oil consumption will disappear. >The article also correctly points out that the poorest half of the US also generates as many emissions as the middle 40% of Europe while being "almost twice as poor", so this is not at all about "downgrading their lifestyles". Even poor people in the US have a larger footprint than wealthier people than them in Europe. I'm not sure what your point is? "Just be like europe"? "America bad"? >If you consider anything moving away from all produce available year-round, nearly identical products released every year with an artificially shortened lifespan, AC/heating running constantly because of a complete lack of insulation [...] and disposable everything How much do those measures move the needle? For instance single use plastics (ie. "disposable everything") is basically a non-issue when it comes to overall greenhouse emissions, and might even be better than the alternatives in some cases (eg. https://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-73-4.pdf https://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-...) >car-centric infrastructure because of a complete lack of walkable cities or public transport [..] then yes, it will require lifestyle downgrades Since US is sparsely populated, not having cars is most definitely a lifestyle downgrade. You could argue "but we can just make public transport better!" but the economics just don't work as well compared to europe, so you'd pay more and/or pay less which is still arguably a downgrade. Moving to denser/"walkable" cities rather than suburbs is also a solution, but is also a downgrade. Except to the most diehard urbanists, most would prefer a 4 bedroom house in the suburbs with a yard than a 3 bedroom apartment.
      - 3y ago

The world's population has more grown by 4.5B since I was born. The idea that this hasn't impacted climate change is naive at best.

by greedo 3y ago

The world's population has more grown by 4.5B since I was born. The idea that this hasn't impacted climate change is naive at best.

hnbad 3y ago

If those 4.5B lived like Americans, yeah, that'd be the cause of all of our problems. Luckily they don't. But if you want to cull population based on carbon footprint, you should start with the billionaire class, then work your way down the income brackets of the US and then the rest of the West. The Earth's resources could comfortably sustain the current population. In terms of resources we could also feed and provide shelter to every single person alive today, which would reduce population growth as child mortality, lack of access to reproductive care (including safe and legal abortions) and parental socio-economic distress are the biggest contributors to high birth rates. But we can't do all of that AND run the Global North's economy the way we do AND afford a billionaire class. Alas that seems to be what we are currently doing.

gruez 3y ago
>If those 4.5B lived like Americans, yeah, that'd be the cause of all of our problems Good luck convincing everyone on earth to downgrade their lifestyles. The amount of people who are committed to living a ascetic lifestyle to save the planet is negligible. >The Earth's resources could comfortably sustain the current population Without lifestyle downgrades? Given how much environmental problems we're running into already I find this to be unlikely. >But we can't do all of that AND run the Global North's economy the way we do AND afford a billionaire class. Alas that seems to be what we are currently doing. How much is the "billionaire class"'s contribution to global warming?
- hnbad 3y ago
  > How much is the "billionaire class"'s contribution to global warming? https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000190 https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal... For the US, the top 1% income bracket generates 15-17% of all emissions, the top 10% generates 40%. Also: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rich-americans-have-higher-carbon-footprints-than-other-wealthy-people/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rich-americans-ha... This article states that the top 10% in the US generates more than double of the top 10% in Europe and still nearly double than the top 10% in Asia per person. The article also correctly points out that the poorest half of the US also generates as many emissions as the middle 40% of Europe while being "almost twice as poor", so this is not at all about "downgrading their lifestyles". Even poor people in the US have a larger footprint than wealthier people than them in Europe. If you consider anything moving away from all produce available year-round, nearly identical products released every year with an artificially shortened lifespan, AC/heating running constantly because of a complete lack of insulation, car-centric infrastructure because of a complete lack of walkable cities or public transport and disposable everything a "lifestyle downgrade", then yes, it will require lifestyle downgrades. But without a billionaire class (i.e. raising marginal tax rates to 90% so wealth is reinvested into the economy rather than hoarded) many of these things can be resolved without serious downgrades for most people and actually upgrading the lifestyles of the poorest (e.g. because you no longer have to maintain an expensive gas-guzzling vehicle to get anywhere).
  - gruez 3y ago
    >https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal... >For example, in the producer framework households receiving wage or investment income from a power plant are responsible for the direct emissions it generates, while in the supplier framework households receiving wage or investment income from selling financial services or fossil fuel to that power plant are responsible for the plant’s emissions, proportional to their importance as a supplier This approach seems questionable. In that model there's some sort of joint responsibility between the producer and the consumer. However, I argue that if someone is driving a SUV, he alone is responsible for all the emissions. I'm not sure why you'd get to blame whoever owns the oil company. After all, the only reason why the oil company is drilling for oil is that people want the oil, so it's questionable to blame the owner. If the driver switched to EVs, the oil consumption will disappear. >The article also correctly points out that the poorest half of the US also generates as many emissions as the middle 40% of Europe while being "almost twice as poor", so this is not at all about "downgrading their lifestyles". Even poor people in the US have a larger footprint than wealthier people than them in Europe. I'm not sure what your point is? "Just be like europe"? "America bad"? >If you consider anything moving away from all produce available year-round, nearly identical products released every year with an artificially shortened lifespan, AC/heating running constantly because of a complete lack of insulation [...] and disposable everything How much do those measures move the needle? For instance single use plastics (ie. "disposable everything") is basically a non-issue when it comes to overall greenhouse emissions, and might even be better than the alternatives in some cases (eg. https://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-73-4.pdf https://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-...) >car-centric infrastructure because of a complete lack of walkable cities or public transport [..] then yes, it will require lifestyle downgrades Since US is sparsely populated, not having cars is most definitely a lifestyle downgrade. You could argue "but we can just make public transport better!" but the economics just don't work as well compared to europe, so you'd pay more and/or pay less which is still arguably a downgrade. Moving to denser/"walkable" cities rather than suburbs is also a solution, but is also a downgrade. Except to the most diehard urbanists, most would prefer a 4 bedroom house in the suburbs with a yard than a 3 bedroom apartment.
    - 3y ago