5 ms·

It's pretty easily done too. It's just that it's not a very fun thing to do. Like eating vegetables. It's pretty easily done but that doesn't mean everyone does

by xmprt 3y ago

It's pretty easily done too. It's just that it's not a very fun thing to do. Like eating vegetables. It's pretty easily done but that doesn't mean everyone does it.

bheadmaster 3y ago
Are you implying that living a life without fun is easy?
- xmprt 3y ago
  Maybe I should have rephrased it. There are fun ways to live a life without emitting a bunch of carbon just as there are tasty ways to cook vegetables. It's just that people don't want to and more importantly, governments don't want to.
  - bheadmaster 3y ago
    So, it's easy, but people don't want to do it because... they're evil?
    - NumberWangMan 3y ago
      It’s multipolar trap/ coordination problem. The costs of carbon emissions are diffuse and borne by everyone, while the costs of changing your behavior are mostly borne by you. It’s just a sad fact of life, and to solve it the only feasible way is to change the rules to making decarbonizing cheaper than continuing to use fossil fuels.
      - gruez 3y ago
        This has nothing to do with what the parent and grandparent comment was talking about, which is that carbon emissions can somehow be made without sacrificing lifestyle quality. Your comment implicitly admit that sacrifices have to be made.
  - CalRobert 3y ago
    I used to live in LA, spend tons of money on my car, not be able to do things because they were on the wrong side of the 405, and eat tons of low quality meat. Now I live in the Netherlands, bike or take the train everywhere, and occasionally eat high quality meat. My emissions are much, much, much lower here. I'm tired of being told how great my quality of life would be with cheaper gas and a bigger house.
harimau777 3y ago
Most people's lives suck and the only thing that they have going for them is consumerism. So it's reasonable that they are unwilling to give up consumerism. Therefore, the hard part is changing the structure of society so that people's lives don't suck.
- carapace 3y ago
  The solution there is the same thing: living in harmony with nature. It's carbon-neutral or -negative and very fun and fulfilling.
  - gruez 3y ago
    This is as realistic as peace in the Middle East by getting both sides to sit on a beach and sing kumbya
    - carapace 3y ago
      I mean, we will eventually live in harmony with Nature one way or another. Shall we cooperate consciously in the process of life and evolution, or let everything crash and burn and hope the survivors do better next time?
  - jl6 3y ago
    Very fun, up to the point you get ill and start wishing industrial society still existed to manufacture modern medicines.
    - carapace 3y ago
      Why not both? In some cases micro-gassifier rocket heater/stoves (just because you can make one out of mud doesn't mean it's not high technology!) & coppicing and pollarding will make more sense. In other cases clean atomic power and induction heaters/stoves will be the way to go. Some times willow bark tea, and sometimes morphine.
BurningFrog 3y ago
That's a very rich world perspective. Fossil fuels have - at the same time as the pollution - caused a huge improvement of living standards. A substantial part of the human population tripling in size comes from that, and huge number of people would die if fossil fuels magically disappeared.
- te_chris 3y ago
  Living standards increases right the way to extinction. Ultimate tragedy of the commons.
- drekk 3y ago
  The richest 1% is responsible for 49% of lifestyle emissions. The poorest 50% are responsible for just 10% of emissions. It's really disingenuous to act like most of our CO2 emissions are being spent lifting people out of poverty rather than on luxuries like meat consumption or fast fashion. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001391651771068 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001391651771068...
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    > "The richest 1% is responsible for 49% of lifestyle emissions. [...] luxuries like meat consumption or fast fashion" How many megatons of meat do you think Musk eats a month? Does Bezos put a billion burgers into his belly? The vast majority of meat is consumed by people in that bottom 99%. For that matter, how many fast-fashion trendy patterned stockings do you think these men wear? It's really disingenuous to act like you're against luxuries for the 1% and then use meat and cheap clothing as your examples of great evils to be eliminated. Who would be sacrificing if large scale production of these cheap goods were banned? Not the 1%. What you are proposing is not to tear down the 1%, but to suppress the standard of living for the 99%. Maybe you just chose bad examples by accident though, do you have any proposals that would actually limit emissions from the 1% instead of capping the quality of life for the other 99%?
    - oivey 3y ago
tacocataco 3y ago
Vegetables are delicious if you cook them right. Maybe the solutions we have on how to cut on emissions is canned.

by xmprt 3y ago

It's pretty easily done too. It's just that it's not a very fun thing to do. Like eating vegetables. It's pretty easily done but that doesn't mean everyone does it.

bheadmaster 3y ago

Are you implying that living a life without fun is easy?

xmprt 3y ago
Maybe I should have rephrased it. There are fun ways to live a life without emitting a bunch of carbon just as there are tasty ways to cook vegetables. It's just that people don't want to and more importantly, governments don't want to.
- bheadmaster 3y ago
  So, it's easy, but people don't want to do it because... they're evil?
  - NumberWangMan 3y ago
    It’s multipolar trap/ coordination problem. The costs of carbon emissions are diffuse and borne by everyone, while the costs of changing your behavior are mostly borne by you. It’s just a sad fact of life, and to solve it the only feasible way is to change the rules to making decarbonizing cheaper than continuing to use fossil fuels.
    - gruez 3y ago
      This has nothing to do with what the parent and grandparent comment was talking about, which is that carbon emissions can somehow be made without sacrificing lifestyle quality. Your comment implicitly admit that sacrifices have to be made.
- CalRobert 3y ago
  I used to live in LA, spend tons of money on my car, not be able to do things because they were on the wrong side of the 405, and eat tons of low quality meat. Now I live in the Netherlands, bike or take the train everywhere, and occasionally eat high quality meat. My emissions are much, much, much lower here. I'm tired of being told how great my quality of life would be with cheaper gas and a bigger house.

harimau777 3y ago

Most people's lives suck and the only thing that they have going for them is consumerism. So it's reasonable that they are unwilling to give up consumerism. Therefore, the hard part is changing the structure of society so that people's lives don't suck.

carapace 3y ago
The solution there is the same thing: living in harmony with nature. It's carbon-neutral or -negative and very fun and fulfilling.
- gruez 3y ago
  This is as realistic as peace in the Middle East by getting both sides to sit on a beach and sing kumbya
  - carapace 3y ago
    I mean, we will eventually live in harmony with Nature one way or another. Shall we cooperate consciously in the process of life and evolution, or let everything crash and burn and hope the survivors do better next time?
- jl6 3y ago
  Very fun, up to the point you get ill and start wishing industrial society still existed to manufacture modern medicines.
  - carapace 3y ago
    Why not both? In some cases micro-gassifier rocket heater/stoves (just because you can make one out of mud doesn't mean it's not high technology!) & coppicing and pollarding will make more sense. In other cases clean atomic power and induction heaters/stoves will be the way to go. Some times willow bark tea, and sometimes morphine.

BurningFrog 3y ago

That's a very rich world perspective. Fossil fuels have - at the same time as the pollution - caused a huge improvement of living standards. A substantial part of the human population tripling in size comes from that, and huge number of people would die if fossil fuels magically disappeared.

te_chris 3y ago
Living standards increases right the way to extinction. Ultimate tragedy of the commons.
drekk 3y ago
The richest 1% is responsible for 49% of lifestyle emissions. The poorest 50% are responsible for just 10% of emissions. It's really disingenuous to act like most of our CO2 emissions are being spent lifting people out of poverty rather than on luxuries like meat consumption or fast fashion. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001391651771068 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001391651771068...
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  > "The richest 1% is responsible for 49% of lifestyle emissions. [...] luxuries like meat consumption or fast fashion" How many megatons of meat do you think Musk eats a month? Does Bezos put a billion burgers into his belly? The vast majority of meat is consumed by people in that bottom 99%. For that matter, how many fast-fashion trendy patterned stockings do you think these men wear? It's really disingenuous to act like you're against luxuries for the 1% and then use meat and cheap clothing as your examples of great evils to be eliminated. Who would be sacrificing if large scale production of these cheap goods were banned? Not the 1%. What you are proposing is not to tear down the 1%, but to suppress the standard of living for the 99%. Maybe you just chose bad examples by accident though, do you have any proposals that would actually limit emissions from the 1% instead of capping the quality of life for the other 99%?
  - oivey 3y ago

tacocataco 3y ago

Vegetables are delicious if you cook them right. Maybe the solutions we have on how to cut on emissions is canned.