5 ms·

In real terms this means that we change some of the habits that bring us marginal happiness and comfort, to allow others to rise out of poverty, and leave our c

by ArnoVW 2y ago

In real terms this means that we change some of the habits that bring us marginal happiness and comfort, to allow others to rise out of poverty, and leave our children a world to live in. Lower your thermostat (hint : put on a sweater), isolate your house, eat less meat, reduce air travel, take care of your stuff so it lasts (and buy less gimmicks). All of this will likely sound like ridiculous to an American (or even to large swaths of Europe). But I assure you it really is both impactful, necessary and not very difficult. And it’s either that, or figure out how to explain to your children and their children, why you absolutely needed all those things. Because they will want to know why their standard of living and security has degraded wrt to ours, and “we didn’t know” wont work for anything you did since 2010 (and in reality the 1990’s)

melling 2y ago
I assure you that won’t solve the problem. I’m not sure it will buy us any extra time. I can’t believe it’s 2024 and we’re still having this conversation. You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about!!!
- ArnoVW 2y ago
  The question was “what does cutting emissions mean in real terms”. I answered that question. I never said that it was the one and only thing to do, nor did I say that it would solve everything. There is not “one” thing that will solve this. But we can, as you say, buy time, whilst we try to invent technology to find other solutions. Mind you, the Jevons Paradox will just mean that we consume away whatever improvements we create. Hence the importance of being able to restrain ourselves. We have a pretty good picture of what activities emit CO2, and for whom. An average American emits every year twice as much as an average Dutchman, and thrice the amount of an average Frenchman. Again, for a marginal improvement of standard of living. All of this is well documented and saying it isn’t is not going to make the problem go away. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_... https://www.myclimate.org/ https://www.myclimate.org/
  - melling 2y ago
    Looks like you’re just playing with numbers. The idea is to solve the problem From your chart, the average American uses less than the average Australian and Canadian, and about 20 other countries. Now explain why Americans use so much more than the French. Perhaps more nuclear power as a percentage of their electricity? Do any of your suggestions the difference. I’m sure the answer is No. US CO2 emissions have fallen significantly in the past decade because we’ve retired a lot of coal power plants. We are about to retire a significant amount of large CO2 producing coal power plants because of recent EPA regulations. Decarbonization of the grid makes a noticeable difference.
    - ArnoVW 2y ago
      The Dutch have 0 nuclear. That still leaves a factor of 2. With respect not to an ideal but with respect to a country that itself is emitting too much to be sustainable. Nuclear is part of the solution, I fully agree. But it will not solve the problem alone. Technology will not solve this problem alone. As said, the reasons behind the American emission levels are not some unknowable mystery. The emissions attributions are quite detailed now. Americans have more cars per inhabitant, and they are heavier and less optimised. American houses are bigger and consume more energy. Americans have a diet that is more emission heavy. It may be hard to hear, but that’s currently unsustainable, and by a wide margin. You are right in saying that there are other countries that are worse. That does not liberate you from the obligation to strive towards sustainability. Sustainability does not mean reduce to zero, just reduce enough to give those after us a livable world. Don’t complain or hide behind the others, but lead by example. That’s what a superpower does.
      - melling 2y ago
        You are hand waving and just making up assertions without actually providing any data. “ It must be the big cars” “it’s the American diet” Please explain Canada and Australia being more than the United States You also aren’t accounting for any industry either. Once again, the use of coal is demonstrably significant. No hand waving necessary: “New EPA directive will cut pollution equivalent to the emissions of 328m cars” https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/25/new-rule-compels-us-coal-fired-power-plants-to-capture-emissions-or-shut-down https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/25/new-rule...

by ArnoVW 2y ago

melling 2y ago

I assure you that won’t solve the problem. I’m not sure it will buy us any extra time. I can’t believe it’s 2024 and we’re still having this conversation. You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about!!!

ArnoVW 2y ago
The question was “what does cutting emissions mean in real terms”. I answered that question. I never said that it was the one and only thing to do, nor did I say that it would solve everything. There is not “one” thing that will solve this. But we can, as you say, buy time, whilst we try to invent technology to find other solutions. Mind you, the Jevons Paradox will just mean that we consume away whatever improvements we create. Hence the importance of being able to restrain ourselves. We have a pretty good picture of what activities emit CO2, and for whom. An average American emits every year twice as much as an average Dutchman, and thrice the amount of an average Frenchman. Again, for a marginal improvement of standard of living. All of this is well documented and saying it isn’t is not going to make the problem go away. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_... https://www.myclimate.org/ https://www.myclimate.org/
- melling 2y ago
  Looks like you’re just playing with numbers. The idea is to solve the problem From your chart, the average American uses less than the average Australian and Canadian, and about 20 other countries. Now explain why Americans use so much more than the French. Perhaps more nuclear power as a percentage of their electricity? Do any of your suggestions the difference. I’m sure the answer is No. US CO2 emissions have fallen significantly in the past decade because we’ve retired a lot of coal power plants. We are about to retire a significant amount of large CO2 producing coal power plants because of recent EPA regulations. Decarbonization of the grid makes a noticeable difference.
  - ArnoVW 2y ago
    The Dutch have 0 nuclear. That still leaves a factor of 2. With respect not to an ideal but with respect to a country that itself is emitting too much to be sustainable. Nuclear is part of the solution, I fully agree. But it will not solve the problem alone. Technology will not solve this problem alone. As said, the reasons behind the American emission levels are not some unknowable mystery. The emissions attributions are quite detailed now. Americans have more cars per inhabitant, and they are heavier and less optimised. American houses are bigger and consume more energy. Americans have a diet that is more emission heavy. It may be hard to hear, but that’s currently unsustainable, and by a wide margin. You are right in saying that there are other countries that are worse. That does not liberate you from the obligation to strive towards sustainability. Sustainability does not mean reduce to zero, just reduce enough to give those after us a livable world. Don’t complain or hide behind the others, but lead by example. That’s what a superpower does.
    - melling 2y ago
      You are hand waving and just making up assertions without actually providing any data. “ It must be the big cars” “it’s the American diet” Please explain Canada and Australia being more than the United States You also aren’t accounting for any industry either. Once again, the use of coal is demonstrably significant. No hand waving necessary: “New EPA directive will cut pollution equivalent to the emissions of 328m cars” https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/25/new-rule-compels-us-coal-fired-power-plants-to-capture-emissions-or-shut-down https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/25/new-rule...