> The alternative option which is consuming less in order to pollute less is pretty unpopular. If you frame the problem like that, does it actually surprise yo

> The alternative option which is consuming less in order to pollute less is pretty unpopular. If you frame the problem like that, does it actually surprise you that no one will act on it? One has to either freeze or feel guilty of some kind of moral failing about the heat one consumes? You might say: No, no, the problem is not consumption, it's the superfluous part of the consumption, the overconsumption that's the problem. Okay, but, then, who exactly stands in judgment of which part of the consumption is the overconsumption? The same moralising types who bemoan the melting of the glaciers? Reminds me a bit of pre-enlightenment Europe and its juxtaposition of power and catholic moralising guilttripping. What's needed is a humanistic way forward, a way wherein man gets to fundamentally be the hero of the story. If you come to me and say: Here is a way to reconfigure the economy through technological, economic, and political change, to make it so that one can feel good about consumption again, then I will go to hell and back to make that change happen. If you just tell me "consume less", then don't expect me to do anything.