231–240 of 271 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have to. The alternative is destroying the earth even more. And overall, the lifetime environmental impact of solar panels is much lower than producing the same energy using fossile fuels.
There is also the option of winding down energy consumption - we produce so much useless crap for no particular reason anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only possible solution four decades ago was nuclear, and even then it was only a partial solution, and which people oppose for illogical reasons. The story now is much more hopeful. I also hope nuclear can be a part of it, but I think battery advances are more likely to beat it to the starting line.
Climate change is not just about electricity production. There was a wide array of solutions available 40 years ago, including, but not limited to nuclear. Notable mentions: carbon fees, preventing deforestation, not subsidizing fossil fuels, not actively encouraging methane release from oilfields, more efficient cars, trains, insulation, heat pumps and solar water heaters but really the list is very, very long.
Agreed, but that was the part that could be addressed with nuclear.
> There was a wide array of solutions available 40 years ago, including, but not limited to nuclear.
I think we're in agreement, except for the word "solution". The things you mention are not solutions, but rather mitigations, bandaids, things that slow the pace of climate change. Which still would have been extremely useful to buy us more time to decarbonize.
Unfortunately, a lot of climate activists’ primary goal is not stopping climate change but rather advocating for degrowth. They are thus vehemently opposed to any solutions that don’t involve massive reductions in consumption. This is not only politically untenable (it is impossible to convince societies to take massive quality-of-life reductions) but also alienates the majority of people from the cause, who might ot…
Degrowth isn't just about climate change. The problem with the overconsumption of earth's resources still persist. Unless we have a fully cyclical economy, I don't see how we can really decouple growth and the depletion of earth's resources.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't all populations worldwide currently dropping in their reproduction rate already, without government intervention? Nearly all western countries are already way below the maintenance rate of 2.1 already. https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate#the-global-decline...
Is there a fundamental reason for it, or is it just the way it is right now? Because the world is kind of shit right now, and that could be the reason people don't procreate - I, personally, don't want to bring children into the world the way it is right now and the way it is going. The way I see it, as soon as the quality of life grows, people will continue procreating the way they did so far for decades.
It's actually the opposite. As people become better off, they have fewer children, because the near certainty that those children will survive.
In developed and egalitarian countries, women frequently delay having children until it is too late. Particularly the very educated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Right now wind and solar have dropped so much in price that they represent a serious threat to fossil fuels on a short time frame. I recommend sitting down and calculating the input cost for solar / wind. It's being subsidized substantially. There aren't even enough materials currently mined to support the US switching to mostly (>50%) solar / wind. Silver/gold/copper/nickle prices would go up an order of magnitude…
Have you calculated the costs of nuclear without government subsidies? As best I understand, it’s completely unsupportable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Degrowth doesn't imply that. You imply that population will increase indefinitely (max peak expected at 12 billion actually) or that degrowth needs to happen forever. Further you imply population development increases if degrowth is applies. Also, slippery slope argument.
> You imply that population will increase indefinitely You imply that it won't. I don't see a fundamental reason why humans would stop at 8 billion - yeah, currently, (my hypothesis is that) the world is kind of shit, so people stopped procreating due to stress. However, there's no reason to think that people won't procreate once the world becomes a better place to live. > or that degrowth needs to happen forever Ass…
> You imply that it won't.
> I don't see a fundamental reason why humans would stop at 8 billion
This is not a guess based on how we subjectively feel about the world, but the current UN estimate, based on a lot of data.
"By 2100, the global fertility rate is expected to dip to 1.9 births per woman", so below the replacement rate, which is slightly above 2.0.
https://www.livescience.com/65732-world-population-will-stop...
https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world...
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds-popu...
Unfortunately, a lot of climate activists’ primary goal is not stopping climate change but rather advocating for degrowth. They are thus vehemently opposed to any solutions that don’t involve massive reductions in consumption. This is not only politically untenable (it is impossible to convince societies to take massive quality-of-life reductions) but also alienates the majority of people from the cause, who might ot…
I am not opposed to any solution that doesn't involve a reduction in consumption. However, I do advocate for degrowth and reduction. Consuming less actually has a lot of net benefits for life. In this regard I think it's good to present some optional ideas and their possible benefits for the average person: * Buying a more modest apartment or house can mean working less or retiring sooner * Close social media account…
Additionally there should be some self-sustainability in community. I wouldn't mind, if apartament was connected to power grid that includes solar panels and batteries owned by this community, which effectively would lower my energy costs.
I also think that many people wouldn't mind owning some affordable space nearby for your activities. Maybe some greenhouse, park or garden, maybe just some basement for small storage space for your online shop, maybe just regular shop or some cafeteria, maybe some workshop or server room, maybe just office, maybe some pool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Degrowth isn't just about climate change. The problem with the overconsumption of earth's resources still persist. Unless we have a fully cyclical economy, I don't see how we can really decouple growth and the depletion of earth's resources.
Source? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon–Ehrlich_wager
Unfortunately, a lot of climate activists’ primary goal is not stopping climate change but rather advocating for degrowth. They are thus vehemently opposed to any solutions that don’t involve massive reductions in consumption. This is not only politically untenable (it is impossible to convince societies to take massive quality-of-life reductions) but also alienates the majority of people from the cause, who might ot…
>(it is impossible to convince societies to take massive quality-of-life reductions) Why do you say degrowth = lower quality of life? Let me give you a simple and practical example: an American living in a suburb takes her gas-guzzler 3-ton SUV to go shopping or to the park, stands in traffic in a 4-lane freeway for one hour. A Dutch living in a suburb takes her bike to go shopping or to the park, rides it through a…
I'll be casting my vote with the skeptics for this one. That said, even if economic activity was fully decoupled from emissions, Earth's environmental problems would remain overwhelming. Biodiversity loss, deforestation, aquifer depletion, desertification, etc. are just as concerning for most people here as rising global temperatures. My inner cynic sees headlines like the above and assumes that A) the writer/publish…
I don't think we should get to sustainability by in effect keeping people poor and restricting what they are allowed to consume. Rather we should get to a sustainable number of human beings allowed to be free, to travel, to have a good life.