“In 2050, everyone will be carbon literate”(read2050.substack.com)
read2050.substack.com
“In 2050, everyone will be carbon literate”
https://read2050.substack.com/p/matthew-isaacs
101 comments
If we want to go forward we absolutely need to shut these fools down, the only solution proposed to the problem is, you need to be poor. I don't understand how people get on-board with it. From the outside it really looks like a cult to be honest.
Weirdest thing in my opinions is how much of educated people also fall in the scam as well
Weirdest thing in my opinions is how much of educated people also fall in the scam as well
Being poor is not enough. Your government, our government contracts debt to spend on your behalf, about 3x what you earn, and they build airports, wars, industries, city towers, running KPMG audits (probably the most CO2-intensive among all that) with your money.
You can be farming carrots and live like a hermit and still be funding the CO2 industry.
You can be farming carrots and live like a hermit and still be funding the CO2 industry.
Some stuff is truly limited. The other day I learned that China is a net importer of agricultural products and this has been the case for almost 20 years now.
It appears that their one child policy - something that would not fly in the west - prevented a major crisis here.
It appears that their one child policy - something that would not fly in the west - prevented a major crisis here.
After corona was pushed through, and given that the child-per-woman count is already approaching 1 in many western countries, I believe you are wrong. A one child policy could easily be pushed only with the right narrative and public opinion. Just declare big families as a climate disaster (they are) and let everyone know how irresponsible women with more then one child are. Bingo. People have been trained to look down on each other just recently, so use the drive and... outlaw children!
“after corona was pushed through”?
"After corona was used as a testbed", better?
I realize covid-mandates were perceived differently from country to country.
Where I live, we first had a push for a general vaccination mandate, which was later more or less silently abolished because it turned out the promised efficientcy of the vaccines turned out to be not that high, and politicians silent, without explaining why, let the mandate plans slip back into their hiding place. As a result, we have pretty much destroyed any remaining trust in politics and so-called "experts" in the general population.
I realize covid-mandates were perceived differently from country to country.
Where I live, we first had a push for a general vaccination mandate, which was later more or less silently abolished because it turned out the promised efficientcy of the vaccines turned out to be not that high, and politicians silent, without explaining why, let the mandate plans slip back into their hiding place. As a result, we have pretty much destroyed any remaining trust in politics and so-called "experts" in the general population.
You forgot the next step: Encourage mass immigration to fill all the holes your one child policy left.
That alone sounds like an enormous self-defeating ecological disaster, since anybody immigrating from India to USA or from Morocco to France quickly adopts the new, much higher, level of consumption and carbon emission. Nontheless, it is done on a grand scale with very few reservations.
The Swiss ~voted~ proposed a vote on limiting the population number citing carbon emissions. Truth be told the largest groups of immigrants there are Portuguese, Germans and Italians, so if anything it's the other way around considering what kind of energy mix Switzerland has.
That being said I think countries should deal with their population issues on their own instead of relying this heavily on imported workforce.
France was largely successful at keeping their fertility rate only slightly under replacement, so it is possible.
Edit: Can't confirm if the referendum was ultimately scheduled.
That being said I think countries should deal with their population issues on their own instead of relying this heavily on imported workforce.
France was largely successful at keeping their fertility rate only slightly under replacement, so it is possible.
Edit: Can't confirm if the referendum was ultimately scheduled.
Here's a more detailed and brutal article on fake plastic recycling:
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2022-india-plastic-recycl...
It doesn't seem to be paywalled, but just in case:
https://archive.is/O1iGo
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2022-india-plastic-recycl...
It doesn't seem to be paywalled, but just in case:
https://archive.is/O1iGo
That seemed more positive than I expected - i thought it would be something more like this story about recycling being merged straight back to trash flows https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/marketplace-recycling-tracke...
John stossel of ABC claims that 95% of all recyclables go right into the landfill with all the rest of the trash
I think we need to start acting against it as much as we can especially us in tech we bear a big responsibility for borowing our craftsmanship to anti human ideals and cult like herd mentality, this is a very grave issue in my opinion
I would argue this is different in the sense you’ll hardly find alternative for most of the plastic you use, while some can surely drastically reduce their footprint by eating beans instead of steaks, using smaller cars (when car is absolutely required), buying smaller house to heat…
Does europeans drivers are more sad than the American ones ?
Does vegan enjoy less their meal ?
Does Japanese feels poor to live in a 30m2 appartement ?
Hiding behind culture, habits and society is not enough to dumb their responsibility, especially for rich and smart people.
Don’t forget 30 days is often what it gets to form a new habit like dropping beef off your meal.
Does europeans drivers are more sad than the American ones ?
Does vegan enjoy less their meal ?
Does Japanese feels poor to live in a 30m2 appartement ?
Hiding behind culture, habits and society is not enough to dumb their responsibility, especially for rich and smart people.
Don’t forget 30 days is often what it gets to form a new habit like dropping beef off your meal.
I own no car, never have. In exchange for becoming a vegetarian, am I allowed to continue to eat meat in your world? Or do I have to change my lifestyle because a group of bigots is pointing fingers?
You are allowed to do whatever you want. It does nothing for this conversation to frame it like your a haughty teenager. That's your own baggage!
I'm European, have been to the US, and yeah, it's more fun to drive there.
I've been vegan for years and yeah, it was less enjoyable and empirically less healthy for me than the more normal diet I have now.
I have lived in a small flat, and now I own a house, and yeah, the house is better. I can't imagine ever moving back into a flat unless I become impoverished.
The entire movement you propose is simply "be poorer".
I've been vegan for years and yeah, it was less enjoyable and empirically less healthy for me than the more normal diet I have now.
I have lived in a small flat, and now I own a house, and yeah, the house is better. I can't imagine ever moving back into a flat unless I become impoverished.
The entire movement you propose is simply "be poorer".
You share your experience as an (probably rich minority) individual. What about the society you lived in ? How about the society your kids will live in 40 years ?
The movement I describe is “sobriety”. It’s similar to being poor of something (big car) but you’re not lacking it, instead you choose to do without. This difference is a big deal in a psychology point of view and that’s probably why you feel “less fun”.
Totally agree with your point of healthiness of vegan diet, the case was more on quantity than beef/no beef.
The movement I describe is “sobriety”. It’s similar to being poor of something (big car) but you’re not lacking it, instead you choose to do without. This difference is a big deal in a psychology point of view and that’s probably why you feel “less fun”.
Totally agree with your point of healthiness of vegan diet, the case was more on quantity than beef/no beef.
If you call being Western "rich minority", which is technically true, sure.
I grew up poor in the UK. Poor people in the UK generally have houses and cars unless they're in big cities.
The majority of the people in the society I live in drive cars, live in houses and eat meat.
I could choose to do without these things. I don't because like, I don't need to.
Climate change will not be solved by me moving into a tiny flat. It will be solved by the UK figuring out how not to use natural gas to heat my house.
In 40 years my kids will likely own houses and drive cars too. Unless they choose not to. I'd love them regardless, but would be a bit upset if they were to turn out to be far-left extremists.
I grew up poor in the UK. Poor people in the UK generally have houses and cars unless they're in big cities.
The majority of the people in the society I live in drive cars, live in houses and eat meat.
I could choose to do without these things. I don't because like, I don't need to.
Climate change will not be solved by me moving into a tiny flat. It will be solved by the UK figuring out how not to use natural gas to heat my house.
In 40 years my kids will likely own houses and drive cars too. Unless they choose not to. I'd love them regardless, but would be a bit upset if they were to turn out to be far-left extremists.
I sincerely wish the best for your kids, and that includes nice cars and houses.
Figuring out how to heat a country without gaz will be easier when there’s less volume to heat, and energy crisis in EU drive more non-far-left-extremist to see sobriety as an asset within the solution.
From my own country president (and he his quite right/liberal):
> We are living the end of abundance. […] Our system based on freedom in which we have become used to living, sometimes when we need to defend it, it can entail making sacrifices. [0]
[0] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/politics/article/2022/08/24/macron...
Figuring out how to heat a country without gaz will be easier when there’s less volume to heat, and energy crisis in EU drive more non-far-left-extremist to see sobriety as an asset within the solution.
From my own country president (and he his quite right/liberal):
> We are living the end of abundance. […] Our system based on freedom in which we have become used to living, sometimes when we need to defend it, it can entail making sacrifices. [0]
[0] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/politics/article/2022/08/24/macron...
Thank you. I'll just continue to outcompete others, but yeah, probably a lot of people will be poor I guess?
Macron is famously not doing any of this.
Macron is famously not doing any of this.
[deleted]
Well said. Saying "everyone will be carbon literate in 30 years" is as accurate as it would have been predicting back in the the 60s that people now would be "asbestos literate". And just like the asbestos problem was fixed by making it illegal the same thing happens with carbon, of course not 100% of it (unlike asbestos) because that's impossible but close enough, for example it's ridiculous single use plastics are still legal in so many places, it's ridiculous high speed trains are not ubiquious by now, is ridiculous there are so many places where going by car is faster than public transportion, as well as many other laws and infrastructure that are long overdue, nothing to do with making everybodys job to bean-count "their" emissions.
The Establishment knows very well that their target audience, a certain segment of society, is very easy to manipulate through guilt propaganda
> What has a bigger carbon footprint: driving from London to Brighton or eating an eight ounce steak?
Is this really the kind of question you expect people to be asking themselves? Especially if they need to drive from London to Brighton and are really hungry?
Sure, if some kind of governmental oversight rationing your carbon output is introduced, where you must ask yourself these questions or else, then yes. But that would be such a bleak future...
Is this really the kind of question you expect people to be asking themselves? Especially if they need to drive from London to Brighton and are really hungry?
Sure, if some kind of governmental oversight rationing your carbon output is introduced, where you must ask yourself these questions or else, then yes. But that would be such a bleak future...
> Sure, if some kind of governmental oversight rationing your carbon output is introduced, where you must ask yourself these questions or else, then yes. But that would be such a bleak future...
Alternatively the government could just tax carbon emissions and let people make their own decisions about how to spend their money.
Alternatively the government could just tax carbon emissions and let people make their own decisions about how to spend their money.
> Alternatively the government could just tax carbon emissions and let people make their own decisions about how to spend their money.
Then, I am sure, those taxes would just be part of the price tag. Just as tobacco duties are. In which case one wouldn't need to exercise their carbon literacy before buying a product, just as no-one needs to give a thought about tobacco duties before deciding whether to buy a pack of cigarettes.
Then, I am sure, those taxes would just be part of the price tag. Just as tobacco duties are. In which case one wouldn't need to exercise their carbon literacy before buying a product, just as no-one needs to give a thought about tobacco duties before deciding whether to buy a pack of cigarettes.
Yes. That would be better in every way than people developing carbon literacy.
The most charitable reframing I can think of is this:
Which costs more, driving to Brighton or eating a steak?
Almost everyone in the UK could intuit this, they might have to look up the distance.
The thing is that the answer doesn't result in a person choosing one or the other unless they're really, really poor.
On a nice summers' day I might drive to Brighton and then eat a steak whilst I'm there.
Actually, probably I'd get the train so that I can have a few pints. Hey, there's a thought.
Which costs more, driving to Brighton or eating a steak?
Almost everyone in the UK could intuit this, they might have to look up the distance.
The thing is that the answer doesn't result in a person choosing one or the other unless they're really, really poor.
On a nice summers' day I might drive to Brighton and then eat a steak whilst I'm there.
Actually, probably I'd get the train so that I can have a few pints. Hey, there's a thought.
> Actually, probably I'd get the train so that I can have a few pints
Oh, I agree with that; that's very relatable; but then, that's what being poor always has been like — prioritize, economize, save, think about whether you can afford that ride or that dinner... We didn't have to compound those basic arithmetics with an ethical dimension :-)
Oh, I agree with that; that's very relatable; but then, that's what being poor always has been like — prioritize, economize, save, think about whether you can afford that ride or that dinner... We didn't have to compound those basic arithmetics with an ethical dimension :-)
Yeah, that's what too many so-called ecologists tend to forget: if you really want to make the situation better, then you have to push for policies that may be actually accepted and implemented by the general public.
And that means that ecology must be the top priority... just after personal comfort!
And that means that ecology must be the top priority... just after personal comfort!
People need to be carbon literate about as little as they need to be nicotine literate when buying cigarettes. Just like with cigarettes, the only thing we need as a society is to finally freaking price in the negative externalities of releasing carbon into consumer prices, aka carbon tax — just like we managed to do that with cigarettes.
If you still want to eat that $40 steak and can pay up for it, go for it. There's no need to curtail individual freedom when there's a simple and easy solution out there: Just make everyone pay for not just their consumption, but also for the damage it is causing on top. Problem solved.
If you still want to eat that $40 steak and can pay up for it, go for it. There's no need to curtail individual freedom when there's a simple and easy solution out there: Just make everyone pay for not just their consumption, but also for the damage it is causing on top. Problem solved.
> Just make everyone pay for not just their consumption, but also for the damage it is causing on top. Problem solved.
More like problem stated. Determining true ecological impact is not trivial even if you ignore all the perverse incentives.
More like problem stated. Determining true ecological impact is not trivial even if you ignore all the perverse incentives.
Thing is, we wouldn't even need a tax to do that; we'd simply need to cut the exorbitant subsidies that go to meat and dairy production, and put them into foods with a better nutritional value/carbon impact ratio. A litre of dairy milk should simply never be as cheap as a litre of soy milk. The market value does not represent the "true" price to the consumer because of heavy government intervention.
The figure in this study sums it up pretty well, discussing what percentage of money and how much goes into each agricultural sector: https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/blog/meat-and-dairy-gobble...
To be frank, every country's subsidy ratio should look like India's in my eyes.
The figure in this study sums it up pretty well, discussing what percentage of money and how much goes into each agricultural sector: https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/blog/meat-and-dairy-gobble...
To be frank, every country's subsidy ratio should look like India's in my eyes.
Cigarettes are a good example of a cultural paradigm shift that happened quite quickly (at least in the UK, US and Australia). Perhaps younger people don't realise that just a few decades ago cigarettes and cigarette advertising was everywhere.
But it wasn't taxes that squashed cigarettes usage. Cigarettes were already taxed heavily, but that didn't put people off. What squashed it was marginalising it. It was banned from indoor places and many public spaces. They were no longer allowed to advertise, even to the extent that they can't display fancy logos and colours on the boxes. It was essentially stripped of all glamorous elements and was laid bare as the unhealthy, disgusting and archaic habit that it is.
Advertising and marketing are extremely powerful and therefore can be extremely evil. Cigarettes were the most perfectly marketable product of the tobacco industry. The way they looked and felt was so perfectly appealing. It's easy to look back and see the marketing as evil now. What's not so easy is looking forward.
I want to see the same treatment applied to other harmful things. Why are fast food companies allowed to advertise everywhere? Obesity is essentially food addiction. Nobody wants to be obese. They are obese because they are addicted to food. But we still allow fast food advertising everywhere. It's nothing short of exploitative.
Car companies are allowed to market their vehicles as an extension of one's self. So they can produce ridiculously overweight and overpowered vehicles by appealing to the insecure male part of the population with names like "Ram", "Viper" and "Raptor". Large vehicles need to be strictly utilitarian. Need a large vehicle? Fine, but it's going to look like a white box and be called something like "Cargo Master" or maybe just "Van size 2". Also they should be banned from car parks and smaller roads that are designed for cars or smaller vehicles.
But it wasn't taxes that squashed cigarettes usage. Cigarettes were already taxed heavily, but that didn't put people off. What squashed it was marginalising it. It was banned from indoor places and many public spaces. They were no longer allowed to advertise, even to the extent that they can't display fancy logos and colours on the boxes. It was essentially stripped of all glamorous elements and was laid bare as the unhealthy, disgusting and archaic habit that it is.
Advertising and marketing are extremely powerful and therefore can be extremely evil. Cigarettes were the most perfectly marketable product of the tobacco industry. The way they looked and felt was so perfectly appealing. It's easy to look back and see the marketing as evil now. What's not so easy is looking forward.
I want to see the same treatment applied to other harmful things. Why are fast food companies allowed to advertise everywhere? Obesity is essentially food addiction. Nobody wants to be obese. They are obese because they are addicted to food. But we still allow fast food advertising everywhere. It's nothing short of exploitative.
Car companies are allowed to market their vehicles as an extension of one's self. So they can produce ridiculously overweight and overpowered vehicles by appealing to the insecure male part of the population with names like "Ram", "Viper" and "Raptor". Large vehicles need to be strictly utilitarian. Need a large vehicle? Fine, but it's going to look like a white box and be called something like "Cargo Master" or maybe just "Van size 2". Also they should be banned from car parks and smaller roads that are designed for cars or smaller vehicles.
It doesn't really make sense to me to assume that people _don't_ know this already.
I mean, in a vox pop interview sense the average bloke on the street might not.
But I'd just figure - ok, the fuel to drive to Brighton and back is about £15 (and there's a ton of fuel duty on that), a steak is about £5-15 depending on quality, they're probably both about the same order of magnitude on carbon, and splitting hairs further than that doesn't make sense.
If I knew that a steak had 5x the emissions of the drive or vice versa, what would I do differently?
If the idea is that people should sit down and think "do I really need to go to Brighton" or "do I really need to eat that steak", then that's not about a numerical comparison, it's about adopting a lifestyle of ascetism.
edit: looked it up, 1kg of beef is about 50-100kg co2 equiv so a 250g steak is about 12.5-25kg, most cars get about 100g/km so a Brighton round trip is approx 15kg equiv.
With all of the uncertainty involved (probably should include production and maintenance on the car) they're about the same, which is intuitively reasonable.
I mean, in a vox pop interview sense the average bloke on the street might not.
But I'd just figure - ok, the fuel to drive to Brighton and back is about £15 (and there's a ton of fuel duty on that), a steak is about £5-15 depending on quality, they're probably both about the same order of magnitude on carbon, and splitting hairs further than that doesn't make sense.
If I knew that a steak had 5x the emissions of the drive or vice versa, what would I do differently?
If the idea is that people should sit down and think "do I really need to go to Brighton" or "do I really need to eat that steak", then that's not about a numerical comparison, it's about adopting a lifestyle of ascetism.
edit: looked it up, 1kg of beef is about 50-100kg co2 equiv so a 250g steak is about 12.5-25kg, most cars get about 100g/km so a Brighton round trip is approx 15kg equiv.
With all of the uncertainty involved (probably should include production and maintenance on the car) they're about the same, which is intuitively reasonable.
The US military puts more carbon in the atmosphere each year than my entire country. How are individuals (especially citizens of a U.S. vassal state like my own) supposed to impact the global carbon budget?
Just be aware that every time you use a paper straw, you are in fact saving the planet for future generations.
Every time you drink right from the cup you are saving a part of a tree
Drink for though.
Drink for though.
If you drink straight from the dispenser you will save even more trees.
I just chew the raw coffee beans, drink water and hold my face out in the sun.
And you save more by finding a puddle outside...
This argument is used intensively in my country to argue that we have no reason to do anything, as our population of 5 million has no impact on the world. That's fine argument to go down if you want, but then you'll also have to concede that democracy is pointless and you shouldn't partake in it either, given how little impact you have.
As for the US military polluting too much, that's a political issue and the US citizens obligation to fix. If you don't think you should do something because someone else is worse, I'll remind you that there's almost always a bigger fish. The US military pollution itself is a mere fraction of what China's power grid is using, so why should they bother to change anything until China improves it's own power production either?
As for the US military polluting too much, that's a political issue and the US citizens obligation to fix. If you don't think you should do something because someone else is worse, I'll remind you that there's almost always a bigger fish. The US military pollution itself is a mere fraction of what China's power grid is using, so why should they bother to change anything until China improves it's own power production either?
China’s emissions per capita is still about half of the US
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-pe...
You initialized this thread by talking about real numbers and not per capita. US military emissions is what, 1-2% of the US' total emissions? So even if you were to change something about the US' per capita emissions, removing their military entirely would barely move the needle. Why then is it the existence of this military in particular that's the reason your country doesn't need to change?
I get that you don't want to do anything, but you can just choose to do that, you know? You don't need to justify it at all, you have every right to simply do as you wish, at least for the moment.
I get that you don't want to do anything, but you can just choose to do that, you know? You don't need to justify it at all, you have every right to simply do as you wish, at least for the moment.
per capita doesn't matter. Only total matters.
This is such an incredibly arrogant argument.
So that means that my small country of 10 million people is completely free to burn diesel and gasoline and coal as it wishes, but anyone living in China must be severely restricted to only use renewables just because they happen to live in a country with a large population, despite the fact that who put all the current carbon in the atmosphere which is causing the crisis were the small European countries like my own, over more than a century, together with the big brother the USA and its oil thirsty economies? Even today we're still the largest emitters, but feel arrogant enough to tell developing countries they must contribute as much as we do to fix our own freaking mess?! This dumb ass view of the world needs to stop.
So that means that my small country of 10 million people is completely free to burn diesel and gasoline and coal as it wishes, but anyone living in China must be severely restricted to only use renewables just because they happen to live in a country with a large population, despite the fact that who put all the current carbon in the atmosphere which is causing the crisis were the small European countries like my own, over more than a century, together with the big brother the USA and its oil thirsty economies? Even today we're still the largest emitters, but feel arrogant enough to tell developing countries they must contribute as much as we do to fix our own freaking mess?! This dumb ass view of the world needs to stop.
Correct. Green logic is unfair. In order to "prevent the climate crisis" you have to make sure the people of India and China do not reach the same standard of living as those in the West, you have to keep them in the mud. And Belgium can have all the smokestacks it wants. It doesn't matter.
For the environment this is obviously true, but you change the total by treating everyone equally and expecting them to make the same per capita movements. It's not equitable that wealthy small nations have an infinite excuse to do nothing because they can't pollute as much as China if they tried. The citizens of China and India should have to suffer carbon cuts alone because they happen to look like the worst perpetrators when you blob together pollution by countries?
> why should they bother to change anything until China improves it's own power production either?
That one is easy: because the USA (and Europe) have been the ones who pumped nearly all of the carbon that's screwing us up now for the last 100 years or so. If you take the accumulated amount of carbon emissions, I am sure you'll arrive at the conclusion that China must not be blamed for the current crisis (you can only accuse China of not helping solve the mess caused by others - which is valid but something else altogether).
Not to mention that, on a per-capita basis which is what matters when you want to blame people for using too much carbon, China is still much lower than the USA... in fact the USA is off the charts per-capita compared to even the most modern other economies.
That one is easy: because the USA (and Europe) have been the ones who pumped nearly all of the carbon that's screwing us up now for the last 100 years or so. If you take the accumulated amount of carbon emissions, I am sure you'll arrive at the conclusion that China must not be blamed for the current crisis (you can only accuse China of not helping solve the mess caused by others - which is valid but something else altogether).
Not to mention that, on a per-capita basis which is what matters when you want to blame people for using too much carbon, China is still much lower than the USA... in fact the USA is off the charts per-capita compared to even the most modern other economies.
OK, so compare the US military to the US power grid then. It's much smaller, why should the military itself change? It's a nonsense argument used to redirect responsibility.
If you don't want to do anything then don't, as far as I care that's entirely within your rights, just don't justify it by pointing to other people or organizations that are worse then you, because they can inevitably do the same to someone else. I really don't care about people doing nothing to solve an issue, but I certainly won't play defence for people who do nothing about the problem while feeling good about because they pinned it all on someone else. Either work on the problem or move on to something else, listening to you whine about how terrible other people you have no impact on are isn't doing anything for anyone.
If you don't want to do anything then don't, as far as I care that's entirely within your rights, just don't justify it by pointing to other people or organizations that are worse then you, because they can inevitably do the same to someone else. I really don't care about people doing nothing to solve an issue, but I certainly won't play defence for people who do nothing about the problem while feeling good about because they pinned it all on someone else. Either work on the problem or move on to something else, listening to you whine about how terrible other people you have no impact on are isn't doing anything for anyone.
>but then you'll also have to concede that democracy is pointless and you shouldn't partake in it either, given how little impact you have.
That would be a very wise conclusion too, given the sham that modern "represenative" democracy has been...
That would be a very wise conclusion too, given the sham that modern "represenative" democracy has been...
Yes that's true, literally all representative democracies are the same and no political progress has been made anywhere in the world the past few decades. We have seen no advances in equitable social democracies, and gay people are just as oppressed as they've ever been. Access to gender reassignment surgery and abortions? Oh, we've never heard of that. Just don't do anything, it's fine, you literally don't matter!
Whether gay people are opressed or not has little or nothing to do with the success or failure of representative democracy.
There have been entire eras without democracy when being gay was acceptable or even consider just fine (at different city-states in ancient Greece for one). And there have been democracies were gays have been repressed.
All the examples you gave are about small minorities too, which is not the thing that democracy focuses on in the first place. Those more about changing cultural norms and morals, which can then be encoded into policy, with or without a democratic vote. The same things can happen under any sham democracy or even dictatorship. In the latter it can also just be a official decree. For example, as for "access to gender reassignment surgery" you know that has been a thing in Iran for decades, for example, right?
A lot of these policy changes can also be used as a cultural side show (the "culture wars") to mask the lack of democratic policy in areas that affect everybody, and were those in power have actual interests, such as the economy, foreign policy, surveillance, police brutality, jobs, and so on.
There have been entire eras without democracy when being gay was acceptable or even consider just fine (at different city-states in ancient Greece for one). And there have been democracies were gays have been repressed.
All the examples you gave are about small minorities too, which is not the thing that democracy focuses on in the first place. Those more about changing cultural norms and morals, which can then be encoded into policy, with or without a democratic vote. The same things can happen under any sham democracy or even dictatorship. In the latter it can also just be a official decree. For example, as for "access to gender reassignment surgery" you know that has been a thing in Iran for decades, for example, right?
A lot of these policy changes can also be used as a cultural side show (the "culture wars") to mask the lack of democratic policy in areas that affect everybody, and were those in power have actual interests, such as the economy, foreign policy, surveillance, police brutality, jobs, and so on.
>A lot of these policy changes can also be used as a cultural side show (the "culture wars") to mask the lack of democratic policy in areas that affect everybody, and were those in power have actual interests, such as the economy, foreign policy, surveillance, police brutality, jobs, and so on.
I agree with you here. But do you really want to reach for the economy and police systems to justify how ineffective representative democracies have been since their mass adoption over a century ago?
I agree with you here. But do you really want to reach for the economy and police systems to justify how ineffective representative democracies have been since their mass adoption over a century ago?
I think the boost to the economy was orthogonal to them being democracies or no - and has more to do with the industrial revolution and other technological advances (most of which happened before democracy or with "democracy" with voting confined to rich land-owning men - no women, and no poor/middle class folks allowed, no POC either of course).
And in many ways we're in a more police-heavy system today than over a century ago.
And in many ways we're in a more police-heavy system today than over a century ago.
The single raindrop never feel responsible for the flood, but at least they don't have in front of them big players with buckets, hoses, pools, dams and so on getting luxury lives by adding huge amounts of water to the flood for decades.
The contribution of several million people making big sacrifices to reduce their output pales compared with just one of such rich actors.
The contribution of several million people making big sacrifices to reduce their output pales compared with just one of such rich actors.
This is complete nonsense.
1) Carbon accounting is extremely challenging even for teams of experts who dedicate a lot of time and effort to it, and even then the results are often contested.
2) If we're not at net negative carbon emissions by 2050 we're in deep trouble, and no amount of personal piety will fix things.
1) Carbon accounting is extremely challenging even for teams of experts who dedicate a lot of time and effort to it, and even then the results are often contested.
2) If we're not at net negative carbon emissions by 2050 we're in deep trouble, and no amount of personal piety will fix things.
> If we're not at net negative carbon emissions by 2050 we're in deep trouble
That's not a given. Considering we can predict the havoc climate change will wreak, smart people will have adapted in times, while idiots will have been crying around about the world refusing to go back to pre-industrial age.
That's not a given. Considering we can predict the havoc climate change will wreak, smart people will have adapted in times, while idiots will have been crying around about the world refusing to go back to pre-industrial age.
Where carbon literate is defined as "shamed or forced agreeing with my opinions". Sure, I care if eating a steak has a bigger carbon footprint, I'll try to reduce my driving from London to Brighton.. I might even try to think about how to produce steak with less of a carbon footprint, but fuck you I'll go on a rampage before I stop eating steak.
Progress is not about limiting consumption of energy, it's finding better sources of energy. It's not reducing consumption of material, it's exploiting materials better, and finding better materials.
Progress is not about driving shame, guilt and morals into peoples head, it's driving it out and have honest and open discussions.
Progress is not about limiting consumption of energy, it's finding better sources of energy. It's not reducing consumption of material, it's exploiting materials better, and finding better materials.
Progress is not about driving shame, guilt and morals into peoples head, it's driving it out and have honest and open discussions.
[deleted]
Will India and China use this chap's app?
We already have a mechanism for carbon literacy - prices. Price roughly correlates to how much energy something took to produce and, by proxy, carbon required.
That's simply not true at all. Except for a very narrow range of commodities price is very weakly correlated with production costs. The difference between a $10 steak and a $300 steak is not correlated with the energy used to produce either (in fact it may be negatively correlated, as the cheaper steak is likely to come from more industrial agriculture). And even production costs are rarely correlated with energy consumption (only for certain raw materials like aluminium, steel, and those tend to be produced in countries with cheap / subsidised energy).
Perhaps for a $300 dollar steak or a $10,000 pair of socks which I’m sure also exists somewhere , but the exception does not disprove the rule. Price is correlated almost perfectly with the energy it took to create the item for the majority of consumer goods and thus CO2. This is why switching to green energy will not work as your expensive lithium batteries actually took an enormous amount of resources to make and so on. Rising inflation and rising consumer prices are the opposite of what we need.
I'm so glad there are at least a few people who recognize this. Things like electric vehicles only make sense if they have a lower lifetime total cost of ownership than an equivalent ICE alternative.
I don't think that example works. If we analyse the situation holistically it will turn out that a $300 dollar steak does require a lot more resources than a $10 steak. A "$300 steak" is not just about buying the steak, because ultimately it represents the resources then consumed by the people who are providing the steak.
If someone who bought a $300 steak bought a $10 steak, then someone else can't burn as much energy to sustain their lifestyle. Of course, the energy would be reallocated to someone else - but at the end of the day we do get a rough proxy of where the energy is going from the price of things.
It is something of a tautology. Prices represent resource allocation, and the major resource we have is energy which comes from fossil fuel. Prices all but have to reflect where the energy goes.
If someone who bought a $300 steak bought a $10 steak, then someone else can't burn as much energy to sustain their lifestyle. Of course, the energy would be reallocated to someone else - but at the end of the day we do get a rough proxy of where the energy is going from the price of things.
It is something of a tautology. Prices represent resource allocation, and the major resource we have is energy which comes from fossil fuel. Prices all but have to reflect where the energy goes.
100% agree. Way too much time is spent fretting about and trying to micro-calculate carbon "costs", when dollar cost is an excellent first approximation.
In 1950 we expected to get, and use, most of our energy from space.
In 2020 we expect our 2050 fellows to be bean counting.
How is that solar shade coming along?
In 2020 we expect our 2050 fellows to be bean counting.
How is that solar shade coming along?
Hah, but we sure are showing those medieval bumpkins how self-flaying is done.
Take that, sinful consumption!
Take that, sinful consumption!
I'm firmly in the "energy from space" (just not via death ray) camp, but I acknowledge the fact that there's more than three times as many of us today comparing to 1950 and that produces additional problems.
Case in point: air conditioning in cities. One would think that with enough units and energy everyone would be comfortable.
But what about those who are outside? They get blasted with all that heat. We could build pipes or enormous fans to transfer it out, but that is also not ideal.
Ultimately where there's energy, there's also waste energy and too much of it in one place is bad, so it makes sense to use less of it for the sake of avoiding such issues.
Case in point: air conditioning in cities. One would think that with enough units and energy everyone would be comfortable.
But what about those who are outside? They get blasted with all that heat. We could build pipes or enormous fans to transfer it out, but that is also not ideal.
Ultimately where there's energy, there's also waste energy and too much of it in one place is bad, so it makes sense to use less of it for the sake of avoiding such issues.
This view is a combination of technical pessimism and unjustified moral optimism: we are not going to have the energy and the technology to do climate engineering, but we will have overcome the tragedy of the commons through individual awareness. Planetary engineering and government coercion (even including Western nations forcing Asia to decarbonize) are more likely outcomes than people voluntarily internalizing their externalities.
(All of this probably assumes too much business as usual in 2050. It looks increasingly unlikely we will get there without inventing recursively self-improving artificial intelligence, abandoning the pre-AI course of history.)
(All of this probably assumes too much business as usual in 2050. It looks increasingly unlikely we will get there without inventing recursively self-improving artificial intelligence, abandoning the pre-AI course of history.)
Yes, I can't imagine that billions of citizens of China and India are going to signal the same amount of economic virtue as EU and USA currently does.
In additions, the recent revelations about how USA's ecological norms led to ever larger, power- and fuel-hungry vehicles effectively multiplies the USA's claims of ecological awareness by zero.
In additions, the recent revelations about how USA's ecological norms led to ever larger, power- and fuel-hungry vehicles effectively multiplies the USA's claims of ecological awareness by zero.
Why is this post allowed here (it requires a paid subscription to read)?
Future generations shall look back upon this one with shame and humiliation for our waste of the world, the ignorant confused corruptible treachery, and conceit.
Inevitably humanity will settle back down into a sustainable consumer cycle that does not squander virgin materials or wrappings which persist beyond the consumer’s lifetime. Perhaps when they are made to.
In the meanwhile, too big to fail, we lumber on. Plundering what remains unguarded by modern complicity.
Use what you need, don’t be a waste.
Inevitably humanity will settle back down into a sustainable consumer cycle that does not squander virgin materials or wrappings which persist beyond the consumer’s lifetime. Perhaps when they are made to.
In the meanwhile, too big to fail, we lumber on. Plundering what remains unguarded by modern complicity.
Use what you need, don’t be a waste.
The climate change movement is the worst of humanity. They hate humans, and everything about it is self-hatred spilling out in destructive ways.
CO2 is the least worrying chemical we release into the air. From environmental point of view, plants prefer higher CO2, and rising CO2 is actually likely to do more good than harm to ecosystems.
It's not out of love to nature that this climate movement is driven, it is out of hatred to other fellow humans. If the environment was really the main concern, CO2 wouldn't be viewed as a negative. If humans were the main concern, the movement wouldn't do so much harm to humans and consistently suggest depopulation. The only conclusion is that the true motive behind it is human hatred.
The same elite hatred of the common people. The hatred that they must have to live without being ashamed for their actions and lack of compassion.
CO2 is the least worrying chemical we release into the air. From environmental point of view, plants prefer higher CO2, and rising CO2 is actually likely to do more good than harm to ecosystems.
It's not out of love to nature that this climate movement is driven, it is out of hatred to other fellow humans. If the environment was really the main concern, CO2 wouldn't be viewed as a negative. If humans were the main concern, the movement wouldn't do so much harm to humans and consistently suggest depopulation. The only conclusion is that the true motive behind it is human hatred.
The same elite hatred of the common people. The hatred that they must have to live without being ashamed for their actions and lack of compassion.
The earth and life in general will be perfectly fine with elevated CO2 and temperatures.
The reason we care about CO2 really is for our own long term comfort. Humanity as a specie will be fine too, but the people who will have to live through the consequence of climate change certainly won't enjoy that. Depopulation, for its supporters, is just a way to achieve the inevitable in a way that is not as bad as through famine and war for limited resources.
The reason we care about CO2 really is for our own long term comfort. Humanity as a specie will be fine too, but the people who will have to live through the consequence of climate change certainly won't enjoy that. Depopulation, for its supporters, is just a way to achieve the inevitable in a way that is not as bad as through famine and war for limited resources.
[deleted]
There are two things at play here: one is the very real, very negative impact that humanity (as a whole) is having on the environment. Two is the corporate/media machine trying extremely hard to divert attention away from themselves, and put the onus on individual people.
Make sure you put that plastic bottle in the recycling (never mind that the vast majority of it isn't going to be recycled anyway). Oh, ignore those new coal power plants, ignore us restricting green investments, ignore us lobbying to keep fossil fuels around for longer.
The climate change movement is good for humanity. Corporate media are, and have always been, trying to co-opt it.
Make sure you put that plastic bottle in the recycling (never mind that the vast majority of it isn't going to be recycled anyway). Oh, ignore those new coal power plants, ignore us restricting green investments, ignore us lobbying to keep fossil fuels around for longer.
The climate change movement is good for humanity. Corporate media are, and have always been, trying to co-opt it.
>plants prefer higher CO2
Correct.
>rising CO2 is actually likely to do more good than harm to ecosystems.
Incorrect. There's many cases where this clearly outweights the benefits, such as the acidification of the ocean, but also general disruptions of the ecosystems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_Coalition
Correct.
>rising CO2 is actually likely to do more good than harm to ecosystems.
Incorrect. There's many cases where this clearly outweights the benefits, such as the acidification of the ocean, but also general disruptions of the ecosystems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_Coalition
It's called CO2 fertilization and it has already had a positive impact on the amount of green plant matter on the planet.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fer...
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fer...
Agreed
About time hacker news woke up to this. Good post man
Unfortunately we bear a big responsibility as engineers as we let them use us for so long building insane amount of wealth on our back and now they are turning against the little and the poor which Hatever half-truths they can find, could be climate change could be something else
Unfortunately most engineers will only care about themselves and remain gleefully ignorant. If they can break and control the poor they can then outnumber the engineers and others they can’t yet control or destroy. We need to make these engineers insecure about their world view and future.
Yes that what's needs to happen, they take comfort into herd mentality and hope the future will be good because the follow the cult.
But nothing will save them, the revolution eats it's own child every time
The target population for climate change propaganda is the same segment of society that has been targeted since they've been very young in school with propaganda, another type of propaganda but but still yet guilt propaganda.. so they've been set up since youth to see themselves as evil, so therefore the climate change propaganda which is guilt propaganda it's right into their psyche which is already been shaped since youth by elite propaganda in school
> What has a bigger carbon footprint: driving from London to Brighton or eating an eight ounce steak?
The answer the author expects is eating steak, because growing 1kg of beef makes the most carbon footprint in comparison to 1kg of other meats. But counting beef footprint in that way is not fair because most beef on the market had provided milk for some time before getting to market as meat.
The answer the author expects is eating steak, because growing 1kg of beef makes the most carbon footprint in comparison to 1kg of other meats. But counting beef footprint in that way is not fair because most beef on the market had provided milk for some time before getting to market as meat.
That’s not true, most beef comes from beef cows, which are slaughtered around 2 years. Milk cows are much different breeds and the females are kept around for up to 10 years. They might be eaten after that, but they don’t produce nice steaks.
> most beef on the market has provided milk
Where did you get this data ? In my own experience this is not the case and a quick search seems to show the opposite [0] :
> 21 percent of the commercial beef supply in the US comes from dairy cows.
[0] https://foodprint.org/blog/eating-dairy-cow-meat/
Where did you get this data ? In my own experience this is not the case and a quick search seems to show the opposite [0] :
> 21 percent of the commercial beef supply in the US comes from dairy cows.
[0] https://foodprint.org/blog/eating-dairy-cow-meat/
Depends on the region. In my country beef comes largely from dairy cows, because it would be too expensive otherwise. It's pretty chewy, hence not particularly popular.
That being said cows are grown for meat here - just not for domestic consumption.
That being said cows are grown for meat here - just not for domestic consumption.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/the-passionate-eye/recyclin...