"Things are tough right now. And as the saying goes, ‘when the going gets tough, quit doing the hard stuff and just cling to what kind of worked in the past.'"
This is a third world-focused paper, in a development studies (as in “developing nation”) journal. It’s basically talking about what I described in the last paragraph - everyone gets to live in Mainstreet, India, and nobody in Mainstreet, USA.
It would, indeed, involve everyone getting medically adequate nutrition, education, a flush toilet and an internet connection, which is how they’re defining “decent standard of living”. Specifically, see table 1.
You could argue this is worth it, and that argument wouldn’t be crazy. But, it’s not a higher standard of living for the average Lemmy user.
Yeah possibly. Only one phone and one tablet or laptop per person, no PC battlestation :(
But I would argue it still does mean more luxury in the developed world for one simple reason: The biggest luxury in life is time. But if you only use 30% resources and energy, you can probably cut working hours / employment to something like half.
That is not just lazing about, it’s being able to read and learn, to raise your children without having to work, to be relaxed about the future and the economic outlook. Just looking at how children are raised and educated today vs 50 years ago, quality of life has drastically sunk. Gadgets and multiple cars are not all there is to quality of life. There are those comparisons to medical servs who only worked 20 hours a week.
But the larger point is to show the sheer scale and enormity it would take to really address climate change. Banning most meat production would be simple (but hard) because people can just eat potatoes. But most of the rest is hard. It will not be achieved by a carbon tax.
No PC battlestation, and a family of four living in 650 sqft. It might not be the kind of phone you’re thinking of, either, since dumb phones still have a following in poor countries. But sure, you can still live a happy life that way.
It will not be achieved by a carbon tax.
I mean, if aliens invaded and forced us to put on a $1,000,000 per tonne carbon tax, fossil fuel burning would stop pretty entirely. IIRC the economic response to the carbon taxes we’ve had has been pretty much as expected.
That’s not unusual though in EU or Korea or Japan I figure. I grew up in 500 ft².
And I think the idea is that you can still afford more luxuries, and that this would only be the start, what we could do with current tech and production capabilities and equal distribution.
How much growth is required to achieve good lives for all? Insights from needs-based analysis - ScienceDirect
This is a third world-focused paper, in a development studies (as in “developing nation”) journal. It’s basically talking about what I described in the last paragraph - everyone gets to live in Mainstreet, India, and nobody in Mainstreet, USA.
It would, indeed, involve everyone getting medically adequate nutrition, education, a flush toilet and an internet connection, which is how they’re defining “decent standard of living”. Specifically, see table 1.
You could argue this is worth it, and that argument wouldn’t be crazy. But, it’s not a higher standard of living for the average Lemmy user.
Yeah possibly. Only one phone and one tablet or laptop per person, no PC battlestation :(
But I would argue it still does mean more luxury in the developed world for one simple reason: The biggest luxury in life is time. But if you only use 30% resources and energy, you can probably cut working hours / employment to something like half.
That is not just lazing about, it’s being able to read and learn, to raise your children without having to work, to be relaxed about the future and the economic outlook. Just looking at how children are raised and educated today vs 50 years ago, quality of life has drastically sunk. Gadgets and multiple cars are not all there is to quality of life. There are those comparisons to medical servs who only worked 20 hours a week.
But the larger point is to show the sheer scale and enormity it would take to really address climate change. Banning most meat production would be simple (but hard) because people can just eat potatoes. But most of the rest is hard. It will not be achieved by a carbon tax.
Basically people are tired of greenwashing.
No PC battlestation, and a family of four living in 650 sqft. It might not be the kind of phone you’re thinking of, either, since dumb phones still have a following in poor countries. But sure, you can still live a happy life that way.
I mean, if aliens invaded and forced us to put on a $1,000,000 per tonne carbon tax, fossil fuel burning would stop pretty entirely. IIRC the economic response to the carbon taxes we’ve had has been pretty much as expected.
That’s not unusual though in EU or Korea or Japan I figure. I grew up in 500 ft².
And I think the idea is that you can still afford more luxuries, and that this would only be the start, what we could do with current tech and production capabilities and equal distribution.