To save the climate we all have to be poor!!

[Nimos]

So in Denmark, the price of certain products has gone up because we have to save the climate. So for instance the price of ground/beef veal commonly eaten here has gone through the roof and almost doubled in the last 1 or 1.5 years, which makes it kind of absurd to buy now unless it's on a sale.

Obviously, this has resulted in people with low-income buying less of it, yet a study was made showing that people on the higher end buy 3 times as much beef as others.

What annoys me, is whenever politicians have to solve something, 99% of the time this means something has to cost more, that must be the number 1 way to solve issues today. What bothers me is that doing this always affects the poorest in the country and they are the ones ending up paying the price. Those with lots of money couldn't care less whether they have to pay more for these things anyway.

I'm a person who is in support of equality and believes that inequality is one of the key factors in why societies might fail. So these things bother me because they create indirect inequality. And it makes it feel like it is the poorest people on Earth that essentially have to pay for saving the climate with their living standard.

Do you have the same impression in the country you live it?

 

[Altfish]

I don't know what is happening in Denmark, but...

Why do we have to be poor?
There are exciting new technologies to be worked on, built, developed.
There are many problems, cars are a significant one, the populations' love affair with them means that electric cars are seen as an answer, they are not.
In the UK aviation fuel's tax has been frozen whilst train fairs go up at least in line with inflation. Road schemes are promoted ahead of rail schemes.
Our PM uses private jets and helicopters

 

[fantome profane]

I'm doing my part.

 

[Nimos]

Why do we have to be poor?

Because all these increases in prices change the behavior of poor people as a result, the rich don't care.

If you have a person who makes 3 money and one that makes 6 money. Each spends 1 money to feed their family, if the price suddenly goes to 2 money, then it will greatly affect the first person, the second one, doesn't care.

I agree that there are many other issues, but when you add them all together, this is not only in regards to everyday products, its gas prices, electrical bills etc. These small increases just impact people with less money a lot more than those with lots.

My point is, that we can't save the climate if the strategy is to make the poorest pay the price. We need global solutions that can make sure that human living standards are constantly improved and inequality is reduced at the same time.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Or: to save the poor, we all have to save the planet.

 

[icehorse]

Such an important topic! Perhaps THE most important topic in the world.

Humans are living in ways that the planet cannot sustain. The technical term for this is: ecological overshoot.

So, we ALL have to change our ways, and yes if we're not careful it will hit poor people harder than it hits financially secure people.

Your example of beef prices is a good one. In most affluent countries, the cost of beef is HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED and has been for decades. If we were to remove all the subsidies associated with making beef, the cost would jump to maybe $50 /pound. Now in the short term, you're also correct that the affluent would whine about this, but their beef consumption wouldn't go down much. So removing subsidies - by itself - would mostly impact the poor. Not a good solution!

We somehow have to get the word out that we're ALL in this together. We're all going to experience the collapse of civilization really soon if we don't do a massive course correction. The rich might think that their wealth can save them, but it won't save them for long.

 

[Revoltingest]

Too many people means that resource scarcity
drives up all costs...food, housing, labor, goods.
It will inexorably get get worse. Carping about
the wealthy solves nothing.

 

[icehorse]

Too many people means that resource scarcity
drives up all costs...food, housing, labor, goods.
It will inexorably get get worse. Carping about
the wealthy solves nothing.

Wow, if I understand your post, this is something we agree on! yikes!

The people who focus on ecological overshoot or just overshoot, agree that we need to stop making so many babies. The earth cannot sustain 8 billion people. We also know that one of the best ways to limit population growth is to educate women and girls in poor countries.

Here's a crazy idea: If a woman reaches menopause without having any kids, she should get a huge retirement bonus - like $500,000. And if she reaches menopause having had only one kid, she'd get $250,000.

 

[Revoltingest]

Wow, if I understand your post, this is something we agree on! yikes!

I must be in error, eh.

The people who focus on ecological overshoot or just overshoot, agree that we need to stop making so many babies. The earth cannot sustain 8 billion people. We also know that one of the best ways to limit population growth is to educate women and girls in poor countries.

The Earth can sustain well over 8 billion people.
But it will mean degradation of....quality of life,
environmental losses, AGW, the anthropocene
extinction, pollution, economic woe, population
displacement, & conflicts over resources.

Is humanity better off by having another 4
billion people? Or should we preserve the
diversity of life & natural environment we
have left?

Here's a crazy idea: If a woman reaches menopause without having any kids, she should get a huge retirement bonus - like $500,000. And if she reaches menopause having had only one kid, she'd get $250,000.

Racist!

I'm just heading off the inevitable response.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Usually things like paper straws, can bags and tax on high carbon footprint products (such as beef, the most climate impacting farming by far) makes low and middle feel like they're doing something productive while businesses get to shift blame onto consumers.

But until there is serious industry level change, which is run top down not bottom up, how much individuals 'do their part' means precisely dick to the seriousness of the climate crisis. Buyers will never waste as much food as supermarkets do, for instance. Commercial sectors use far more energy than residential. Commercial shipping has a much higher impact than personal travel.

Cattle farming is seriously bad for the environment in the yield it's being done. But part of the reason it's so high yield is because of supermarket waste. You could go buy direct from local farms, take out the middleman and ensure less of the meat is wasted, thus need less meat overall. But the supermarkets still exist and are still inherently wasteful, so excess cattlefarms will exist with all their associated impacts. And because food wastelands exist, it's all some people can do.

 

[Nimos]

Such an important topic! Perhaps THE most important topic in the world.

Humans are living in ways that the planet cannot sustain. The technical term for this is: ecological overshoot.

So, we ALL have to change our ways, and yes if we're not careful it will hit poor people harder than it hits financially secure people.

Your example of beef prices is a good one. In most affluent countries, the cost of beef is HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED and has been for decades. If we were to remove all the subsidies associated with making beef, the cost would jump to maybe $50 /pound. Now in the short term, you're also correct that the affluent would whine about this, but their beef consumption wouldn't go down much. So removing subsidies - by itself - would mostly impact the poor. Not a good solution!

We somehow have to get the word out that we're ALL in this together. We're all going to experience the collapse of civilization really soon if we don't do a massive course correction. The rich might think that their wealth can save them, but it won't save them for long.

I agree with you that we all have to do something. But the way we do it now just isn't sustainable as I see it, because whatever governments do now, whether that is to throw the bill on those producing the products, it ultimately ends up with the consumer having to pay the price, the industry isn't going to do it. So sustainable solutions need to be the main focus because these small changes in prices are occurring all over.

As a comparison for those living in the US:
1 gallon of gas in the US = 3,28$
1 gallon of gas in DK = 10,1$ (That is the cheapest one)

Prices like this affect the poorest ones a lot more, obviously also because they are taxed like crazy here as everything else is.

The issue is not so much a specific product, it's when you add all the small things together. But obviously, we should aim for a society that doesn't collapse where every single human gets out on top. But on our way there, we can't rely on the poorest having to carry everything. And if studies like these, show that whatever the politicians are doing, only affects those that are forced to do something, clearly something isn't working. They are merely increasing inequality which eventually will **** off people, rather than dealing with the real issues. Why should poor people care about saving the environment if they are paying with their living standards, while others don't?

 

[Nimos]

The Earth can sustain well over 8 billion people.
But it will mean degradation of....quality of life,

Maybe, I think it is extremely difficult to say because I also don't get the impression that the majority of things we do today are done to be smart or to solve an issue, as much as it is to simply make a profit. And if the main purpose is to generate profit, then making something sustainable might not be a priority or even considered worth investing in, if it doesn't instantly return on the investment.

 

[sayak83]

So in Denmark, the price of certain products has gone up because we have to save the climate. So for instance the price of ground/beef veal commonly eaten here has gone through the roof and almost doubled in the last 1 or 1.5 years, which makes it kind of absurd to buy now unless it's on a sale.

Obviously, this has resulted in people with low-income buying less of it, yet a study was made showing that people on the higher end buy 3 times as much beef as others.

What annoys me, is whenever politicians have to solve something, 99% of the time this means something has to cost more, that must be the number 1 way to solve issues today. What bothers me is that doing this always affects the poorest in the country and they are the ones ending up paying the price. Those with lots of money couldn't care less whether they have to pay more for these things anyway.

I'm a person who is in support of equality and believes that inequality is one of the key factors in why societies might fail. So these things bother me because they create indirect inequality. And it makes it feel like it is the poorest people on Earth that essentially have to pay for saving the climate with their living standard.

Do you have the same impression in the country you live it?

I am not sure that the poor should eat beef. Instead, govt may provide the poor with subsidized fresh leafy and veg food that is healthier and more sustainable. Beef should be a luxury food.

 

[Nimos]

But until there is serious industry level change, which is run top down not bottom up, how much individuals 'do their part' means precisely dick to the seriousness of the climate crisis. Buyers will never waste as much food as supermarkets do, for instance. Commercial sectors use far more energy than residential. Commercial shipping has a much higher impact than personal travel.

I completely agree.

Also, this is a very Danish thing, where there is a feeling that we have to save the Earth, or that we are extremely important in the global scene. Despite the whole of our population is barely 6 million, yet our politicians behave as if we were freaking the size of India or China. We count as a town in those countries

And im obviously not against doing something, but to solve these issues, it has to be done on a global scale.

 

[Nimos]

I am not sure that the poor should eat beef. Instead, govt may provide the poor with subsidized fresh leafy and veg food that is healthier and more sustainable. Beef should be a luxury food.

Clearly, Denmark is a rich country, when you say poor, these are completely out of the category. Im talking young parents, single parents, the elderly, probably what you could call the lower middle class.

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe, I think it is extremely difficult to say because I also don't get the impression that the majority of things we do today are done to be smart or to solve an issue, as much as it is to simply make a profit.

2 things that aren't going away.....
- Stupidity of people.
- Profit seeking.

And if the main purpose is to generate profit, then making something sustainable might not be a priority or even considered worth investing in, if it doesn't instantly return on the investment.

Doing away with profit is no cure.
Environmental degradation & waste
were endemic in the USSR & China.

Treating our environment such that it benefits
us is a goal served best by making that the goal.
Pursuing other goals, hoping for incidental
unproven benefit is doomed to failure.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I am not sure that the poor should eat beef. Instead, govt may provide the poor with subsidized fresh leafy and veg food that is healthier and more sustainable. Beef should be a luxury food.

I actually think there's an interesting and complicated discussion to be had about how millenials and gen z, who feel like the system is so against them they will never have as much luxury as their parents at their age did, are turning to other luxury items and habits they can have. Maximilian decoration, beef and non-local, environmentally wasteful vegetables like avocados and almonds, gaming and technology at much higher rates, etc etc. Meanwhile their parents are berating them with the myth that if they didn't have these luxury items it would somehow make up for the gap between cost of living and wages quintoupling, so a little luxury is all they have. To quote Fiddler on the Roof "Even a poor tailor is entitled to some happiness."

But that's another thread. I agree with you, by the by. The world in a global sense would be better off with far less beef production. Even if we're still left with all the problems of egregious wealth disparity to solve.

 

[Nimos]

2 things that aren't going away.....
- Stupidity of people.
- Profit seeking.

Doing away with profit is no cure.
Environmental degradation & waste
were endemic in the USSR & China.

Treating our environment such that it benefits
us is a goal served best by making that the goal.
Pursuing other goals, hoping for incidental
unproven benefit is doomed to failure.

I don't know if it's fair to call it stupidity if people are doing things that make sense in the environment they are in. If profit is what makes sense in that environment then that is what you seek, which can result in what appears to be stupidity. For instance, polluting a river with waste, cutting down all trees, or burning down huge amounts of forest for short-term farming.

If we imagine that efficiency and sustainability were the goal in a global society, then "stupidity" would probably also decline, because profit is not what is encouraged. And that is why I think it is so difficult to say how many people Earth could sustain. Even today the wealth distribution is extremely unequal and one could also question whether the wealth we have is being used in an optimized way, I guess that a lot of brilliant humans especially in the poorest countries are simply lost due to lack of resources (poverty).

 

[Nimos]

I actually think there's an interesting and complicated discussion to be had about how millenials and gen z, who feel like the system is so against them they will never have as much luxury as their parents at their age did, are turning to other luxury items and habits they can have. Maximilian decoration, beef and non-local, environmentally wasteful vegetables like avocados and almonds, gaming and technology at much higher rates, etc etc. Meanwhile their parents are berating them with the myth that if they didn't have these luxury items it would somehow make up for the gap between cost of living and wages quintoupling, so a little luxury is all they have. To quote Fiddler on the Roof "Even a poor tailor is entitled to some happiness."

But that's another thread. I agree with you, by the by. The world in a global sense would be better off with far less beef production. Even if we're still left with all the problems of egregious wealth disparity to solve.

The majority of the next generation will live better than we have unless something catastrophic happens. But the point is not, particularly about beef, I have no issue reducing the amount of beef being consumed. Simply you can't keep throwing the bill/Impact of all these changes to the poorest in society.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Too many people means that resource scarcity
drives up all costs...food, housing, labor, goods.
It will inexorably get get worse. Carping about
the wealthy solves nothing.

Wow, if I understand your post, this is something we agree on! yikes!

The people who focus on ecological overshoot or just overshoot, agree that we need to stop making so many babies. The earth cannot sustain 8 billion people. We also know that one of the best ways to limit population growth is to educate women and girls in poor countries.

Here's a crazy idea: If a woman reaches menopause without having any kids, she should get a huge retirement bonus - like $500,000. And if she reaches menopause having had only one kid, she'd get $250,000.

I responded to the point about "overpopulation" in poorer countries before, which, save for oil-producing ones like Iran, have drastically lower per-capita carbon emissions than developed ones:

I voted "It's one of our most pressing issues," but I don't think saying that "humans as a species" are ecogically overshooting is accurate considering that hundreds of millions of people are living in significant poverty and have a minute ecological impact compared to far fewer but wealthier people. There's extreme inequality in environmental impact between different countries and different income groups within the same countries:

If the top 10% of emitters globally maintain their current emissions levels from now onwards, they alone will exceed the remaining carbon budget in the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario by the year 2046. In other words, substantial and rapid action by the richest 10% is essential to decarbonise fast enough to keep 1.5°C warming in sight.

The world’s top 1% of emitters produce over 1000 times more CO2 than the bottom 1% – Analysis - IEA

The world’s top 1% of emitters produce over 1000 times more CO2 than the bottom 1% - A commentary by Laura Cozzi, Olivia Chen, Hyeji Kim

www.iea.org

Global inequalities in CO2 emissions by income group​

The average person in high-income countries emits more than 30 times as much as those in low-income countries.

Another way to present per capita emissions, is to compare a country or region’s share of global emissions, to its share of the population.
In the chart we see both metrics across the four World Bank income groups. This is based on the income level of the country – it does not account for inequalities in emissions within countries, which can be just as large as differences between them.1

In an equal world, each group’s emissions share would match its population share.
Instead, we see that high- and upper-middle income countries account for a much larger share of emissions than their population. Despite being home to just under half of the world population, they emit more than 80% of world’s CO2.

For lower-middle and low-income countries, it’s the opposite. The bottom half emit less than 20%. And the poorest countries emit less than 1%.

Global inequalities in CO2 emissions

There are massive differences in emissions across the world. How do income groups and regions compare?

ourworldindata.org

Overconsumption and the disproportionate environmental impact of some countries and income groups are inseparable from the questions of whether "humans as a species" are causing ecological overshoot and whether there's "overpopulation" as opposed to overconsumption. According to the available data, I think overconsumption is the greatest contributor to ecological overshoot and climate change, especially given the vastly outsized impact of wealthier nations and individuals that is exponentially more influential than that of poorer nations and individuals (although there are steps that many nations and individuals can take to reduce their own ecological footprint regardless of where they are or what their income group is, of course).

Why should the focus be on limiting population growth in poor countries when developed ones have a vastly outsized environmental impact? Even if Africa's birth rates were halved tomorrow, for example, the climate crisis would still be ongoing largely due to industrial and developed nations' overconsumption, high per-capita carbon footprints, and high ecological impact.

If there's evidence I'm missing that shows that poor countries are significant contributors to climate change or resource depletion compared to developed ones and therefore should focus on limiting population growth, I would like to see it.