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

[ADigitalArtist]

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.

I don't think that first bit is true, at least not here in the US. Life expectancy and quality of life here is decreasing rather than increasing, for the first time in decades. Home ownership has fallen off a cliff. Death due to preventable illness has skyrocketed along with healthcare costs, and as I said, cost of living has quintoupled while wages have remained stagnant.

It's really only smooth sailing for the rich here. No matter what's bills you throw at the general population, it will always be true that the wealthy class will have resource to be less impacted. Which is why you also make efforts to reduce excessive wealth disparity separately.

 

[icehorse]

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.

We're mostly agreed, except the "top down" part of the sentence I highlighted:

Our current economic system has been corrupted. These changes will not happen from the top down. They will only happen if the grassroots movements get big enough and loud enough.

But I do agree with the "precisely dick" part of the sentence

 

[ADigitalArtist]

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:



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.

I agree with you. 'Breed less' is such a silly recommendation with climate concerns in mind when the by far most waste is in countries where birth rates are already low. The biggest problem isn't the number of people, its the amount of resource consumption. It does jack all if you reduce reproduction if it wouldn't significantly impact sustainability.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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.

I agree with you. I have no problem doing my part, and I already live minimalistically conpared to many people in the same economic bracket. However, I don't believe poorer and middle-class people should foot the bulk of the bill for reducing carbon emissions while nothing substantial is done about sources of extremely outsized pollution like private jets, private yachts, insufficient transitioning away from fossil fuel usage (especially for energy production in heavily populated countries), etc.

 

[icehorse]

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.

Yes, rich countries use far, far, far more resources per capita than poor countries. So "the focus" isn't limiting population growth in poor countries. It's ONE focus of many that are necessary. So if a woman in the US has no kids or one kid that will indeed help more than if a woman in India has no kids or one kid.

But we need to encourage ALL women to have fewer kids. And of course that will have consequences that we have to have good strategies for.

 

[exchemist]

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?

Why has the cost of beef gone up so much in Denmark? Is there a carbon tax on it or something? We don't have that in the UK.

 

[Nimos]

I don't think that first bit is true, at least not here in the US. Life expectancy and quality of life here is decreasing rather than increasing, for the first time in decades. Home ownership has fallen off a cliff. Death due to preventable illness has skyrocketed along with healthcare costs, and as I said, cost of living has quintoupled while wages have remained stagnant.

It's really only smooth sailing for the rich here. No matter what's bills you throw at the general population, it will always be true that the wealthy class will have resource to be less impacted. Which is why you also make efforts to reduce excessive wealth disparity separately.

I don't know US economy that well, but I do know that inequality in the US is out of bounds, so it doesn't surprise me all that much. But there is going to be some technological breakthroughs that I think will benefit all, obviously, it depends on whether this has to be extremely profitable, then it probably won't help the poorest.

But if things are as bad in the US as you say, then that is basically what I don't want to happen in Denmark, but if inequality is encouraged here as well, then I don't see why it wouldn't, and to me, that is a wrong way to go, inequality should be reduced as a priority.

This to me is alarming:
The top 1% of American earners now control more wealth than the nation's entire middle class, federal data show. More than one-quarter of all household wealth, 26.5%, belongs to Americans who earn enough money to rank in the top percentile by income, according to Federal Reserve statistics through mid-2023.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Countries choose how to regulate their economies,
be they capitalist or socialist. Socialist countries
can choose to ruin the environment too, & have
so chosen. Profit is the fave boogeyman of liberals,
but it is not the culprit.
Want to protect the environment?
Choose to do so. Blaming profit
is worse than fruitless.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I don't know US economy that well, but I do know that inequality in the US is out of bounds, so it doesn't surprise me all that much. But there is going to be some technological breakthroughs that I think will benefit all, obviously, it depends on whether this has to be extremely profitable, then it probably won't help the poorest.

But if things are as bad in the US as you say, then that is basically what I don't want to happen in Denmark, but if inequality is encouraged here as well, then I don't see why it wouldn't, and to me, that is a wrong way to go, inequality should be reduced as a priority.

This to me is alarming:
The top 1% of American earners now control more wealth than the nation's entire middle class, federal data show. More than one-quarter of all household wealth, 26.5%, belongs to Americans who earn enough money to rank in the top percentile by income, according to Federal Reserve statistics through mid-2023.

Yep. The world in general should be more concerned with the push for wealthy to be able to have infinite money with little to no consequence. I'm all for wealth caps, wealth taxes, wealth redistribution to social support networks, all that jazz.

 

[exchemist]

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

One of the worst distortions in the UK, in my view, is that electricity bills include a surcharge for investment in new grid and renewable generation, whereas gas does not, yet it is gas that creates CO2 emissions. The trouble is that making gas more expensive will penalise most people for home heating, as we do most of that with gas. But this has to be tackled, as at present the incentives drive the wrong behaviour.

 

[Nimos]

Yes, rich countries use far, far, far more resources per capita than poor countries. So "the focus" isn't limiting population growth in poor countries.

Agree, our consumption is through the roof. But as I also said to @Revoltingest im not sure things are done especially efficiently. In Denmark, we do recycling, but hardly any products are designed to be repaired, you buy something and then it breaks because it is bad quality and then you buy a new one. Even if some of these things can be recycled, it is near insanity that the economy is based on this, and the only reason for this, is because companies need to make a profit and if they make too good quality they won't sell their stuff. It is a buy-and-throw-away economy. And I guess that this is the same in all developed countries as it is the same products we use.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Agree, our consumption is through the roof. But as I also said to @Revoltingest im not sure things are done especially efficiently. In Denmark, we do recycling, but hardly any products are designed to be repaired, you buy something and then it breaks because it is bad quality and then you buy a new one. Even if some of these things can be recycled, it is near insanity that the economy is based on this, and the only reason for this, is because companies need to make a profit and if they make too good quality they won't sell their stuff. It is a buy-and-throw-away economy. And I guess that this is the same in all developed countries as it is the same products we use.

We call that planned obsolescence here. Companies work together to make worse products with a poor shelf, that cannot be easily or reliably repaired, to encourage early replacement. It's why it's so true that the market corrects itself to ensure higher quality products is such a myth.

 

[Revoltingest]

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'll state for the record that I oppose seeking
poverty in pursuit of environmental protection.

Why should the focus be on limiting population growth in poor countries when developed ones have a vastly outsized environmental impact?

Poor countries also pollute & degrade the
environment as their populations expand.
So it has been, eg, Africa, S America.

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.

You could argue that continued population
growth in poor countries is acceptable, but
this seems to rest on the assumption that
they'll remain poor. Moreover, they're still
destroying their natural environment by
replacing forests with farm land & development.

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.

There's more at stake than stopping AGW.
I mentioned others, eg, the anthropocene
extinction. I assume that they matter to you
also.

 

[Nimos]

Countries choose how to regulate their economies,
be they capitalist or socialist. Socialist countries
can choose to ruin the environment too, & have
so chosen. Profit is the fave boogeyman of liberals,
but it is not the culprit.
Want to protect the environment?
Choose to do so. Blaming profit
is worse than fruitless.

See the post #31, I mean wouldn't you agree that we live in a society that is all about buying and throwing away? I don't even think I can get my toaster repaired or even remotely economically sensible to get my washing machine fixed should it break, the spare parts and a technician are more expensive than just buying a new one. And that is what I mean, that the environment that we live in, doesn't encourage sensible behavior.

 

[Nimos]

planned obsolescence

Exactly, couldn't remember the word. But to me, this is borderline insanity on an Earth with finite resources and a climate issue.

 

[Revoltingest]

Agree, our consumption is through the roof. But as I also said to @Revoltingest im not sure things are done especially efficiently. In Denmark, we do recycling, but hardly any products are designed to be repaired, you buy something and then it breaks because it is bad quality and then you buy a new one. Even if some of these things can be recycled, it is near insanity that the economy is based on this, and the only reason for this, is because companies need to make a profit and if they make too good quality they won't sell their stuff. It is a buy-and-throw-away economy. And I guess that this is the same in all developed countries as it is the same products we use.

Instead of blaming profit, one could regulate products
such that they approach 100% recyclability. One could
even require longevity & maintainability standards.
We as consumers can also choose to buy durable rather
than throwaway goods. And we can use them longer
before tossing them.

All economic systems operate in an environment
created by society & government. Whether capitalist,
socialist, or communist, each country chooses its
goals & regulations. Not one is inherently more
responsible than they other.

 

[Revoltingest]

See the post #31, I mean wouldn't you agree that we live in a society that is all about buying and throwing away?

I largely agree with that.

I don't even think I can get my toaster repaired or even remotely economically sensible to get my washing machine fixed should it break, the spare parts and a technician are more expensive than just buying a new one.

That can actually be more efficient than designing
repairable small appliances, & having an infrastructure
to repair them. The key would be making them all
100% recyclable.

And that is what I mean, that the environment that we live in, doesn't encourage sensible behavior.

We improve the environment
without giving up profit.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

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?

One of the problems with waiting so long to address climate change in any meaningful way is that it will inevitably force us to change and adapt in ways we may not enjoy.

But people love kicking that climate change can.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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 find sincerity of the urgency of the matter must be through leading by example.

If they are not compelled to lead by example, neither am I.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd rather that humans be fewer than all poor.
The Mark Of Gideon is an unappealing future.
(#16, 3rd season of STTOS for the unfamiliar)