[esotericn]

You might be joking, but I think that really is what we need, globally. An example could be - I should go to the supermarket, and just not be able to buy anything outside of a tight range of 'sustainability per nutrition'. Not rice and beans, but ridiculous offenders like say, fruit with air miles could be right out.

The idea that it'd be somehow terrible for this to happen baffles me.

Why couldn't it be more like WWI/WWII but without the explicit killing involved?

We are at war, and we need a war effort.

[NikkiA]

> fruit with air miles

So put a couple of billion farmers in developing nations out of work?

It's going to be complex and messy either way, I guess.

[esotericn]

Yeah, because their harvest failing is going to be much better.

Anything that changes ever puts someone "out of work" temporarily until they figure out another way to make a living.

There's probably a name for this sort of 'but jobs' thinking. It feels like some variant of broken window fallacy. If your job is dependent on enormous negative externalities, then yeah, it's probably not sustainable, and someday it won't exist any more.

[netsharc]

It's tragic, for example the German government is weak on environment because, well, VW (including Audi and Porsche), BMW, Mercedes, and their many suppliers. They're afraid of manufacturers having to lay off workers...