[slothtrop]

> Before the industrial era, the average person in England owned 36 objects.

Life at the advent of the industrial revolution sucked. The Victorian age was also one of high inequality. I'm not sure what that's supposed to inspire.

> inherently unsustainable

What part? You're not addressing that. I did, however: increase in population increases demand for things.

Environmental destruction is scaling with population, not consumer voraciousness.

> “Buy less sh*t” should be the first and most powerful front in our fight against climate change, but it isn’t because we are selfish and gluttonous beasts.

Look at the stuff you have lying around in your domicile. That's somewhere near the average of what people in the West own.

Digital consumption has increased on average, people aren't tripping over things in their ever-shrinking domiciles with ever-shrinking purchasing power owing to stagnant wages.

Not only are you overestimating consumption of "shit", you're failing to make a meaningful connection between consumer habits and lack of sustainability. It's a question of scale.

[burgessaccount]

Of course rising population is at the heart of this. But unless you’re planning to Thanos our way out of the situation, the people in the Western world need to consume less. Less beef, which is hugely polluting. Less sugar, which is toxic and useless. Less paper products. Less air conditioning. And yes, fewer objects. The average American child owns between 70 and 100 toys. The average American woman owns 100+ items of clothing. The average American spends $16,000 on retail items per year. It is too much; it is more than we need. It all takes energy to manufacture, and to ship, and it all ends up in the trash.

[slothtrop]

> But unless you’re planning to Thanos our way out of the situation, the people in the Western world need to consume less.

There are more viable and compassionate solutions to accelerate stagnation of global growth. One is universal access to contraceptives, the other is eliminating global poverty and improving economic stability. This is no less politically viable than coercing Westerners to consume less, and far more effective.

Add to that, our governments *target a growth rate of 3-4% per year through immigration*. That is purely through policy, and the entire point to increase GDP through, you guessed it, consumption. As you well know, our minimum carbon footprints are higher in the West. The minimum. If decimating consumption is such a priority for green advocates, then it should follow that they staunchly oppose increases in immigration rates, and in fact favor reductions. That would actually be consistent with the argument. This is an obvious connection that people coyly dance around. And while it's a separate discussion, many economists agree today that GDP is not a reliable measure of a nation's prosperity and chasing perpetual growth is not required.

> Less beef, which is hugely polluting.

There have been some interesting strides in innovation that reduce methane emissions some 90+% using a fraction of kelp/seaweed in feed, and this may be rolled out as a matter of policy. That would eliminate issues related to methane emissions in a fell swoop, in a way that discouragement of consumption can't touch. It's a ways off, but it doesn't have to be, it's right there.

Land-use, contrary to popular belief, is actually decreasing in the U.S. for cattle in spite of the small uptick in demand growth. However, it has been growing in Brazil, presumably due to the growing Chinese market and they're supplying of soy to just about everyone.

> The average American child owns between 70 and 100 toys.

Citation?

> The average American woman owns 100+ items of clothing.

Citation?

> It is too much; it is more than we need.

There is no metric offered for what is enough / too much. It's entirely arbitrary. And yet, the difference between a perceived low consumption and average consumption, in aggregate, across the population, would not result in a significant change as the environment is concerned, since we all still use power, water, transportation, food, as the most basic form of living. The industry giants are responsible for most destruction. We can pat ourselves on the back for buying fewer material goods but it doesn't put a dent in the problem. Given the approx 36 gigatons of annual emissions, you won't even get down to 35 with a persuasive campaign. You won't even get down to 35.5.

Blaming the consumer is foolhardy. Most problems with regards to energy and waste can be resolved through policy. People want these problems fixed but feel dismayed when most of what they throw in the recycling bin, typically related to food stuffs, ends up at the dump.

Living well means more than mere survival. You don't "need" your little device you use to browse hackernews and your daily caffeinated drink and all the comforts you take for granted, and no one gets to decide for you that you don't need them, in a free country. This is important because blaming consumers will not save the environment, strong policy and innovation will.

[burgessaccount]

You can google all the stats I provided, just like I can google all the no-citation stats you provided.

Yup! I’m a big fan of contraception and options for women. That will probably start to bring the global population down slowly within about a hundred years. But we have less than thirty years to fix the climate problem.

Per-person carbon emissions in the developing world are <1 ton per year. For Europe, China, India its 5-10 tons per year. Which is bad enough. For the United States, it’s TWENTY TONS PER PERSON PER YEAR.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_...

That isn’t because we for some reason have worse power plants or worse ways of making steel. It’s because we eat too much; we drive too much, in cars that are too big; we use too much heat and air-conditioning, in houses that, in spite of what you keep saying, are the largest in the world, and getting bigger every decade (you can google this too). We fly too much, we buy too much, we use too much, we consume more than literally any other people on the planet, and if we don’t stop, we are going to kill everyone, ourselves included.

To put this another way, if every American started living, not even like people in Kenya, but like people in France, that would take 3 gigatons off of global annual emissions. Holy shit.

[slothtrop]

> You can google all the stats I provided

Did, and did not find what you suggested. I did find a 300 dollar figure which just reflects cost, not the number of toys.

> For the United States, it’s TWENTY TONS PER PERSON PER YEAR

As I said: everyone has a higher carbon footprint in the West, mainly owing to infrastructure and industry. The combined consumer spending choices are not what is leading to the extra tonnage.

Here's the breakdown straight from the EPA: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

Industry. Electricity. Transportation. Agriculture. Commercial and Residential COMBINED are just 13%.

Americans are not consuming so much more than Europeans as to generate 10 extra tons of carbon. The average spending reflects it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_household... . Not to mention this doesn't take into account prices, and digital service & goods consumption.

I hope that clears any doubts.

> That isn’t because we for some reason have worse power plants or worse ways of making steel.

The suburban experiment is a North American one, and America is absolutely huge. Infrastructure is vastly more expensive to maintain in NA, and yes there are inefficiencies everywhere. Simply living, having access to water, electricity and food, creates more emissions in America based on location.

Suburbs are money-losers and subsidized by city-centers, despite the taxes on residents there. Sprawled cities are way more wasteful than dense cities, and America is a nation of sprawled cities.

Ultimately, you're dwelling on a red herring. I addressed the primary issue already. Sustainability matters because of scale. If the population were actually stagnant, a) consumption would not lead to increased emissions anywhere, b) we'd actually address the problem. Bullying consumers does not. It's just a race to the bottom.

Sustainability matters because of scaling.