[qsort]

It frankly still is a stretch to claim that living conditions would revert to even just 1950s levels if we reduced emissions to a sustainable level. Again, most of those improvements have been in real terms. We are simply more productive.

[bryanrasmussen]

the analogy of course assumes that there are a bunch of different problems that will come to the family when the cops, the IRS, the electric company, and their bank all come to talk to them at once.

Just as it is generally claimed by scientists that there are a bunch of different problems coming to humanity when ecosystems collapse, temperatures rise by 1.5 degrees celsius, there's not enough freshwater to go around...

it might be stretch to claim etc. etc. but nobody is making that claim, the claim is that humanity is not reducing emissions and not doing anything significant to handle when the bills come due for the last century of everything improving!

on edit: changed is a bunch to are a bunch - is a bunch is probably still correct but are a bunch sounds more correct to my ear.

[whoisburbansky]

Do we have a good sense of how much of that increase in productivity can be sustained in a carbon neutral fashion?

[esarbe]

The problem is not that we could not revert to even just 1950 levels.

The problem is that it's advantageous for everyone to continue to externalize the costs and let everyone else pay the bill[0].

Since everyone is doing the externalizing, no one is paying the bill. Since no one is paying the bill, the resource will be exhausted sooner or later.

The resource in question is the resilience of our own biological life support system; we're wrecking it, both by by our predatory over exploitation and by pollution. We're destroying the foundations of our own survival.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

[plutonorm]

is it? I think it's entirely possible that our civilisation would completely collapse.