[ZeroGravitas]

Yeah, this talk of 'energy' rather than 'pollution' seems to be growing recently. Presumably some attempt to capitalise on the Russian gas crisis to undermine net zero goals and keep fossil fuels burning a tiny bit longer.

This group seems to get it as they're talking about reducing Primary Energy without reducing standard of living (mostly done by "electrifying everything") but I don't think that would be clear to most readers, who will just ignore the "same standard of living bit" and feel they are being oppressed.

[prottog]

> most readers, who will just ignore the "same standard of living bit" and feel they are being oppressed.

I think this is an uncharitable view, but that aside, is that not a reasonable assumption for "most readers"? This group is exceptional in that they explicitly state maintaining the same standard of living as a goal. In what I know of most modern climate-related discourse, there are very few such mentions.

[ZeroGravitas]

No it's not a reasonable assumption.

Which specific groups are you aware of that think dealing with climate change by phasing out burning fossil fuels will reduce standards of living? I think you'll find a common funding source behind them.

[prottog]

The proponents of the Green New Deal in the US, for example, rarely mention maintaining or improving the standard of living as an imperative goal of the project, at least from the side of the carrot; there's plenty of talk on the stick side that everyone will have a cataclysmic fall in their standard of living if the status quo stays.

For example, House Resolution 109 of the 116th Congress[0] mentions "[ensuring] prosperity and economic security" as an objective, but being sandwiched between "[achieving] net-zero greenhouse gas emissions" and "[promoting] justice and equity" it's difficult to see it as more than hand-waving and one that won't be forfeited for those other goals once the rubber meets the pavement.

Bernie Sanders' website on the issue[1] doesn't mention the standard of living at all among the Key Points. AOC's[2] does but in the same way as HR 109, which makes sense given that she was the sponsor behind it. The New York Times explainer[3] on the issue does not even discuss whether the average person's material standard of living will change.

The number one goal from all sources is the categorical imperative of going "net-zero" or "100% renewable", without asking or answering the question of "at what cost at the margins" (again, other than the undefined cost of calamity), which is what I'm really interested in addressing; because it's going to be a very hard sell to tell the people of the developed world to scale back on their standard of living, and a great moral injustice to tell the people of the yet-to-be-developed world that they cannot take advantage of cheap, abundant energy sources.

[0]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolutio... [1]: https://berniesanders.com/issues/green-new-deal/ [2]: https://www.ocasiocortez.com/green-new-deal [3]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/climate/green-new-deal-qu...

[ZeroGravitas]

It's about six lines in on one of your links that:

global warming at or above 2 degrees Celsius beyond preindustrialized levels will cause -

* (B) more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year 2100;

... other bad stuff..

* (F) a risk of damage to $1,000,000,000,000 of public infrastructure and coastal real estate in the United States

Which is just a summary of the IPCC which goes into great detail on the GDP impacts.

And that's just the "Green" part, they immediately launch into a bunch of things that just are standard of living and how they want to improve it.

> life expectancy declining while basic needs, such as clean air, clean water, healthy food, and adequate health care, housing, transportation, and education, are inaccessible to a significant portion of the United States population;

So I think we've conclusively demonstrated, that you're not reading/hearing what these peaple are actually saying.

edit: on Bernie's relatively short page which you provided the link to:

> The cost of inaction is unacceptable. Economists estimate that if we do not take action, we will lose $34.5 trillion in economic activity by the end of the century. And the benefits are enormous: by taking bold and decisive action, we will save $2.9 trillion over 10 years, $21 trillion over 30 years, and $70.4 trillion over 80 years.

And this is from a plan that pays for itself in 15 years.

[wizofaus]

What if you believe standards of living can be improved by giving up some of the luxuries we currently take for granted due to historically cheap fossil fuel based energy? E.g. I have no doubt my physical and mental health has vastly improved since deciding 15 years ago I didn't need to own a car and hence forced myself to minimise the use of such. Likewise significantly reducing meat consumption has made my diet more interesting and hopefully healthier etc., and investing in improving the energy efficiency of my house and dressing more appropriately has made it more comfortable to live in, with no need to have artificially hot or cold air constantly blowing into it throughout the year. I don't doubt many people would see those choices as a drop in their standard of living though.

[prottog]

I'm glad that you were able to improve your life, and I agree with you that the availability of modern luxuries are difficult to reconcile with a healthy, happy life.

But I posit that you are able to enjoy a car-less life due to the existence of fossil fuel-burning elsewhere: the public transportation you presumably ride, the groceries that are delivered to the store presumably within walking distance from where you live, the construction of your residence and all commercial buildings near you, the massive industrial production at scale that allows you to trade a smaller amount of your time for more goods and services. All of those things are, as you point out, built on the back of cheap energy. It would be downright immoral to deny that same opportunity to the people of the developing world.

And objectively speaking, having the capacity to do something is better than not having it. Whether you eat meat or not, it is objectively better for the common folk to be able to afford it; whether you own a car or not, it is objectively better to have the ability to move people and goods across long distances at an affordable price; whether you artificially cool and heat your home or not, it is objectively better for people to be able to live in comfort in places they otherwise may not be able to. Privation may end up being better for your health, both mental and physical, but only if it arises out of choice.

[ryukafalz]

> And objectively speaking, having the capacity to do something is better than not having it.

I’m not so sure I would universalize this. Up to a point sure, but there’s certainly a point at which having the capacity to do something quickly or easily can be detrimental. Some examples:

- We have a ton of unhealthy, nutrient-poor, high-calorie foods practically at arm’s reach in the US. Not all of us have the self-control to avoid grabbing them in the supermarket. Myself included! I certainly wish I didn’t have quite so many unhealthy options nearby; I’d probably be healthier if I didn’t.

- Being able to easily move people long distances (in particular via cars, which are horrifically space-inefficient) has led to people moving far away from population centers and infrastructure that requires cars for transportation. The presence of convenient cars as an option in a sense removes choices, because the infrastructure required to sustain them makes other forms of transportation impractical. I would gladly trade the capacity to move quickly through my city in a car for the ability to safely bike around it.

[nicoburns]

> All of those things are, as you point out, built on the back of cheap energy

Well yes, but much, much less of it than if everyone drives everywhere.

> And objectively speaking, having the capacity to do something is better than not having it.

All else being equal, then sure. But all else is not equal. There's a significant cost to producing all of that energy. And it is not likely to be feasible to sustain the entire world at US (or even European) levels of energy usage anytime soon. As such, it's quite reasonable to start having a conversation about what high-energy usage activities we might be able to cut out without having too significant an impact on quality of life. Things like reducing meat consumption (not necessarily cutting it out entirely), reducing car usage, and cutting down on air travel, etc are obvious candidates for this.

[wizofaus]

Actually I hardly ever use public transport. And I didn't suggest my existence was car-less, just far far less car dependent than it used to be. Nobody's suggesting we're going to get to a zero-net-emissions world just by these sorts of personal choices, but I think more could be done to promote that there are benefits to be had even if some of them seem like giving up on things we enjoy.

[abdullahkhalids]

You are living in a dream world. Climate change will put many cities/parts of cities in "developed countries" underwater. Bigger tornadoes will rip apart those further indoor. Forest fires will decimate towns close to forests.

Either the developed world gives up on its luxuries or they will be forcefully taken by a complex climate system that is not beholden to political statements.

[Bud]

Interesting that this comment, one of the only realistic ones in the entire thread, gets aggressively downvoted.

I guess we're going to have to wait until several major cities are utterly destroyed, or a few mass-heat-death events occur, before some people finally get it.

We don't have time, we don't have the resources, and we don't have the global societal cohesion to address this problem in the way a lot of the fantasists in this thread would prefer.

[pragmar]

Didn't downvote the parent, but I'd be willing to bet that if the comment didn't lead with "You are living in a dream world" it'd be the same shade as other comments. Often it's not the point, but the tone. In the author's mind, it may've been intended as funny or light-hearted, but as bare words on a page, it comes across as personal and contemptuous.

[eternityforest]

There's no pollution free energy. Even solar is not perfect, there's only so much land that is suitable.

If you don't focus on efficiency they might just invent new ways to use energy that don't really improve standard of living.

It's a lot easier to switch to renewables if you don't need as much energy in the first place.

[jjk166]

This is a false equivalency - fossil fuel consumption produces gas and particulate pollution which causes severe and irreversible damage to health and the environment on a planetwide scale indiscriminately, solar takes up a small area of unused land in a location which can be arbitrarily chosen to avoid harm and the space can be reclaimed at any time. Yes, solar isn't free, but we as a civilization could be consuming many hundreds of times more power than we currently use with no meaningful issues if it were all coming from solar energy.