[artonge]

The issue with aviation should not be framed by its share in total carbon emissions, which appears to be not that much. It's the fact that, in a world where the individual target of CO2 emissions is 2T, there is no room for aviation. Same thing for eating meat more than once a week, or using a personal car.

To evaluate your individual CO2 emissions, you can use this simulator: https://nosgestesclimat.fr

[eastbound]

Why is the goal 2T/person? Why do I have the same goal as an Indian or Nepalese person?

[artonge]

What the planet can absorb divided by the number of people.

> Why do I have the same goal as an Indian or Nepalese person?

I do not understand, why not ?

[maigret]

People fear their living standards will have to be degraded to that level. It’s not true though.

Those country comparisons are totally idiotic because they produce the wrong fears. Example: look at that table https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di... , Switzerland is 4.8 tons and a third of the US. I like the US but Switzerland is another scale for quality of life on most metrics.

Air travel is one of the few things that’s hard to fix, but for example I can’t understand why everyone won’t buy an EV, that’s basically 99% the same as an ICE car and even better in many aspects. Probably less meat, that will make food cheaper and people will live longer. Else all pretty much the same. Hell, nothing can beat renewables at the moment. They are 4-5x cheaper than fossil fuels. So we’ll be richer with renewables, well save trillions in insurance and I have no clue how people can still thing fossil fuels are the way. Inform yourselves and start to think about the near future, not the past. Stop being a passive fossil fuel lobby repeater.

[eastbound]

I don’t fear QoL being degraded (If it’s necessary, it’s cool for our children); I fear the loss of meritocracy, as I have never seen any other model work. I also fear it’s competing countries that fuel the climate fight in my country to persuade us of consuming less, while we’ll never be able to have an impact on them, even through international agreements.

So basically, the “China is just dis-industrializing Europe, by convincing us to self-sabotage our industries” argument.

Last point, I’ve never seen scientific studies used in politics that were not massively forged.

1. Fear of meritocracy 2. Fear of countries not negotiating an equalitarian deal 3. Fear of the awful science of “that camp” (and I know exactly what 3 arguments you’ll oppose, so, don’t bother with the direct answer, please assume everything you want to answer is already understood and incorrect, and go straight to a second level of answers).

[maigret]

What are the 3 arguments? Are you referring to IP theft when you mention meritocracy?

I know the current problems around manufacturing a little bit. My reading is that, yes, we can’t get out of fossil immediately, but I think we mostly failed to prepare and the current situation shows us that renewables are significant more resilient than detractors rate them.

Also I think producing cheaper products by running on coal is a thing of the past. What happens though is that bureaucracy and pay is clearly lower in some countries. Every country has to build a strategy based on those facts. In Europe I’ve seen too many countries comfortable with the past results and thus failed to plan for the future. Then blamed it on other countries because it’s an easy target for deflecting failures as always.

[artonge]

You might have posted on the wrong comment because I don't think anything I wrote could have led you to believe that I am a "a passive fossil fuel lobby repeater." ;).

[maigret]

Indeed my comment was supporting yours and addressing mostly the grand parent. Sorry for mixing the messages into one…

[eastbound]

> what the planet can absorb divided by the number of people.

> why not ?

How do you incentive people to work if, in the end, everyone can consume and therefore emit exactly as much?

What’s the goal of studying hard if I’m not getting more consumption rights; Why wouldn’t we all coast school, since we’ll all get the same results; How would the society get any work done if no-one is incentived to work hard (That’s the neat part: You don’t, and you’re all poor as peons); Isn’t it always the same communist dream entering the main door after being kicked out for criminal activity by the back door for being at minimum the least efficient way to organize a society; If you’re going to react to the communist trope as being “not so bad”, doesn’t it confirm that it was what you intended all along.

Why would my consumption rights be exactly 1/8-billionth of the Earth capacity, independently on my work?

[artonge]

You seem to think that you work more, or harder than other people, hence you are given more "consumption rights". Please consider that:

- A lot of people are not working to consume more, and it does not prevent them to work hard. They just aren't fulfilling themselves through consumerism. - A lot of people are working harder than you, for less. Should we take parts of your share a give it to them ? Spoiler alert, you will be constrained below 2T of CO2 emission, that's for sure, because you are not working harder than others. - In a finite world, emitting more than your share means stepping on somebody else's share. But why would have that privilege if you are not working more? - In a finite world, stepping on someone else's share that you are not permitted to take leads to a conflict. Conflict means war in a planetary context.

If I may suggest, if what's blocking you from emitting less, is your desire to consume more, you should try to change that, as your consumption capability will reduce in the future, whether you want it or not. This is because our energy sources are becoming less abundant, which means less consumption capability for the same amount of work.

[artonge]

I've just seen your other comment:

> 1. Fear of meritocracy 2. Fear of countries not negotiating an equalitarian deal 3. Fear of the awful science of “that camp” (and I know exactly what 3 arguments you’ll oppose, so, don’t bother with the direct answer, please assume everything you want to answer is already understood and incorrect, and go straight to a second level of answers).

1. Meritocracy is a way to make you feel better for having more than others. In a finite world, having more than other means stealing from them. Nobody merits more than somebody else. At least not at the scale it is happening now. And don't assume that you work more than others.

2. I don't understand what you mean.

3. What is "that camp" ? What scientific studies are you talking about ?

[mcculley]

Most of the people who have the option of “studying hard” do not work as hard as the blue collar workers in rural India or rural China. I’m not sure there is a valid argument that consumption should be based on who “works hardest”.

Emissions taxes are the fairest way to balance consumption. That works even for the privileged who consume without hard work.

[artonge]

Sadly, emissions taxes impact the poorest first while being almost pain free for the richest.