[Aerroon]

I hope it isn't only seen as anti-green. A big worry I have concerning climate change is that often I see discussions about climate policy ignore why our consumption is so high. It's not really the billionaires or greedy corporations. It's us. We're the ones consuming the bulk of these resources. And these policies will affect the poorest the most.

On the other hand, I also worry about the impact of climate change. I think as long as things remain within current predictions we will be able to manage, but what if they don't? What if some process ends up accelerating things faster than expected?

[myshpa]

> It's us. We're the ones consuming the bulk of these resources

Agree.

> What if some process ends up accelerating things faster than expected?

I think we're already there (for example, in quite few studies 2030 is the new 2050 for 1.5C target). Sea temperatures (esp. in the nothern sea) and ice cover also seems to change faster than predicted (we could have ice free summers in the arctic before 2030, and thawing of greenland is also faster than expected).

[ant6n]

Sustainable policies likely affect the poorest the least. Climate change will affect them the most.

The poorest already make a lot of sustainable choices: living in apartments in cities, taking public transportation, consuming less.

It’s possible that if carbon was heavily taxed, and some of the proceeds returned to everybody, that the poorest would actually be better off. Never mind the whole stopping the climate catastrophe threat.

[goatlover]

The poorest mostly live in the developing world that's still catching up and has the highest birth rates. Yes, their carbon footprint is low now. But their energy needs will keep going up until they fully develop and the global population peaks (a couple billion more people from now). It's unclear to what extent clean energies will meet their increasing demand, at least before the world can decarbonize, whenever that happens.