[IKantRead]

The hype has also been great at fueling economic activity which contributes even more across a wide range of sectors.

We know how to reduce carbon emissions immediately, we did a great job of it 3 years ago, we just don't like the answer: reduce economic activity.

Consume less, produce less, work less, spend less. These things will do more to reduce CO2 emissions than if everyone rushed out and bought electric cars (in the US ~oil~ gasoline consumption has been positively correlated with electric car ownership).

But we don't want that, and more importantly, the stock market doesn't want that. I think most people would be fine with reduce work and reduced consumption (to a point), but the people invested deeply in the status quo tend to have asymmetric influence.

[dmm]

> reduce economic activity.

Even if we stopped all carbon emissions today the earth would continue to warm for centuries. Mitigating these effects is going to take carbon capture(aka unburning oil) and geoengineering on an immense scale which won't be possible without economic growth. There's no going back.

[gisely]

Not according to climate scientists. As explained here, mostly believe the warming stop shortly after emissions do:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-st...

More importantly, the sooner we can stop carbon emissions the less severe warming and ecosystem harm we'll experience. Carbon capture may help a bit if we are able to massively scale it up, but there really is not substitute for ending emissions.

[dmm]

Thanks for the link. I'll take a look at it.

[femiagbabiaka]

False dichotomy either way -- in reality we will do nothing until the pain becomes unbearable.

[sumek83]

we have a choice to reduce economic activity in the controlled or uncontrolled way. sadly it seems we have to have tons of unrepairable electronics replaced every year and downfall of the civilization or it's "communism" aka ultimate evil

[dmm]

Reducing economic activity seems incompatible with significant carbon capture.

[cudgy]

It’s also possible that our attempts to mitigate the natural effects could cause unknown consequences that backfire on us.

[CalRobert]

"Consume less, produce less, work less, spend less"

I want that. I'd love to trade money for time but the relationship seems non-linear. Working 50% as many hours would mean less than 50% as much pay for the most part.

[sumek83]

IMO key is the cost of shelter. In all the desirable locations with good jobs the cost of accommodation rises so much that even well earning middle class in uncertain of their future. There is a number of key services and goods everyone needs: somewhere warm to sleep, some food, and healthcare. If people weren't constantly worried that they will lack this the whole nonsensical piramid of useless work would fall apart and everyone would be much happier

[pmg102]

Another approach could be to work for 25 years at full time then 25 doing nothing, instead of 50 years part time.

I've heard this approach called FIRE - financial independence, retire early.

[CalRobert]

Yeah, taxes make that hard where I am. Better to work part time

[pmg102]

Your point about taxation which is usually progressive is well taken.

It could be offset by the fact that you could invest the money from the first 25 years thus benefitting from a compound return.

I don't know which has the bigger effect.

[CalRobert]

Very much depends on your country and your particular tax situation, of course. The US is pretty good for FIRE (aside from dealing with health insurance). Ireland (where I live) is terrible, by comparison.

[mistrial9]

this response ignores large and substantial inputs to a complex system of systems, instead choosing to focus on a one-line and highly contentious assertion that directly and falsely merges "growth producing carbon waste" with "economic output." Lazy oversimplification like the parent comment, is directly counterproductive to addressing serious and immediate design and political challenges.

Please consider other economic inputs that do not directly increase carbon emissions, and include design consideration where "new machines and methods" can accomplish similar or better economic activity.

[bryanlarsen]

Our commitment is to get to net-zero by 2050. How does conservation get us to net-zero?

US oil consumption peaked in 2005. EV ownership didn't peak in 2005, so it seems like a negative correlation to me.

[IKantRead]

I should have specified gasoline consumption since this more closely maps to what we assume EVs will replace.

That has been increasing overtime, barring of course the pandemic, we're on track to pick up from where 2019 left off this year: https://www.statista.com/statistics/188448/total-us-domestic...

[bryanlarsen]

That's not correlated with EV usage either. EV's comprise well under 1% of the cars in America, and went up during the pandemic. Your numbers are changing a lot more than 1% and went down during the pandemic.

[c_crank]

>I think most people would be fine with reduce work and reduced consumption (to a point)

The covid lockdowns and their effects were not popular.

[gitfan86]

Reducing carbon emissions isn't a solution. We need to go to all the way to zero and then to start carbon capture.

That ONLY happens with batteries fusion and AI. We are making progress and as long as the pessimists don't get their way.

Ironically people like Greta have had the worst impact on climate. Not just that she flies around the world instead of doing zooms. But that she is all doom and gloom instead of trying to help us progress technology

[runarberg]

> But that she [Greta Thunberg] is all doom and gloom instead of trying to help us progress technology

I’ve been hearing this a lot lately, that climate doomerism is somehow damaging to the cause and preventing any meaningful climate action.

I think this is a misunderstanding of what climate doomerism is. I hear people talking as if being realistic about damning nature of the damage we have done, and who is to blame for it all. And instead people believe the message is that we should just give up. If you believe the latter, I dare you to go find any source where Greta Thunberg (or any other supposed climate doomer) has said anything of that nature (hint they haven’t).

But suppose that you are right, and the message of climate doomers is actually that of giving up, now if you compare that to the decades of misdirection and outright lying that the fossil fuel industry has done to actively hinder climate action, and on top of that to actually double down on burning fossil fuels. How much damage, relative to the fossil fuel industry, have people like Greta Thunberg actually caused. Relatively speaking that damage is a drop in the ocean.

[avmich]

I'm not sure what could be done much better than what Greta does given her environment. I believe so far her impact on climate awareness is large net positive, and that alone - the putting the problem front and center before many people - should already help at least somewhat with mitigating it. Not to mention other, largely positive effects of her work.

[IKantRead]

> We are making progress and as long as the pessimists don't get their way.

I've been hearing a similar statement for decades now, but the global emissions only continue to rise.

In fact, I've been hearing that logic since the late 90s and in that time we have doubled the cumulative emissions up to that point.

We have seen that emissions drop with decrease in economic activity (multiple times). Yes, batteries, renewables, and nuclear would all part a big part in a truly sustainable future... but we have to survive until that future first.

> Reducing carbon emissions isn't a solution

We're well past the "solution" stage of this problem. Where in the "harm reduction" phase. Reduced emissions is absolutely superior in this regard to increased emissions... and yet you're arguing that we should be increasing them because a magic solution is just around the corner, like it always has been.

[gitfan86]

Well I have been hearing that Electric cars would never be adopted at scale and that Tesla was going bankrupt for over a decade.

Yet here we are and the Model Y became the best selling car in the world this year.

Don't give up hope friend.

[hooverd]

Nuclear too cheap to meter is too cheap to sustain, ironically. In our current system too much abundance is bad thing.

[ehnto]

Perhaps I am just optimistic but AI doesn't seem necessary, nor does fusion. Fission is more than capable of providing enough power and if we are going to do this via sequestration, we may as well start now and forget net-zero.

I definitely think this is an organisation problem, not a technology problem. Societies are not organising to fix the issue, instead it seems they are hoping the global free market will eventually make it economically beneficial in the short term, to save the climate.

[gitfan86]

There is plenty of data that suggests societies respond to financial incentives.

As the cost of battery/wind/solar plunge, their use goes up. And fusion has the potential to be much cheaper than those.

A very very small percentage of CO2 emissions is due to people wanting to increase CO2 in the atmosphere. Almost all of it is because that is the cheapest or most efficient way to travel, heat your home, make products, etc...

[avmich]

> Ironically people like Greta have had the worst impact on climate. Not just that she flies around the world instead of doing zooms. But that she is all doom and gloom instead of trying to help us progress technology

I'm pretty sure you're wrong here, and Greta doesn't fly, but if you insist, can you share your sources?

[gitfan86]

Greta and her PR team do not publish details of her carbon footprint, so I don't have exact details her travels but Wikipedia is a fairly reliable source to give some insight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Voyages_of_Greta...

[avmich]

Wikipedia doesn't state that Greta flies, so I assume you're admitting your error.

[gitfan86]

It specifically says she does fly in emergency cases. Did you not read it?

[avmich]

No I didn't. Can you quote the phrase?

The word "emergency" occurs once, in phrase "Thunberg does not fly except for emergency cases.(4)" . The link (4) leads to https://time.com/5663534/greta-thunberg-arrives-sail-atlanti... "Climate Activist Greta Thunberg, 16, Arrives in New York After Sailing Across the Atlantic" . I didn't read the whole article, are you saying that article says Thunberg flies?

[cudgy]

At least this time, she didn’t fly. You can watch her cross the Atlantic on sailing vessel La Vagabonde:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frZI857axRs