[uxp8u61q]

CO2 and methane ("emissions") is one target. A very important one, but let's not forget the other concerns altogether - plastic pollution, contamination of the environment through mineral extraction, etc.

The only path forward is a drastic reduction in overall consumption. Even if we reach 100% emissions-free electricity, we'll end up with an unlivable planet anyway if we don't focus on the other issues too. If we limit warming to 1,5°C — which isn't even realistic anymore — what good will it do to us if our water and arable land are contaminated beyond repair?

[rocqua]

If that is the case, we are fucked anyway.

There is no way 80% of the planet is willing to give up any comfort to stave off future ecological problems they cannot feel yet. We saw how much effort it took with global warming, and I doubt that will have made subsequent changes for the better easier. In fact, I suspect a lot of 'what, there is another thing wrong according to the scientific bozo's even though I can't see it' that will make people more resistant.

Actually reducing consumption globally won't happen. Not until it is too late. The best we can do is slow down consumption, and make consumption better. We have seen decent improvements in plastic free packaging. And power draw of devices is also getting much more attention. One big point here is pricing in externalities. That will push people into the less damaging choices.

Not to say that we should give up, nor to say that we should be quiet about other issues, nor even to say that people shouldn't reduce their consumption. My point is that a global reduction of consumption isn't going to happen voluntarily, and therefore shouldn't be the solution we pursue.

[vincvinc]

upvoted you not because I 100% agree but your (completely reasonable) comment looks to have been downvoted very heavily.

I do feel there needs to be space to discuss what kinds of reductions of consumption make sense, esp for rich countries.

[anovikov]

But well, the goal is about increasing consumption. No matter if we like it or not, it will increase massively - probably more than an order of magnitude overall - this century, simply because countries that are now poor, will no longer be so once massive amounts of renewable energy become the norm. We have to decrease pollution while also quickly increasing consumption - probably at same rate as in the "main" fossil fuel era - in 1870..1970, between oil becoming a thing, and Arab embargo.

[uxp8u61q]

If you take as an axiom that the core cause of the current destruction of our planet is inevitable, then there's isn't much we can discuss.

[Faaak]

I agree. Also, our planet is limited. Thinking that we can increase production infinitely ( good economist point of view), is just physically impossible

[iraqmtpizza]

0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + 0.0009 +...

Seems physically possible to me.

[itishappy]

With 10^27 g of Earth (without utilizing extra-planetary resources) each of which can be broken down into around 10^23 mol/g of stuff (without significantly altering the material composition) your infinite string of numbers will only be about 50 digits long.

[badpun]

That's rather "infinitesimally", not "infinitely".

[iraqmtpizza]

We're talking about infinite time, not infinite space.

[anovikov]

But well this is the whole reason of existence of humankind and civilisation, the meaning of life: consumption. I struggle to understand how this can be doubted.

[itishappy]

I must say, that's quite a depressing outlook. Sure, we consume a lot, but "the meaning of life?" Damn! I sleep a lot too, arguably even more than I consume, but I wouldn't argue that's my whole reason for existing...

Maybe you mean "we need to consume to live," which I agree with a whole lot more. Even then, there's no reason we need to maximize consumption. Food is definitely critical to our existence, but pre-peeled oranges in individual plastic packaging are not.

[influx]

Great, when are you giving up your computer and internet connection?

[uxp8u61q]

I know this comment was made in bad faith. "You're not living as an ermite so you're a hypocrite and you have no business suggesting that consumption should be reduced" is an obvious fallacy that gets old quick. But let me entertain you a little. My computer and internet access is essential to my job and to a large part of my personal life. But I do cut down my consumption there (reduce power usage through several different methods, e.g., no power-hungry video games, low resolution videos, low-powered laptop) and in other areas of my life (eating, travel, clothing, and so on).

Now, your turn: what are you doing to help avoid global ecological catastrophe, even a little bit?