[micromacrofoot]

we can support a larger population, but we can't support a larger population at the current meat consumption levels

I guess we'll find out if we're willing to eat less meat, or if we'd rather a certain % of the global population to starve... so far it's looking like the latter

[slothtrop]

> we can support a larger population, but we can't support a larger population at the current meat consumption levels

All environmental encroachment and emissions scale with demand. It's reductionist to only talk about meat; it's not the only reason people want to migrate to the West. Notwithstanding, demands for alternatives have shot up in Western countries and land-use for cattle has not actually increased in the US. As countries in developing world lift themselves out of poverty, they consume more meat (and fuel, gadgets, etc).

Even if you hypothetically cut down meat consumption in the West, emissions would still rise to levels that would exacerbate climate change. It's not enough. And "degrowth" is such an injust hardship to demand of developing countries that it's amazing people consider it an actual possibility. Some combination of tough policy measures (in the short-run) and innovation is what we can expect, probably after things get worse.

Ultimately global population growth is going to stall, in less than 100 years. by then whether people eat meat will be a moot point. Demand won't grow, and renewables will have taken over the market.

[micromacrofoot]

degrowth should happen in the west

[slothtrop]

It shouldn't happen anywhere. It can only hurt vulnerable people. Noah Smith writes about this at length.

[micromacrofoot]

people who think it can’t be done are either rich, or terrified of the rich

the tax system can eliminate the extreme waste at the top and make the lives of vulnerable people better

we don’t need private jets, yachts, cruise ships, 3 ton personal vehicles, people who own multiple private homes, private golf courses, lawns in deserts, almond farms in deserts, iot garbage, plastic everything…

we refuse to stop opulent garbage, it’s mental illness

[slothtrop]

> people who think it can’t be done are either rich, or terrified of the rich

This is a wishful projection.

> the tax system can eliminate the extreme waste at the top and make the lives of vulnerable people better

I'm pro progressive taxation, but that really has no bearing here.

> we don’t need private jets, yachts, cruise ships, 3 ton personal vehicles, people who own multiple private homes, private golf courses, lawns in deserts, almond farms in deserts, iot garbage, plastic everything…

You don't need almost everything you own and take for granted to survive. Who's going to decide what people need, you? The great thing about liberal democracy is we can decide for ourselves.

At any rate, the increases in global emissions are owing to growing global demand particularly from East Asia as they are developing their middle class. You're overestimating the impact of things like private jets; the ultra-wealthy are few in number, and the new affluent class leans left (see: tech billionaires). Even if you put restrictions on these (and we can, why not), it would not make much of a difference.

Restrictions can be warranted (say, for SUV purchases, though this will be moot once they all switch to EV), but customers respond better to incentives. A good example of this is Green HOme subsidies in many countries, that give cash to citizens for improving their home insulation, which lowers heat/AC use, which lowers emissions. Milk alternatives and plant based products are also wildly popular with consumers even if they don't go vegan officially.