[arj]

We all live in the same planet, the most reasonable way to share this is that we get an equal share. For far to long certain countries have taken up much more of their share. To such a point that our whole carbon budget has been used in a single or two generations. Now is the time for those better of to contribute their fair share in solving this mess.

[schnitzelstoat]

To quote Reagan:

> The American people, the most generous on earth, who created the highest standard of living, are not going to accept the notion that we can only make a better world for others by moving backwards ourselves.

We need to embrace carbon-free electricity (whether its nuclear or solar or whatever) and electrify as many things as possible.

Degrowth isn't a humane solution, and it would first require the destruction of democracy as no electorate would endure it for long.

[danhor]

> We need to embrace carbon-free electricity (whether its nuclear or solar or whatever) and electrify as many things as possible.

We need to do that (and even that is proving very hard, looking at the issues building out electrified ground transport and electrifying heating) and it will help a lot, but it won't be enough.

We have quite a few sectors where (economic or even feasible) non-carbon solutions aren't very forthcoming: Especially in (animal-based) food and aviation, but also manufacturing of e.g. new steel or concrete. These account for a huge chunk of emissions and reducing their emissions close to 0 in the next 20 years doesn't seem very likely. Looking at other technologies that are currently economically viable, such as solar, wind, electric cars or LED lighting, 20 years for nearly full adoption is very optimistic.

Reducing emissions there will mean also reducing consumption (and thus production, or the other way around) of those products. If we only accept superior technology as a means to "solve" climate change, we won't.

That'll very likely not mean degrowth as a whole as many sectors of the economy, especially the growing ones, are very compatible with an "electrify-everything" approach.

[arj]

We have a finite amount of carbon left. Each year we are already exceeding our share. This in itself means that future generations have less. At the same time, some people use more than others. It's not a matter if degrowth but about sharing ressources fairly.

[avar]

    > the most reasonable way to
    > share this is that we get an
    > equal share. For far to long
    > certain countries have taken
    > up much more of their share.

As someone from a country where people commonly lived in mud huts well into the 20th century, and which wasn't considered developed until 1975:

Yes, we sure got the raw end of that deal by having more developed countries spearhead technological development.

I'd much rather be doing sustainance farming today, rather than taking my chances with the IPCC's estimate of climate change depressing world GDP by 2-10% in 2100.

Yes, developed countries should be leading the way to becoming carbon neutral or negative, e.g. with nuclear, solar, etc.

But let's not make this into some mischaracterization of early industrialized countries taking something away from the rest of us. That's bullshit.

[readthenotes1]

"the most reasonable way to share this is that we get an equal share"

That doesn't sound reasonable to me.

How do you to find equal?

Who implements the counting and penalties for someone taking more or less than their Fair share?

Is there anybody who is going to be left out of "we"?

I could go on...

[sd9]

What do you think sounds reasonable?

[readthenotes1]

With the vast amount of money and power involved with any approach, I don't think there is a reasonable solution that is feasible.

[m1n7]

which countries? china, the west?

more importantly, we should stop pointing fingers and act within our reach!

[amitport]

yeah well.. the world will literally burn before that