• Skasi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    human population growth is the biggest driver by far

    I argue that the biggest driver for CO2 emissions at the moment is not population growth, but rather the rise of the quality of living in high population low income regions such as China, India, etc.

    preserving quality of life should be the stated objectives

    Does that mean you also want the many inequalities to remain? CO2 emissions per person are spread as unequal as wealth. Demanding that people are allowed to continue living far above the carrying capacity of the Earth while others live far below is not a solution to the problem.

    People argue something along the lines of “spending a lot of energy gives a good quality of life” and to some extend this is true. Though when people spend an hour or two to drive to work in a private car 5 days a week that doesn’t seem like a good quality of living to me.

    To fight climate change without having to miss out on a good quality of living it’s important that people get the most “bang for their buck” as far as CO2 emmissions are concerned. I argue that things like watching Formula 1 drivers, owning private jets or even just doing long communes to work by car are among the WORST bang for your CO2-buck anybody can get. Riding a bike, having a picnic in a local park or commuting via public transportation (which lets you do other things like playing on your phone, reading a book or chatting with people while waiting) seem to be way better options.