Does net zero even require consuming less?
It seem like someone complaining that nobody will have food if we ban single-use plastics, as if we can’t work around it, but it wouldn’t be as profitable for the shareholders.
Reducing is a huge part of bringing down emissions. It doesn’t have to look like austerity, it can be like using stuff that would otherwise go to waste, Buying things that last, and when you do get plastic, even just using them for more than their single use helps a lot. For example, I’m bringing my lunch in a takeout box I got once into work.
It means no mineral carbon that can’t be to 100% recycled. On a survivable timeline that’s almost certainly less consumption for a century or so. But survivable timeline doesn’t appear to be much of a priority.
Consuming less goods also doesn’t only mean having less use value. It can also mean having items with use value which lasts longer (and have higher quality), taking care of things, and sharing useful things more. Collective kitchens, ride shares, public transport, libraries for sharing various stuff like books or tools and collective forms of entertainment. We could in many ways live better by other metrics than maximizing the tonnage of thrash we burn through
At least they’re getting a bit more honest.
“But consooming less is too HAAAARD! I love my treats! Can’t we just be deniers? It’s easier for me!”
And they lecture us about toughening up.
Does net zero even require consuming less? It seem like someone complaining that nobody will have food if we ban single-use plastics, as if we can’t work around it, but it wouldn’t be as profitable for the shareholders.
Reducing is a huge part of bringing down emissions. It doesn’t have to look like austerity, it can be like using stuff that would otherwise go to waste, Buying things that last, and when you do get plastic, even just using them for more than their single use helps a lot. For example, I’m bringing my lunch in a takeout box I got once into work.
Also the US military is the biggest carbon emitter on Earth and that doesn’t do anything good for anyone
That’s not true, it’s great for American businesses.
It means no mineral carbon that can’t be to 100% recycled. On a survivable timeline that’s almost certainly less consumption for a century or so. But survivable timeline doesn’t appear to be much of a priority.
Consuming less goods also doesn’t only mean having less use value. It can also mean having items with use value which lasts longer (and have higher quality), taking care of things, and sharing useful things more. Collective kitchens, ride shares, public transport, libraries for sharing various stuff like books or tools and collective forms of entertainment. We could in many ways live better by other metrics than maximizing the tonnage of thrash we burn through