Perhaps the real problem is there are no constraints on exploiting the
cheapest energy sources without pricing in climate impacts. Rather
than the mere aspiration to higher living standards.
No nation should develop the way America developed before climate
change was a hot issue.
I can think of a partial list of practical ideas for increasing the
worldwide standard of living with less impact on climate:
1. Urbanize populations using mass transit.
2. HVAC and industry using nuclear power.
Other problems:
1. Food production.
2. The aspiration to eat meat. Artificial meat growing?
3. The aspiration to own a personal car. Small electric cars?
4. The rich. Nobody want to level incomes these days, and the richer
people may aspire to things that pump out greenhouse gases.
On Aug 20, 10:35 am, "Michael Tobis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Prioritization is surely a good thing, but I am coming at this from
> another angle.
>
> There will soon enough be 10G people, of whom perhaps 0.4G will be American.
>
> If we take sustainability to mean no drawdown of remaining species
> population in the wild, no significant extraction of fossil fuels or
> groundwater, no net large scale changes in composition of atmosphere
> and ocean, can the average American standard of living as of today
> become the global average?
>
> My intuition says no, it has too much impact, but I am trying to find
> somebody who has done the calculation in earnest, or, failing that,
> sources for the right numbers.
>
> It's not even clear that the peak population can be sustained at all,
> but presuming that it can how far does average American consumption
> need to decline over the next century, and in what aspects?
>
> It will help you to prioritize if you know what your goal is. It's not
> hard to suspect that the goal is a distant and harsh one, but who
> knows?
>
> If not all countries stabilize at the same standard of living, what is
> the moral justification for this?
>
> Note that I am not opposed to lots of good things with small impact! I
> think life can continue to be fun, perhaps more so. It will just have
> a lot fewer cheeseburger drive-ins, which admittedly are a bit fun,
> but not as fun as all that.
>
> I think the calculation involves food, water, energy and land. I note
> that these are aspects of wealth for which it's difficult or
> impossible to find technological substitutes.
>
> mt
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
