I think "The only way out is through" meaning, we will not solve the problem by consuming less or becoming primitive. We will solve the problem by developing through the environmental constraints and replacing our harmful behaviors with better ones. For example, solar, wind, nuclear, and one day fusion providing power instead of coal, oil, and natural gas. Electric cars instead of internal combustion and so on.
People just are not going to use less stuff. In fact, they're going to use more. There are billions of people in the developing world who use a lot less energy and stuff than people in the developed world - but they are developing and will come to use and consume more and more. We won't impoverish ourselves, we can't ask the developing world to stay poor, and the population is growing all the time.
Plans or hopes that involve consuming less are unrealistic. The only way to save the environment is better technology and geo-engineering.
Agreed on needing better tech and the futility of trying to forcefully lower living standard.
However I feel there are also choices that align with all the goals. Such as spending less on cheap disposable shit (which is so hard to do in our current environmenr) and using the materials in higher quality durable things that also offer a better experience. Not to mention shifting some consumption to services like amazing food and culture.
The comment I'm replying to is discussing things like not flying or not using electricity. I'd describe forgoing modern comforts as primitive.
While infinite growth is obviously not possible I think we are a long way from the population that we could reasonably support on a still healthy planet if we had the technology to do so. I also think that in a hundred years or maybe a little less we'll start to get big opportunities for growth in space, both in the form of doing manufacturing off world and creating new population centers.
I think it's going to need both. We are in a phase where we can basically do the low hanging fruits. I assume we'll be able to save a lot of CO2 that way. But the goal is ZERO. I just can't imagine a world with net zero CO2 and everybody is driving a Tesla. The mining, fabrication, transport, materials is all very resource hungry. I think current studies suggest an electric car uses about half as much CO2 in it's lifetime. I'm sure it can be improved.. but ZERO ?
Cap and trade, and then gradually lower the cap (driving the price of emitting carbon up). When a lot of money is on the line people tend to get creative.
There’s no physical law that says we must put CO2 in the air to unlock these resources. With the right incentives people will figure it out.
People just are not going to use less stuff. In fact, they're going to use more. There are billions of people in the developing world who use a lot less energy and stuff than people in the developed world - but they are developing and will come to use and consume more and more. We won't impoverish ourselves, we can't ask the developing world to stay poor, and the population is growing all the time.
Plans or hopes that involve consuming less are unrealistic. The only way to save the environment is better technology and geo-engineering.