Current Events > Should the economy be sacrificed in order to fight climate change?

(+) Yeah! (+)

In order to really make the changes required by climate change people are going to fundamentally need to accept their standards of living will decrease in terms of mass consumption which will inevitably affect the economy. Is it a price worth paying?

What's going to happen to living standards if we do nothing?

Depends on what you mean by that.

An example, I wouldn't put my family 2nd to the climate.

Like if it's to the point of self harm, the monetary sacrifice, no. I would not.

When I say "self harm," I mean like legit can't survive. Not 1 mansion instead of 2. 7 figures, instead of 8.

yes, but we don't need to "sacrifice" it to start helping.

EthanSilver posted...

Depends on what you mean by that.

An example, I wouldn't put my family 2nd tothe climate.

Like if it's to the point of self harm, the monetary sacrifice, no. I would not.

When when I say "self harm," I mean like legit can't survive. Not 1 mansion instead of 2. 7 figures, instead of 8.

Lets say not being able to get certain fruits and veg out of season and only being able to buy local.

I live pretty minimalistic as it is and could cycle instead of drive.

As long as food isn't an issue, I'm gonna be pretty good.

SHRlKE posted...

Lets say not being able to get certain fruits and veg out of season and only being able to buy local.

That's fine. We'll live. Small potatoes imo.

Lol Izzy you scamp

Giant_Aspirin posted...

yes, but we don't need to "sacrifice" it to start helping.

This. Going nuclear doesn't sacrifice the economy

How will a sacrifice help

wont that just be making a new additional problem

To third world nations they are more or less being asked to just embrace that they will never have the quality of life that they want because its to late and it was America/ Europe/ Asia's fate to be the" blessed ones" And they have to accept it...and I'm rather sure if push comes to shove a good chunk of pepole will rather just wipe out as many third world countries as required if it came between there lives and the quality of life they think they deserve.

SHRlKE posted...

their standards of living will decrease in terms of mass consumption

That is a very poor standard for Quality of Life.
Americans, inparticular, have to stop fighting The Cold War.
Which is to say, the GDP War...which we are losing due to debt anyway.

~Meh, nothing will change as long as The Boomers are around.

The later Generations, not counting GenX, will be forced to change at that point.
And might actually want to anyway.

VampireCoyote posted...

How will a sacrifice help

wont that just be making a new additional problem

Definitely could. Come to think of it.

Like what's the point of tanking your nation if in the process another nation pounces on your weakness?

So much for your fight for the climate. No, you'll get the boot, and possible laws even worse for the climate.

If the system can't handle being reeled back a little so more money can be made further into the future then the entire system is already broken and is going to explode, no matter what we do

IceCreamOnStero posted...

This. Going nuclear doesn't sacrifice the economy

Yeah this.

IceCreamOnStero posted...

This. Going nuclear doesn't sacrifice the economy

How long would it take to go nuclear? Seems like we could sacrifice the economy until then

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Yeah this.

I'm all for it. Going nuclear. Tanking the economy seems really stupid. Only works, if every nation is on board. LOLS.

we're way too late to be planting trees to 'fight' climate change now

EndOfDiscOne posted...

How long would it take to go nuclear? Seems like we could sacrifice the economy until then

20 years if we made a concerted effort.
Quicker if we converted coal plants into nuclear using SMRs since they already have a lot of the infrastructure.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/doe-report-finds-hundreds-retiring-coal-plant-sites-could-convert-nuclear

EthanSilver posted...

I'm all for it. Going nuclear. Tanking the economy seems really stupid. Only works, if every nation is on board. LOLS.

Funny this is, we're going the opposite direction, re: Germany's green party and denuclearization.

Nah, just ignore climate change and focus on profits.

I'm sure nothing bad could possibly happen.

EndOfDiscOne posted...

How long would it take to go nuclear?

Far quicker than it'd take for Big Oil propaganda like renewables to become viable.

Nukazie posted...

we're way too late to be planting trees to 'fight' climate change now

Maybe so.

But even in the "slowing down," "mitigation," game, which we should definitely strive for... things can get worse.

Tanking your nation can lead you to being steam rolled if other nations decided not to play nice like you. What good would your "regulations" be then?

EndOfDiscOne posted...

How long would it take to go nuclear? Seems like we could sacrifice the economy until then

Under current regulations, a few decades at least. If they wanted to go hard on it, that could be sped up a bit - obviously sacrificing safety is a bad idea, but I'm thinking more in terms of mass produced and mass certified designs; prioritizing applications for nuclear power plants over other unrelated paperwork; etc.

wackyteen posted...

If the system can't handle being reeled back a little so more money can be made further into the future then the entire system is already broken and is going to explode, no matter what we do

The people with/making the money all know they are going to die sooner rather then later, they don't give a shit.
They daily show contempt for their own children. Which is to say, all the people who were born when they were adults. ((Yes, we have a responsibility to look out for the little ones))

Many Boomers have no concept of preserving the future.

Trumble posted...

Under current regulations, a few decades at least. If they wanted to go hard on it, that could be sped up a bit - obviously sacrificing safety is a bad idea, but I'm thinking more in terms of mass produced and mass certified designs; prioritizing applications for nuclear power plants over other unrelated paperwork; etc.

The problem is that countries haven't pushed for nuclear nearly enough, in favour of fossil fuel and renewables (a proxy for fossil fuel). Nuclear doesn't get tons of subsidies, nuclear doesn't get to constantly skirt regulation and engineers and designers aren't constantly put to work on nuclear reactors that would greatly increase the experience in the field.

Voted "yes," but it's more like "yes if we actually have to." Really, I think we should make sacrifices whenever appropriate, but "making sacrifices" by itself is overall just not conducive to getting us out of this mess or at least lessening any damage we can. I think we absolutely need technology to avoid whatever scale of widespread calamity we can. That technology derives from the capitalist system we all hate so much, but it drives people toward answers often times much more effectively than pure necessity. However, the government should have a STRONG hand in incentivizing private actors to develop forms of energy, along with any tools that could help "heal" the planet. Also, I think we should phase out luxurious wastes of energy like cruise ships and pointless expeditions to the bottom of the ocean.

However, the government should have a STRONG hand in incentivizing private actors to develop forms of energy, along with any tools that could help "heal" the planet. Also, I think we should phase out luxurious wastes of energy like cruise ships and pointless expeditions to the bottom of the ocean.

Its one thing to control which energy can come out but as soon as it becomes" Goverment forbidds you from doing anything fun you want to do " they are going to be loathed and resisted.

Even China has not had this kind of control over its pepole, it would take someone like Superman to enforce the world giving up every single thing harmful to the planet.

Climate change is going to be disastrous for the economy

Necronmon posted...

Its one thing to control which energy can come out but as soon as it becomes" Goverment forbidds you from doing anything fun you want to do " they are going to be loathed and resisted.

Even China has not had this kind of control over its pepole, it would take someone like Superman to enforce the world giving up every single thing harmful to the planet.

Even with controlling energy, we have that problem with society as it is comprised right now. Voters are still more influenced by prices at the gas pump than things that will affect their children years down the road. And that's including elections where gas prices aren't really even relevant.

As for taking away certain activities, yes there would be a strong backlash, but there are a lot of things we prohibit because of the social harm it would cause. The only difference is that it's much harder to take away rights than not give them in the first place. I think the activities we should do away with are those that cause egregious harm in proportion to the amount of people it serves and in what way it serves them. I think cruise ships are an easily substitutable form of leisure, especially once more of these parasitic boomers die off (and as much as I love many of them, I want nothing more for the majority of that generation than for them to realize the extent of their selfishness currently and internalize that guilt... not the healthiest mindset, I admit). NASCAR races and, in my case, concerts, are things I would reserve for last resort measures but I hate to think of what point we'd be at by then.

Yeah sure, the economy can't really get worse for me anyways. So if helping the planet makes some rich guy slightly less rich, then I am all for it

False equivalency fallacy.

Sure, but if you thought getting people to wear masks was hard, imagine getting people to make real sacrifices.

The next decades are going to get messy and stupid.

ai123 posted...

What's going to happen to living standards if we do nothing?

Probably improve over time

Everyday we wait to do something the higher the sacrifice in the future will be (and the sooner the bill will come due).

Just basic stuff, the changes in weather effect all aspects of food production, once that's fucked the economy noses dives.

ai123 posted...

What's going to happen to living standards if we do nothing?

This. Our standard of living inevitably goes down if we do nothing anyway and at a much more precipitous pace. Millions of people are already experiencing this as their homes either flood or become stricken with drought.

Might as well accept some cutbacks now to mitigate the worst of it.

A strong economy really won't do us any good if the planet is uninhabitable

ooger posted...

Sure, but if you thought getting people to wear masks was hard, imagine getting people to make real sacrifices.

The next decades are going to get messy and stupid.

Yep, the response to Covid was what convinced me the cause was hopeless

Since then, Im just enjoying life on my own terms until the SHTF

If by "the economy" you mean the traditional definition of "rich people's yacht money," yes, absolutely

If you mean "should the working class continue to bear the brunt of hardship while the rich continue to get richer," no, eat the rich

No, nobody will stand for it if it inconveniences them. It doesn't matter how much it'll objectively improve things in the long way.

Think of it like the goverment cutting back spend across the board for a few years to control inflation. They won't stand for it and will sooner burn the country down instead.

It always depends. Sacrifice has to be based on 3 components:

1) The scope of the sacrifice
2) The scope of the benefit
3) The viability of alternatives.

Too often the topic get raided by people to panicky to not ask for a lot for very little, if not disinterested in the benefits, just soaking rich people. In reality, the bigger the sacrifice, the bigger the benefit and the fewer alternatives there should be to achieve the same output.

By "the economy" you seem to mean profitability which yes absolutely must be sacrificed if it is necessary(it is). It's not even a difficult question. This situation is making areas of the planet uninhabitable and if that keeps expanding we'll lose a lot more than "the economy".

Nuclear isnt going to save anything.

Our entire way of life and modern living is entirely unsustainable. Virtually everything about modern civilization is wholly reliant and built upon fossil fuels in one form or another, at every step of the way. Even if climate change wasnt an existential threat to the survival of humanity, civilization is inevitably headed for collapse in the near future.

We needed to start an immediate and drastic reduction towards ending the use of fossil fuels years ago merely to secure a possibility of humanitys survival, and re-organize everything about society from the ground up.

Every scenario we have modeled that limits climate change from triggering catastrophic and irreversible feedback loops requires nonexistent technology to remove some 200ppm excess CO2 from the atmosphere, due to past emissions.

We are not adequately addressing overconsumption and the rapid depletion of our dwindling natural resources, nor the gross degradation of the entire biosphere.

Every solution that enables Business As Usual further hastens the mass extinction we are currently experiencing.

CSCA33 posted...

Nuclear isnt going to save anything.

Our entire way of life and modern living is entirely unsustainable. Virtually everything about modern civilization is wholly reliant and built upon fossil fuels in one form or another, at every step of the way. Even if climate change wasnt an existential threat to the survival of humanity, civilization is inevitably headed for collapse in the near future.

We needed to start an immediate and drastic reduction towards ending the use of fossil fuels years ago merely to secure a possibility of humanitys survival, and re-organize everything about society from the ground up.

Every scenario we have modeled that limits climate change from triggering catastrophic and irreversible feedback loops requires nonexistent technology to remove some 200ppm excess CO2 from the atmosphere, due to past emissions.

We are not adequately addressing overconsumption and the rapid depletion of our dwindling natural resources, nor the gross degradation of the entire biosphere.

Every solution that enables Business As Usual further hastens the mass extinction we are currently experiencing.

this is the correct take. it's fundamentally impossible to address these problems while capitalism is still the dominant global system

nah, i'll be dead by the time it gets real bad and i'd rather enjoy our current lives of plenty while i still have my health

If we ignore the fact that this is a false dichotomy, the question isn't if we should sacrifice the economy to fight climate change, it's "when will the economy be negatively affected by climate change". Right off the bat, it messes with agriculture and exacerbates natural disasters. Entire countries will become uninhabitable while massive swathes or other countries will become ruined, leading to a major refugee crisis. Some resources are going to be diminished to the point that people will fight over them.

Either we put effort into fighting climate change now, or we're going to have to put WAY more effort into dealing with the effects of climate change later.

reincarnator07 posted...

If we ignore the fact that this is a false dichotomy, the question isn't if we should sacrifice the economy to fight climate change, it's "when will the economy be negatively affected by climate change". Right off the bat, it messes with agriculture and exacerbates natural disasters. Entire countries will become uninhabitable while massive swathes or other countries will become ruined, leading to a major refugee crisis. Some resources are going to be diminished to the point that people will fight over them.

Either we put effort into fighting climate change now, or we're going to have to put WAY more effort into dealing with the effects of climate change later.

Well put. I fear the system at present doesn't care about 10 years down the line when they can make more money today!

CSCA33 posted...

Nuclear isnt going to save anything.

Our entire way of life and modern living is entirely unsustainable. Virtually everything about modern civilization is wholly reliant and built upon fossil fuels in one form or another, at every step of the way. Even if climate change wasnt an existential threat to the survival of humanity, civilization is inevitably headed for collapse in the near future.

We needed to start an immediate and drastic reduction towards ending the use of fossil fuels years ago merely to secure a possibility of humanitys survival, and re-organize everything about society from the ground up.

Every scenario we have modeled that limits climate change from triggering catastrophic and irreversible feedback loops requires nonexistent technology to remove some 200ppm excess CO2 from the atmosphere, due to past emissions.

We are not adequately addressing overconsumption and the rapid depletion of our dwindling natural resources, nor the gross degradation of the entire biosphere.

Every solution that enables Business As Usual further hastens the mass extinction we are currently experiencing.

Um but what about the corporations? Did you even think of how it might negatively affect them??

/s, in case it wasnt obvious

You know the economy Is the current collective actions of everyone everyday. Its not just rich people making money. So its not actually a simple or easy thing at all to what this topic title asks.

You can ask everyone do their part to be carbon neutral, you can make specific changes and regulations here and there. But thats about it. A widespread car ban for example would do wonders for the earths climate but also destroy the lives of most people in America at least.