gerrymcgovern,
@gerrymcgovern@mastodon.green avatar

"A study I carried out took common Footprint and related figures and derived the conclusion that if the world’s 2050 expected population were to share natural resources equally we would all receive about one-ninth of the per capita amount we in rich countries get now, and if economic growth continues at present rates the fraction would more than halve by 2050."

https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/what-is-to-be-done-thoughts-on-degrowth-strategy/

gerrymcgovern,
@gerrymcgovern@mastodon.green avatar

"we must face up to enormous degrowth to far lower rates of production, consumption, “living standards” and GDP. That cannot possibly be done by or within a high-energy, highly industrialised, capital intensive, market and profit driven, globalised society, capitalist or otherwise. It is now well established that this conclusion cannot be rejected on the grounds that growth can be “decoupled” from resource and environmental impacts."

https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/what-is-to-be-done-thoughts-on-degrowth-strategy/

Misslemon,

@gerrymcgovern
Why must "we" get used to lower living standards when those who are driving this are flying across the world in private jets with accompanying cargo planes that bring thier hum vees + similar gas guzzling cars . Why are we to accept not eating meat , not driving our cars when these people are dining lavishly on a la cart menu s in fancy hotels , hookers included , if there really was a climate emergency NO ONE would be exempt , untill that changes its just a lie to justify taxes

hypolite,

@Misslemon @gerrymcgovern Because these very visible over-consumption behaviors are a minority, and don't account for that much in the global resource consumption. On the other hand, mass meat production can only be reduced if "we" under-mediatized people stop eating in large enough numbers.

The super rich are definitely wrong examples and set dangerous goals for others, but their actual consumption is a rounding error. For example banning all private jets worldwide would have a negligible effect on greenhouse gas emissions. I'd still support this kind of ban but not for the actual effect on the environment.

gerrymcgovern,
@gerrymcgovern@mastodon.green avatar

@hypolite
True. 10% of the human population do at least 50% of the environmental damage, but that 10% still represents over 800 million people. There's a lot of middle class people in there that need to radically change lifestyles.
@Misslemon

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • ngwrru68w68
  • DreamBathrooms
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • InstantRegret
  • GTA5RPClips
  • Youngstown
  • everett
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • osvaldo12
  • mdbf
  • kavyap
  • cubers
  • megavids
  • modclub
  • normalnudes
  • tester
  • khanakhh
  • Durango
  • ethstaker
  • tacticalgear
  • Leos
  • provamag3
  • anitta
  • cisconetworking
  • JUstTest
  • lostlight
  • All magazines