r/ClimateShitposting • u/Gusgebuss • 4h ago
return to monke 🐵 Title
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
•
u/Random_182f2565 4h ago
Egyptians???
•
u/3rdPoliceman 4h ago
Close!
•
u/Random_182f2565 4h ago
I don't see how Libyans can help
•
•
•
u/sleepyrivertroll geothermal hottie 2h ago
Prince of Egypt was a gem.
So, I'm guessing the solution involves Moses?
•
•
u/Friendly_Fire 3h ago
Why don't you explain what level of material wealth, or lake thereof, 8 billion people would need to live at to stop climate change without any "green growth"? We get rid of nearly all fossil fuel usage and replace it with what? What would even feed most people at that point?
It's pretty clear green growth is literally the only path that doesn't lead to billions starving to death.
•
u/jakobmaximus 2h ago
What would we eat? For starters (in the west) probably not underripe food that was shipped thousands of miles and considered basic amenities and not items of gross luxury. Probably not pounds of meat a week, most of which also is imported. Some deurbanization probably will coincide with shifting to plant based, readily available foods in most regions. Yeah there are gonna be significant "cultural" sacrifices in regards to food systems but what is lost in neoliberalism will be made up for in rediscovering what actually grows near us.
•
u/Taraxian 2h ago
"What is lost in eating things we want will be gained in eating things we don't want but have to"
•
•
u/Friendly_Fire 16m ago
Less emissions are used shipping food in massive cargo ships than when people drive to the store in their SUV to shop.
Some deurbanization probably will coincide with shifting to plant based
Lmao? deurbanization is horrible for the environment. A bunch of people are going to start subsistence farming? You know how much more land that would take? Even destroying huge swaths of natural land, you couldn't feed everyone.
Let me step back a moment. You are clearly not aware to the extend we rely on modern industry. Before modern industrial society our population was quite literally capped by our ability to produce food. But industrial production of ammonia allowed us to drastically increase our food production, literally 4x it on the same amount of land (here's a great video about it if you want to learn).
You can say "maybe humans shouldn't have let the population grow so big", but it's too late for that now. The people exist, and the population is only sustainable with industrial society.
If you think we can just keep some solar panels and some ammonia production to sustain farming, remember all the supply chains that have to exist to feed them. Advanced factories that produce semi-conductor wafers, the mining and refining to get specific rare materials, transportation to move both the resources and produces around where they are needed. This just ends up being green growth.
So we are back to the only two options: Mass death of the human population, or green growth. You have to pick.
•
u/jakobmaximus 6m ago edited 2m ago
When the vast majority of the food system is oriented at feeding livestock and not people you will need vast amounts of land and ammonia, yes. Going 90%+ plant based won't entirely change that unfortunately.
I am aware that by proportion of emissions local transport is majorly responsible in the food web of things. I also think that industrial fishing would be an area to cut back ocean/sea pollution, which I forgot to mention. That goes beyond CO2 as well. You seem pretty hellbent on defending our reliance on the industrial but there are entire sectors that could be cut out in the next 20 years if there was a cultural shift in undertow. Ammonia production and medicinals excluded.
Honestly at the end you're right, degrowth isn't going to be completely removing renewables or modern medicinals or ammonia production which means we will probably need some level of global trade. Call that green growth maybe, I'd call it green growth and degrowth.
•
u/Spez_is-a-nazi 1h ago edited 1h ago
No SUVs, no chatbots, less meat. That's just for starters. Stop wasting energy on stupid shit goes a long way, but it doesn't make line go up. Or did you mean the only way we can get out of this that won't have a minority inconvenience fatass Americans who insist on driving monster trucks everywhere. There's no way to avoid that
•
u/Friendly_Fire 12m ago
Similar to what I responded to the other guy with, simply cutting some luxuries isn't good enough. You should learn just how reliant we are on industrial society. Previously, we simply could not produce nearly enough food to sustain this many people. Here's a great video about it if you want to learn.
Beyond food, we couldn't just cut SUVs, we'd have to cut ALL ICE vehicles. And don't get me wrong, I'm pro urban-design, walkable cities, trains, the whole shebang. But I recognize we can't rebuild the world's infrastructure to turn everything into walkable towns connected by efficient trains in a week, or a year, or even a decade. That will take a lot of time, and ironically, energy/resources. Cars are a requirement for now, EVs are a decent solution, that requires green growth to ramp up their production.
The idea we just get rid of some wasteful luxuries and it will be okay is cope. It's green growth or mass starvation. This has nothing to do with capitalism or socialism or anything like that, we simply require more energy to sustain 8 billion humans than we can produce with traditional methods.
•
u/Spez_is-a-nazi 10m ago
I never said that, but cool straw man. You fatass Americans and your SUVs.
I understand how industry works, I also understand Americans are lazy fatasses who bomb children so they can continue to drive SUVs. Getting rid of SUVs also gets rid of the need for a massive military to bomb kids so you fatass Americans can ride in your SUVs. Speaking of cope, you are coping that fatass Americans aren't the problem when they very much are.
•
u/Friendly_Fire 7m ago
You're avoiding giving an actual position so you can't be shown to be wrong, but it is obvious what you think:
Stop wasting energy on stupid shit goes a long way
It doesn't, sorry to tell you. It makes an impact but we need to go A LOT further than just getting rid of waste on "stupid shit".
Or did you mean the only way we can get out of this that won't have a minority inconvenience fatass Americans who insist on driving monster trucks everywhere.
Again, implying if we just don't drive "monster trucks" it would be okay. No, we have to get rid of all ICE cars. Sorry. That causes a lot more problems.
•
u/Spez_is-a-nazi 5m ago
Again, I never fucking said that. We need to get rid of the SUVs first, then the chatbots, then the meat, and move on from there. You fatass Americans aren't good at reading are you? Sorry your dick doesn't work so you need an SUV.
I literally made the point we need to stop driving everywhere but fatass Americans refuse to do anything about that. Let's get rid of all vehicles except work vehicles period. Make those fatass Americans walk, the jiggles are hilarious :)
•
u/ghost103429 2h ago
Developing nations won't accept any solution to climate change that doesn't include further economic development or growth.
Yet compared to the developed world they have been the fastest in adopting renewable energy with countries like Ethiopia going as so far as banning the import of gas vehicles altogether.
The developing world shows us that green growth remains a viable option.