this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
1017 points (98.3% liked)

Solarpunk

5499 readers
44 users here now

The space to discuss Solarpunk itself and Solarpunk related stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere.

What is Solarpunk?

Join our chat: Movim or XMPP client.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Pretzilla@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago (5 children)

All true and all, but it's an ironic framing that implies saving human lives, since human population growth is the biggest driver by far.

Saving all diversity of life on the planet and preserving quality of life should be the stated objectives.

[–] Candelestine@lemmy.world 25 points 8 months ago

Good thing human population growth seems to level off and start dropping after awhile.

[–] yessikg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Population growth is not the biggest factor, that is just fascist/racist propaganda. We are just used to overconsuming

[–] Skasi@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

human population growth is the biggest driver by far

I argue that the biggest driver for CO~2~ emissions at the moment is not population growth, but rather the rise of the quality of living in high population low income regions such as China, India, etc.

preserving quality of life should be the stated objectives

Does that mean you also want the many inequalities to remain? CO~2~ emissions per person are spread as unequal as wealth. Demanding that people are allowed to continue living far above the carrying capacity of the Earth while others live far below is not a solution to the problem.

People argue something along the lines of "spending a lot of energy gives a good quality of life" and to some extend this is true. Though when people spend an hour or two to drive to work in a private car 5 days a week that doesn't seem like a good quality of living to me.

To fight climate change without having to miss out on a good quality of living it's important that people get the most "bang for their buck" as far as CO~2~ emmissions are concerned. I argue that things like watching Formula 1 drivers, owning private jets or even just doing long communes to work by car are among the WORST bang for your CO~2~-buck anybody can get. Riding a bike, having a picnic in a local park or commuting via public transportation (which lets you do other things like playing on your phone, reading a book or chatting with people while waiting) seem to be way better options.

[–] MrMakabar 6 points 8 months ago

In that case, why are Chinas emissions hoing up, when its population is shrinking?

Population growth matters, but the real issue is consumption. Intresstingly people have fewer children in urbaized socitied, when they have all basic material needs meet and womens rights are improved. So we just have to meet everybodies needs to a reasonable level and have to reduce emissions. Population is solving itsrlf at that point. If we did that global population would peak before 2050 and fall to about 6billion by the end of the century.

You're not going to get the people who can affect change to care by putting forth quality of life and life on the planet as driving factors.