Skip to main content

View Diary: Exporting Carbon Pollution - We Shall Not Participate in Our Own Destruction (91 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  We have to work on both sides (0+ / 0-)

    Use energy more wisely, cut back aggressively on fossil fuels, and go heavy into deployment and research on renewables.

    that's what I advocate.

    Where we differ is that you seem to think our living standard is non-negotiable. I think that if it's our energy-intensive way of life (short-term) vs. the ability of the earth to sustain civilization over the medium and long-term, I take the latter.

    As the world warms, the reigning ideology that tells us it’s everyone for themselves, that victims deserve their fate, that we can master nature, will take us to a very cold place indeed - Naomi Klein

    by mightymouse on Sat Dec 24, 2011 at 05:17:09 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  And I think that's a false choice. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse

      I think it's perfectly possible to maintain our living standard WITHOUT damaging the ability of the Earth to sustain civilization.

      "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

      by Whimsical on Sat Dec 24, 2011 at 06:16:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  why do you think this? (0+ / 0-)

        where is all this energy to come from? to keep all our big houses warm and fuel our giant cars on our long commutes?

        or do you think fossil fuel use is not a big problem?

        As the world warms, the reigning ideology that tells us it’s everyone for themselves, that victims deserve their fate, that we can master nature, will take us to a very cold place indeed - Naomi Klein

        by mightymouse on Sat Dec 24, 2011 at 06:32:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think there is a huge overlap (0+ / 0-)

          between what both of you are saying.  I'll try to bridge.

          Our experiential standard of living should be a non-negotiable as possible.  It's not just the "marketing" aspect, as in getting people to accept changes that might be perceived as negative, but also - why settle for less overall goodness?

          A huge question is what matters to create a high experiential standard of living.  Core items are life expectancy, health, security, freedom to do fun things.  Those things, to achieve them, require energy resources, a lot of them.

          What's debatable is what's the right mix of efficiency, careful conservation, improvements in energy sources, and in some cases actual sacrifice, are required to maintain a high overall level of good life but make vastly better use of our energy and environmental situation.

          And directly related is the relationship, or in some cases non-relationship, between goodness of life and certain material goods or potential material excesses.

          Sometimes trends are happening but get masked in the guise of current events.  The dramatic fall of the useless McMansion is portrayed as a result of the great recession, and in a proximate sense it was, but in a larger sense it could be seen as part of a larger trend of realizing that such a degree of wretched material excess did not actually improve quality of life as much as some people thought it would, and it wasn't worth the energy bills to heat 4500 square feet for a family of 4.

          I don't want to sacrifice in positive experiences and things that make me happy.  I am definitely willing to carefully look at changes in material life that save resources, and in the final analysis, don't actually matter to my family's happiness, security, and health.

          We shall not participate in our own destruction.

          by James Wells on Sat Dec 24, 2011 at 07:37:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site