That's not true. Many people in "developed" countries reduce their energy use, and their use of energy-intensive products, in order to help reduce climate forcing. And they've done so for decades.

However, it is true that too few people in "developed" countries do that. And it's also true that too many people in "less-developed" countries lust after energy-intensive lifestyles. So overall, its unlikely that overall climate forcing will decrease. Unless solar energy and battery usage take off exponentially enough.

Even worse, there's already enough CO2 in the atmosphere to drive substantial climate change. And the poles are warming fast enough to drive substantial CO2 and CH4 outgassing from melting permafrost.

So maybe it's just too late. And so maybe the rational option for those alive now is to party hearty. Russia and China probably like that path.

Or live wisely so you have the financial means and health to move you and your family elsewhere when need arrives, probably in our lifetimes for 80% of the world.

Right. That's arguably the prudent take on "party hearty". There's always the tension between "do fun stuff now when you can enjoy it most" and "save for later when you'll have more free time and less likely income".

Ah understood. You were looking at the national level with countries like China and Russia "party[ing] hearty" by not significantly curbing C02 emissions. Those individuals who benefit directly from oil and coal (as they do in the US) will extract gains and use it to pad offshore bank accounts. Meanwhile the rest of us should take a prudent life and be prepared for shocks ahead (like land and cost of living soaring in climate-friendly cities). On a more personal level, ideally savers find ways to extract more late-life enjoyment out of their deferred-enjoyment lifestyles.

The US is still partying hard. At least, relative to much of Western Europe. Much of Eastern Europe still has too much inefficient Soviet-era infrastructure. And yes, China has had slack in most climate agreements.

I'm not sure that many people do that.

A good comparison would be FOSS. Richard Stallman inconveniences himself to the point of absurdity, but I'm pretty sure barely anyone does anything close to it.

I changed my diet, I live in good housing, but when I put the numbers on paper, I'm not doing much at all, and could do much more.

> Richard Stallman inconveniences himself to the point of absurdity

I'm not sure that's an apt comparison. rms simply has a workflow that doesn't require the use of proprietary software. It's not that inconvenient for him.

In on-topic comparison, it would be having a lifestyle where you'd simply have no use for a car: you live close to work, enjoy riding a bicycle, etc.

Of course, finding that workflow or lifestyle might limit some options, but once you accept that, it's not all that inconvenient.

So do vegans have a workflow that makes their diet convenient. The thing is, one has to start somewhere, and no one starts anywhere because they see the change as inconvenient.

> So do vegans have a workflow that makes their diet convenient.

I suppose so. More home cooking, sourcing ingredients, finding small markets, knowing the right restaurants, etc.

> The thing is, one has to start somewhere, and no one starts anywhere because they see the change as inconvenient.

That's probably and unfortunately very true, in software as well as food and CO2 reduction.

"Eat your vegetables" is never the answer. In climate change, because of the coordination problems, "Eat your vegetables" is so emphatically not the answer that it shouldn't even be discussed as anything except a desperate, ineffective stopgap.

People will keep eating candy. They will never eat their vegetables, unless they taste like candy. It's pointless to imagine worlds in which they eat their vegetables and everything is great because, although it's possible to write a plan to get from here to there, those worlds are strictly fantasy. The plan can not be followed. I could also write a plan for the sun to rise in the west—and it would also fail, for largely the same reason.

If you want to solve the problem, make a better, cheaper vegetable that tastes like candy.

Vegetables are expensive because subsidies are small. There's no free market in agriculture.

I'm not exactly sure how candies are causing climate change.

Sorry, I don't follow. Are you extending the metaphor or answering literally? Candy is the fossil fuel-intensive lifestyle and eating vegetables is choosing to cut back.

I thought candy was delicious CO2 intensive food. Not a complete lifestyle.

Although, food is just one part of the equation. I've never said diet is the only change necessary to make. A person in the first world would do more by not using AC and heating than switching to a different diet, so one might optimize there. Although, not many want to optimize there, so it's easier to change the diet if they wish to lower their footprint.

"Eat your vegetables" at least works for some people, myself for one. It's not like climate change where being good helps only if everyone is. Anyone who internalizes the reasons vegetables > candy will want to eat vegetables and be personally better off.

It's even worse than that: the small percentage of people who have changed their consumption patterns out of concern for the environment are probably having zero or negative impact.

For instance, the following products are worse for the environment than their alternatives:

1. Hand-crafted, locally produced goods

2. Non-factory farmed food

3. Organic food

There are also simple things that one can do, that have an impact. For example, one could go on holiday to a local destination rather than flying half the world. Or you could cycle to work rather than traveling by car every day.

(Sure, in the grand scheme of things, these will make small differences, but we have to cut our use of fossil fuel everywhere.)

Or you could try to affect the things that do matter in the grand scheme of things: E.g , demand more regulation for CO2-heavy industries, find ways to support CO2-neutral energy production, demand anti-deforestation clauses in trade agreements, etc.

Having one less child has far more of an impact than all of those lifestyle changes combined.

Yeah, but then you are probably reducing the frequency of people who care about the environment in future populations, which may be a net loss.

Extrapolating that out environmentally concerned people should have as many children as possible and outbreed those not concerned about greenhouse emissions?

Such a statement seems to assume that the mind is an immutable object only created in childhood.

While it certainly causes cognitive dissonance for some, an SUV driving redneck carnivore with no children has created far less emissions than a public transport using vegan environmentalist with 2 kids.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541

Mostly I’m just saying that, given that most aspects of personality are 30-80% heritable, I think people should really think twice before contributing to a future with less long-term thinkers in it.

Certainly do understand the motivation, it just seems like a race environmentalists can't win.

There are better ways to change minds.

And providing education for and/or adopting other children so that they learn how to live responsibly.

I think this advice can be simplified greatly: reduce your expenditures. If you're spending less money, then you are consuming a smaller share of the world's bounty.

Reducing energy use doesn’t necessarily mean reducing expenditures. I mean, reducing expenditures can be good if you’re saving for something else, but you don’t have to.

Instead of buying and fueling the car, you can buy the luxury bicycle.

Instead of flying to Venice, you can rent a sailing yacht. Or whatever is local to your area.

It’s like dieting. The impulse is to reduce, naturally because you’re cutting things out, but eventually you figure out that you can fill your life with other experiences.

If you save that money instead it goes into a pool that is invested in things that then go and spend it elsewhere.

So your position is that personal consumption does not result in additional resource usage?

I'm not completely sure. I just know how modern economies work. If I don't use it, the economy optimizes so that someone else will.

So we should exclusively eat factory-farmed food to save the environment?

Despite factory-farming being one of the main drivers of CO2?

Factory farming is very resource intensive, but it is less resource intensive per unit of food produced. Just look at the prices at your local grocery store!

Check out the Leadership and the Environment podcast (disclosure: I host it).

http://joshuaspodek.com/podcast