To be fair, there were some pretty drastic reduction in emissions from transportation in the last year. That was due to a global pandemic rather than environmental activism, but still it's progress. It may have at least caused some permanent changes in behavior regarding driving to the office every day.

Before the pandemic I didn't work from home at all. Now after working from home 100% for a year I'm looking forward to being able to see my coworkers in person again when things open up, but I'll probably work from home a few days a week. Not a huge change, but every little bit helps, especially when hundreds of millions or billions of other people start working from home a few days a week who wouldn't before.

> It’s not possible.

Why not. You can live like a millionaire and not have kids. Having a kid is many factors worse than living a millionaire.

Really, really depends on how you live. People in first world countries are worse for the environment than people in third world countries by a wide margin per capita.

Well, in some senses. Yet ocean plastics were reported to be 90% China and India. Soil erosion has been mostly eliminated in the US and is endemic elsewhere. And obviously, since most remaining native species are in 3rd world countries, the threats to them are there.

It seems logical to direct efforts to control damage toward the places where they are occurring.

Yes, because we exported our environmental responsibilities regarding plastic manufacturing and processing to those countries, which inevitably pollute for us.

Until recently, China had been importing a vast amount of the world's trashed plastic, ostensibly for recycling, but likely simply dumping a good part of it.

The global economy doesn't allow for simple answers to the sources of trash and waste. China (and India) are massive exporters of goods, only a fraction of their manufacturing is consumed internally. And of course, the biggest importers are the US and Europe.

China and India conduct a huge amount of their economic activity in order to satisfy the demand of people in other places though, i.e. that plastic, coal burning, etc. is mostly on us.

To further clarify this comment: living like a millionaire (consuming more in general) increases your carbon footprint.

The US is effectively zero population growth, as are many other affluent parts of the world. This seems like an overly simplistic assessment.

The problem is not necessarily the population growth, but the growth in aggregate demand. The rich demand more and more every year, the middle-class demand more and more every year, and the poor demand to live like the middle class.

Your population can be stable, but the economy is not.

While economy has historically been coupled to resource and energy usage, recently we have decoupled economic growth from things like that, countries can and do have economic growth with stable or decreasing ecological footprint as the service economy and digital/attention economy can provide more and more things people want without necessarily consuming more physical resources.

> While economy has historically been coupled to resource and energy usage, recently we have decoupled economic growth from things like that

I get what you are saying but I would need to see this sustained before I believe that we have finally broken the back of GDP to Ecological Footprint linkage. I'm not optimistic about mankind's ability to keep its footprint under control.

A lot of the time, that is only achieved by outsourcing production and other high-environmental tole activities to the third world. I am extremely skeptical of most countries claiming to have achieved this.

Do you have a source for this? Considering the basic improvements seen in the efficiency of various devices and processes, I'm dubious that the outsourcing of environmentally costly activity is the cause of this GDP-resources trend.

I am assuming we need to go negative in population growth, current population levels are not sustainable.

It's almost like a pandemic could be natures way of enacting that, yet it seems now we've conquered its capability to do widespread damage in terms of human lives lost. This must be one of the least fatal pandemics in history

iirc dogs are also equivalent to the average emissions of a person in Vietnam. So best to cut them out as well.

sure

Are you advocating for only certain people not to have kids (in which case, what’s your criteria on who should and who shouldn’t), or that no one should have kids (e.g. the humanity should die out)?

This is such a sick mindset.

"Sure, we can run the world down for a bit -- all we have to do is sacrifice the opportunity of future generations to experience the world"

I don’t have a sister. Did my parents rob her of the opportunity to live a meaningful life? There is nothing that could be robbed of anything.