Is the issue here that the premise is false (that a 1950s standard of living will be necessary), or that the tools for getting there from here are insufficient to the task (liberal democratic polity).
In the more general case, if you've got a problem, a necessary destination, and standard set of tools used to solve problems, if the tools don't suit the destination is the problem the tools or the destination?
I ask as it seems that often the problem seems to be the tools, but discussion hinges on the destination. This strikes me as odd.
I'll note that the article isn't even premised on how we get to a 1950s standard of living, but if that's a viable goal or target. Departing immediately from that question to the viability of getting to it, before considering the target's sufficiency or suitability, seems ... premature.
Since we definitely want that to happen, we need other options than the options currently discussed.
If I look at this I always come back to the same point: humanity will need to take control of earth's climate. And while limiting CO2 (and, more importantly, methane) emissions will be a component of that, it's not going to be the only one or even the most important.
When the alternative appears to be the collapse of civilization and the possible extinction of humanity, how can it NOT be an option?
Because there is no central government, no central decisor. It's a game theory context of actors spread all over.
Even if the situation does turn out to be hopeless, that point of view does not seem to offer anything useful. Better to try and fail, at least!
Also, "I don't know of a solution that works" != fatalism.
If the problem is important enough to solve, it's important enough to not waste time trying a solution that won't work.
Who is supposed to «try», and what?
The issue can only be resolved (in terms of political intervention) by a sound, sensible plan acceptable by enough parts.
You want to fix the problem, you have to facilitate that somebody formulates a proposal that enough governments will be available to subscribe to.
No, the fear of annihilation is factually not enough to convince a policymaker - first, guts to head, because of ethology, and second, because of game theory. "Ethology" being a well-dressed encapsulation for "that's how it is - see and evaluate", and "game theory" implying that for a player not to grab the loot a number of reassurances must be in place.
Me? My current living standard is essential to saving the planet so it would be a mistake for me to join you.
And, given how we saw quarantines and masking play out, I suspect sentirism is right.
>Quite a few of us, not most but at least a sizeable portion, are willing to make these concessions.
I think this author either has a seriously different idea of what "sizeable portion" means or is vastly overestimating how many people support this kind of policy to begin with and would continue supporting this policy once they actually saw what it affected their standard of living. It's all well and good until people find out that they can no longer have lots of nice things which they previously took for granted.
>It means more people growing food on smaller plots.
No, that takes MORE energy, not less. If your concern is about too much energy usage then decreasing the efficiency of energy use by reducing economies of scale is insane.