Re:Would 1950s Living Standards Save Us?
by candiodari on Saturday June 18, 2022 @08:00PM
(#31794898)
I think there's even a problem of expectations. What would it accomplish if we did that? Because there wouldn't be a reduction of climate forcing if we did this, it would be a (slower) increase. It wouldn't cool the planet, it would merely slow the increase.
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.
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.