It's all making sense now, only WW3 can save us.

It’s all making sense now, we kill half the population today by stopping all oil consumption so then maybe in the future they won’t die.

Why does a green transformation have to "tank" the economy? Can't we have green economic revival ? Would it not create more jobs to transition faster ?

It doesn’t. Both sides need to work together towards a common goal. If only one side is doing it, nothing will change.

More jobs = more consumption = more resources. Their idea is for people to consume far less, therefore own less. If people own and consume less there's less incomes.

Don't own a house, only rent a small apartment in a dense urban setting. Don't own the means to your own transportation, only get by with walking and transit. Price meats so high most people can't afford them regularly.

Two out of the three things you mention are so 'undesirable' that the few dense walkable urban areas in the US are more expensive than living in the suburbs. There's a reason why left-wingers use the word "gentrification" a whole lot. In many cases suburban home and car ownership is actually cheaper than the traditional urban lifestyle, for various reasons including but not limited to:

1. Supply being limited because America outlawed dense urban construction decades ago. Dense cities cannot legally expand to meet demand and building up gets more expensive and unrealistic after a certain number of floors.

2. People in suburbs being further away from lucrative jobs - i.e. proximity to one's work is priced into the cost of the home.

3. Various government subsidies and tax credits that distort the market to produce more resource-intensive suburban housing.

"America" didn't outlaw the expansion, the cities did it to themselves. The cities are in charge of their zoning and planning, not the federal government. They could allow for more density, but the voters choose no.

It's not like the government subsidies and tax credits exist even though nobody wants them. They exist because, once again, that's what voters have suggested they want when they go to the polls.

“I won’t stop because they won’t stop” is going to destroy the planet

It is a collective effort. If you don’t realize that, you will not get anywhere in your goals of reducing climate change.

Isn't it funny that the only option is going to be greater government, that forces its citizens to act against their own interests?

The real winner in this situation is government! (Exclamation mark, but I'm not actually surprised.)

You have to wonder whether this is a self-serving agenda for those who run it.

and who are the World Meteorological Organization?

> The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations responsible for promoting international cooperation on atmospheric science, climatology, hydrology and geophysics.

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Meteorological_Organizat...

Ok - so its the UN. The UN is an UNelected body that presents itself as the face of world government.

> The United Nations (UN) is an intergovernmental organization whose stated purposes are to maintain international peace and security, develop friendly relations among nations, achieve international cooperation, and serve as a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations

The unprecedented disaster is the increase in global governance!

collective efforts don’t always start simultaneously!

> So we should just tank our own economy while being unable to do anything about our neighbors?

Yes.

You seem smart.

I'm glad you agree, it did seem the dumber choice to continue driving at full speed into a brick wall just because the driver next to me won't brake first.

I think the right metaphor to demonstrate the argument being made is you are coupled to the other car and it doesn't matter if you turn off your engine, you're both hitting the wall anyway if the other car doesn't decide to stop too.

So you better turn off the engine and then hope the other drivers turns theirs off too.

In what world is doing nothing the right choice?

I don't know if hope is enough. I don't think people are willing to be miserable for hope- especially when there is no reasonable expectation that others would stop.

I disagree that you need to be miserable. Humans are very good at getting used to their circumstances, and some of the changes would be net positives on the personal level. I know I'm way happier now that I ride my bicycle as my main method of transportation.

But also, climate change is already making us miserable. I went on vacation and it was impossible to be outside between 12-3, so we had to plan our days around that. It's not a choice between happy and miserable, it's a tradeoff between less than ideal situations.

What works for you doesn't work for everyone. There are many, many places in the world where using a bicycle as a main method of transportation would be impractical and miserable. Short of force, this isn't going to happen.

Yes, the entire idea is to refactor our cities and societies so that most people can and do use the low carbon option.

It's not commuting 40Km by bicycle, it's raising the price of gas to the point that people choose to live at a distance where they can bicycle to work. At the same time you need to build housing and bike infrastructure to make sure everyone can have access to it.

Not everyone lives in a city. 'Refactoring' the planet is a pipe dream in the short term. It's not possible in the timeframe being discussed. People in the larger thread suggest that its better to get the dying over with now since it'll happen anyway. When food stops moving, it'll be the cities that fall first. A bicycle won't help.

Ok, you're a doomer and a prepper, no point in having a discussion you're not interested in

What are you talking about? You know nothing about me. You can't 'win' the discussion so you move what you think are insults. Do better.