5.2 kWh? kW means nothing for a battery.

What? Just do both. I don’t follow your logic.

No wastewater treatment plant??

There’s a course that’s been required for engineering degrees at my university for some years about sustainable development, in which they even mention collapse.

Of course almost nobody gives a fuck or even go to class.

Yes, realize it’s not a great idea building a city for a million people in a desert and move everyone.

By saying “only regulations on industry can save us now”, you’re placing your faith on a top-down system which has already failed us.

The article claims the bottom 90% produce an average of 2.76 tCO2/year. That’s still twice too much. Again, I did not the say the billionaires and corporations were not partly responsible. But what makes the billionaires and corporations rich and able to do so are the consumers paying for it.

To blame everything on someone else is choosing what’s most convenient for you. It’s wrong and self-centered. If you’re saying “someone is doing worse than me, hence I have no reason to improve myself”, then everyone but the worst won’t change. The correct mentality is “I will act in such a way that if everyone were to do the same, everything would work out” (also known as the categorical imperative).

Why do you think the oil & gas industry exists? To satisfy the needs of consumer. The industry isn’t just burning oil just to fuck the climate up. It all comes down to the consumer.

Now about carbon footprint. The Paris agreement aims to limit global warming to 1.5ºC. To do, we collectively have to emit less than 250 Gt (from the start of 2023). That means each of the 8 billion persons on the planet get a 1.16 t/year budget until 2050, and then zero.

You cannot reach this footprint while eating meat like the average American does. You cannot reach it by keeping driving, or even owning a car. You cannot just hope anymore to keep same lifestyle, which was only made affordable by an era of cheap fossil energy.

Of course you can keep blaming other in all caps text but that’s not going to change anything, nor inspire change. Are the companies to blame? Sure. But companies are made by people, and are all eventually financed by the consumer. You. Me. Us.

https://archive.is/KQS9q

From my experience, the problem is not climate denialism anymore, at least not where I live. If you ask someone to tell you about the climate problem and its causes, most will get it right.

What they do get wrong is on who is to blame. And I’m constantly seeing the same here. They blame the rich for making the problem worse. They blame China for polluting more than its fair share. They blame the politicians for adopting inadequate measures.

But they never blame themselves. They drive a 2 metric ton car everyday, perhaps they have 3 kids, or work in finance. Or they’re broke and just can’t stop thinking about money all the time.

The rich are rich because we keep making them richer. China overpollutes because we overconsume. Politicians take inadequate measures because they do what the population wants to be reelected on the next term.

From my point of view, if you are emitting more than 1.2 tonnes of CO2 equivalent before 2050 (Paris agreement) and 0 tonnes after, you’re the problem. If you don’t have the wits or will to see through the advertising wanting you to keep overconsuming, you’re the problem. If you keep blaming the others and not seeing how the problem takes its root from you, you’re the problem.

The problem is at the bottom. Thus solutions will not come from the top, they will come from the bottom. Stop waiting after “those than can actually do anything”. If you’re not happy with the society you live in, know that you are always free to stop participating in it, and should.

When enough people do so and labor shortage becomes rampant, when the stock market collapses, when only a fraction of people participate in elections and pay their taxes, only then will things change. Society, our sick society, will have collapsed then, willingly, and something better will have taken its place.

I imagine one could start a non profit organization to collect funds and inform people, then proceed to start building it. The first step is to find people willing to contribute to the project and get together. I’m not very knowledgeable in the matter sorry.

I’m not even sure I like the concept of creating such a place from the ground up as opposed to making the necessary changes (public transit, bicycle roads, etc) to make existing places more livable. The solution proposed here feels like isolating a bunch of rich educated people in a private neighborhood so they can feel good about their life. A better goal would be to allow everyone to access such a lifestyle without rebuilding it all.

Air conditioning inspired by Hobbits is also surprisingly effective.

What is this? Looks like a corporate neighborhood or something? It would’ve been much better if it had been created bottom up, by the people. Also, it seems very expensive, $1500 a month for 1 bedroom apartments. I applaud the concept but the execution is just bad.

While I wholeheartedly agree with what is said the article, I cannot fathom how banning cars could even begin to happen. The car is strongly anchored in western culture, a majority of people own one, and there are no alternatives that would satisfy these people.

Evolving into a car-centric democratic society is a one way transition. By the point the majority of voters own a car, all possible alternatives are delayed and watered down to the point of become insufficient, if they are implemented at all. Some places in Europe have never fully adopted the car. North America though? Forget it.

Let’s say some city administrators believe in transition. Thus, they decide to build a tramway for the city. Of all the voters, 70% own a car, and 50% oppose the project, perhaps having been convinced by the opposition that the project will make their taxes jump through the roof. By the time the project starts, the term has ended and the administration is voted out, the project is dropped.

The asbestos comparison is flawed in that asbestos didn’t have a hundred billion dollar industry backing it, lobbying and brain washing the population into thinking a life without a car is impossible. People didn’t need asbestos for earning their livelihood.

People know cars are dangerous. Everyone who has taken a walk down a busy street or uses a bicycle know it. Ironically, the best way to protect yourself from cars is to own a car, the biggest car you can get. So people who care about their safety buy bigger cars, exacerbating the problem.

Let’s also not forget that most people lack the ability to plan years ahead of time. They make choices that will be good for them today. Hence a majority of the population don’t give a fuck about the climate change, because they’re not affected by it today (or so they believe). Now .when the choice to make is about diverging from a path taken by all your friends and family for three or four generations (owning a car), it’s very nearly impossible to give a fuck.

So to be honest, I have zero hope for a transportation transition in western societies. I believe it will take something more. A collapse of the fossil fuel supply, lasting multiple years.

https://archive.is/E1pzo

To be honest I would prefer millions of people doing zero waste perfectly and a handful eating the rich. There aren’t many of them after all.

To put this in perspective, 250 Gt at the start of 2023 means each of the 8 billion persons on the planet get a 2.6 t/year budget if we collectively reach net zero in 2035, and a 1.16 t/year budget for 2050.

Moreover, to be fair to underdeveloped countries, it would make sense for them to have a larger allowance of this budget given that they are the farthest from having the infrastructure needed to get rid of fossil fuels while ensuring quality of life.

Considering population is still growing, that the current global average (per the article data) is around 5 t/year/person, and that this average is also still growing, we can all see that’s not happening.

More on this line of thought: https://medium.com/@bumblebeeunbarred/is-britain-doing-its-bit-for-climate-58f9c78074eb

I only said jobs in the intermediate economy provide no value. I invite you to read more about it at https://leanlogic.online/glossary/intermediate-economy/

What value is the transport that brings me food produced thousands of kilometers from where I live, when it could’ve been produced locally, requiring no transport?

What value is the bureaucracy that keeps this exceedingly complex system working, when a smaller, easily manageable community would provide the same amount of well being?

I don’t think any task is fit only for machines. That line of thinking, especially when applied to agriculture, leads to loss of skills, authenticity, and connection to our ecosystems

I meant productivity as output/labor not as output/land. You’re right in saying permacultural production exceeds industrial agriculture in output/land productivity, however it does require more labor.

This is a problem because nowadays a tiny proportion of the population works in agriculture. 200 years ago the vast majority of the population were farmers, and it couldn’t have been otherwise. Until industrial agriculture allowed us. The vast majority of the population now dedicate themselves to other tasks, in the intermediate economy, which ultimately provides no value: transport, bureaucracy, etc. Let us call this “intensification”.

Despite ultimately providing no value, these tasks are still required for our society to function, and thus we can’t decide to do without them. Intensification is a one way process. If we want to keep the current society intact, we are stuck with industrial agriculture.

Perhaps as you say modern greenhouse is more productive in output/land, but this doesn’t matter if we don’t have the labor force to do it.

Now it may seem like I’m destroying my own point by saying permaculture is not globally viable. It’s not, really. For it to become so, we’ll need some sort of societal collapse at one point or the other. Deintensification.

Modern industrial agriculture has one outstanding advantage: productivity. Hundreds of acres of land can be cultivated with the labor of three or four persons.

Permaculture on the other hand doesn’t allow for such productivity. Most people will need to grow their own food to some degree. That’s actually great in the sense that food production becomes increasingly local, produced where it is consumed, in such a way that all nutrients make their way back to the soil in a cycle which has been broken by modern agriculture.

As another commenter pointed out, permaculture can seem unscientific at times. And it’s perfectly fine. We all have different sites, climates, soils and experience, no size fits it all and it’s often difficult in such circumstances to find the best solutions. Some will employ more unconventional ideas, as long as it works for them.

In the end, it will always make a lot more sense than planting a few hundred acres with a genetically engineering crop monoculture that can only survive with a constant supply of pesticides and fertilizer, while depleting the soil.

More reading: https://leanlogic.online/glossary/lean-food/

I didn’t watch the whole video, but just economically your quote makes a whole lot of sense. Saving money and reducing our ecologicial footprint have a lot in common.

• Not having a car, instead riding a bicycle or taking the bus: less greenhouse gases, but also much cheaper.
• Cook your own food instead of buying over-packaged, ultra-processed food. I make my own bread which costs 0.75$/loaf vs. 3$ at the grocery store, for the same weight.
• Buying stuff that lasts not only reduces waste but also costs less in the long run.
• Leisure: reading a book is cheaper than going out.