Climate Change Tracker

Have you analyzed the impact of the total elimination of 4 car garages, golf courses, "trinkets", and enforced 5-year upgrades on devices? do those rank among the highest-impact against climate change, or do you just not like them very much?

Do you expect that the people who would have the authority to make and enforce these decisions agree with you about which things are important or not, and have also done the cost-benefit analyses correctly and in good faith?

And they're resistant to buy-off by the industries that have the most to lose under a degrowth paradigm?

I believe that I can change people's opinion by talking about this possible world, and they are completely free to act how they wish. I also think that doing these things are straight selfish benefits for you (more money in your pocket, skills that can make you more valuable in the current system, more time available now that you aren't swiping short form videos all day)

Bike, ped, and rail infrastructure can be built at the national, state, and sometimes even local level. These things all reduce the need for owning so many cars.

Governments at any level can reduce how much they subsidize waste removal. Make people pay if they want to throw out more than is reasonable.

Carbon taxes can be levied against corporations, which would flow down to consumers and incentivize carbon-aware spending habits.

The world does not care about humans and will be okay without us trying to micromanage.

The Romans had a long stretch of expansive rule, though it was not highly authoritarian. Klaus Schwab's marxist ideas will fail, and it will be an exiting decade until political upheaval (maybe ~2032).

Are you in USA? What specific city/county/State goverment practices are problematic? I am interested in seeing the actual codes/laws.

Tyranny of the majority is tyranny nonetheless

Blocking cultural change and progress.

ROTFL

I also echo the sentiment that we should both create a culture of questioning excesses, enjoying a simplified lifestyle of essentials: good health (address pollution, agriculture filled with toxic compounds, etc.), peace, arts and culture, instead of often self-destructive excesses; and that we should look at effective interventions: feeling good about it is not enough, we need actual effective change!

Some of the most effective changes you can do individually[1] is (1) reducing meat consumption significantly;[2] (2) Less air travel (3) Use alternative forms of transportation (bike, walk, public transit, live near work?).

(Of course, if you have a huge house with tons of appliances... I'm sure that's highly significant!)

I'm doing all those things personally. And as honest as I can: I think my health and wellbeing genuinely improved (I've lost weight due to better mostly-plant diet, am much more fit due to walking and public transit; I guess there's a psychological factor from knowing I'm helping too!). Public transit is the most inconvenient sometimes (other times it's far more convenient), but then I'm not absolute and take a ride faring app every now and then. Living this way isn't only possible, it's genuinely good.

Discovering places nearby to travel and connecting with local history and culture is something I also think we could do a lot more.

And by all means, be politically active on this issue! (I can't change things like energy matrix with individual habits, but I can vote well)

I'm with you dude :) Hack the planet!

[1] This seems to be a pretty good source: https://theconversation.com/here-are-the-most-effective-thin... I'm sure there are others similar as well

[2] That's good for animals too :)

I agree, it will be hard to change opinions (especially in very liberal countries like the US, where socialism is apparently a very bad word).

But the world we are heading towards without degrowth is a world of global instability, wars, famines (for everyone, not just the poor countries for once).

I don't see democracy surviving in such a world.

Also, the beneficiaries of new housing construction are diffuse (if I want to move to Berkeley I want to have a choice of housing, but I'm not likely to go to community meetings to voice support for any particular project), while the opponents are concentrated (if I have a $2 million house right by BART in Berkeley, I have a very strong incentive to prevent new home construction near me, and I will definitely go to community meetings).

In a sense, this is a failure of democracy - there are parties whose voices are unheard but (arguably) deserve representation.

Even for people whose desires re: housing should be net neutral, it doesn't pan out. If I live in Berkeley but want to move to SF, I want to see SF build lots of homes and Berkeley to build none. But I can only vote in Berkeley, so my net voting behavior is anti-housing. Even if there is someone else in SF who wants the exact same thing but in reverse!