Random Fashion Thoughts (Part 3: Style farmer strikes back) - our general discussion thread

[happyriverz]

Appparently, Jeff Bezos is interested in space for similar reasons. I'd love to talk to him about that. I left academia in part, as I've written before, because I was tired of all the bureaucratic bullshit, but the second part was because of the timidity vision in the minds of those who are supposed to be our best and brightest. But if Jeff Bezos can get nuclear generators (or something else) into space to either produce energy without risking continental scale devastation, or to harness more power from the sun, I'd be up for the adventure.

no one is really arguing against trying moon shots -- the issue is that the argument for moon shots, especially made by people whose material interests will be adversely affected by more short-term approaches, like a carbon tax, are often political covers for opposing immediate political approaches like taxation.

 

[LA Guy]

Thank you for using a sustainable number of clauses.

I come from the Thomas Hardy school of thought, which is that if you can't write a sentence as long as an entire paragraph, you haven't been doing it right.

 

[LA Guy]

Sustainability is made a lot easier by:
- Reducing waste (in the US something like 20-25% of emissions are attributable to things that are thrown out or used unnecessarily)
- Reducing wealth gaps (the rich disproportionately use way too much, in the USA if the top 10% of wealthy people used as much as the next top 10% of wealthy people there'd be a reduction in emissions by ~15%), conversely poorer people buy less, waste less and are largely buying products involved in economies of scale
- Protecting natural areas and making these resilient through removing human interference, guarding against pollution, etc
- Changing habits en masse (ie, restricting beef, ending fuel subsidies, etc)

None of these are particular to any ideology, well perhaps reducing wealth gaps is anti-capitalist but oh well.

Without getting into the minutiae of how any of that is really doable, I would submit that it's not enough. I dunno. A lot of my friends from grad school and postdoc and my short lived years as an academic, are now in positions where they have big ass megaphones, and the poinst you make are pretty much the canon. I simply don't think that it's anywhere close to enough, even if the were all doable. I also think that doing them would result in worldwide disruptions that could make things a lot worse. I'm certainly not saying that the global economy that we live in is ideal. I also have pretty much exactly this conversation with a few people every few weeks, and so can type this out at top speeds.

Full disclosure, I'm not a billionaire and don't own any stock in energy companies anyway (well, maybe in my retirement plans, but I have no idea what exactly is in those anyway).

 

[LonerMatt]

Isn't reducing the global wealth gap inherently unsustainable in terms of taxation on natural resources? I don't want to pose this as being black and white -- I think you can have degrees of sustainability. But China's development, for example, has been incredibly taxing. I say this as someone who would like to see even more economic development (and specifically industrial development) in poor countries.

Potentially, I'm arguing more for "decimate the global 1-2%" rather than "raise everyone to an American middle class". I'd agree that the 2nd is definitely unsustainable (and outdated, even by today's technology), yet given how lopsided the wealth gap is and how over-consuming ultra-wealthy people are I think there's good evidence to suggest that the top 1,2 5%, globally, should be inherently restricted, or taxed out of existence.

I realise that's an odd point to make about sustainability, but if we frame the question as 'who pollutes the most? is it egregiously disproportionate?' then there's a very clear answer. Combined with some broad social changes that seems like a good place to start in places like the USA and Australia.

Perhaps I've mis-interpreted the post you've made, but it seemed to be about raising the bottom to the middle, rather than constraining the top. Apologies if I have.

Without getting into the minutiae of how any of that is really doable, I would submit that it's not enough. I dunno. A lot of my friends from grad school and postdoc and my short lived years as an academic, are now in positions where they have big ass megaphones, and the poinst you make are pretty much the canon. I simply don't think that it's anywhere close to enough, even if the were all doable. I also think that doing them would result in worldwide disruptions that could make things a lot worse. I'm certainly not saying that the global economy that we live in is ideal. I also have pretty much exactly this conversation with a few people every few weeks, and so can type this out at top speeds.

Full disclosure, I'm not a billionaire and don't own any stock in energy companies anyway (well, maybe in my retirement plans, but I have no idea what exactly is in those anyway).

I'd agree that it's not enough, but starting somewhere is infinitely better than staying the course. What seems most appropriate, to me, is to implement carbon negative policies now while adding increasing investment in renewable energy, space mining/activity and other big dream activities. Things like golden toilets, private jets, etc, etc are just immoral in a time where consumption is directly driving collapsing ecosystems. As is regular people eating beef 4 times a week because it's what they're used to.

 

[LonerMatt]

We can throw out the sweeping claims about history part, then. My main clarion calls are:
1) The world we want is fundamentally unsustainable without some serious thinking outside the box.
2) Man, are we ******* vulnerable right now.

I'm not really sure if it is the world we want. How many people, if they could choose, would create the world we have now?

There's a lot of alternatives, some using today's best technology (in Australia we have the ability to build homes that do not need air conditioning to stay cool during heat waves, yet we don't) to use less, some using the idea of leisure to use less (working 4 days a week reduces many people's carbon output by more than 1/7th), etc.

Perhaps the world of unlimited met wants at uncompromising speed and non-existent consideration is impossible, but that's not a world worth aiming for, IMO. I'm not sure how many people would really articulate that, when pushed, but the I've always been an optimist.

 

[Phrost]

Hmm I wonder if every generation has faced their own versions of impending doom. My parents went through cultural revolutions and famine in their home country in the 50’s-60’s and then likely had the distant looming threat of the Cold War in the 70’s-80’s.

Our and future generations are likely faced with very real environmental and natural resource issues and a disproportionately growing wealth inequality. I’d probably throw in issues of overpopulation and the ability to sustain our ever growing population with sufficient resources as well.

I wonder if these concerns are some of the reasons why the birth rate is declining in first-world countries. I do wonder if it’s responsible to bring children into the world knowing all of these problems.

Are these dystopian movies about a barren Earth stripped of its resources destined to be our future?

 

[LA Guy]

I'd agree that it's not enough, but starting somewhere is infinitely better than staying the course. What seems most appropriate, to me, is to implement carbon negative policies now while adding increasing investment in renewable energy, space mining/activity and other big dream activities. Things like golden toilets, private jets, etc, etc are just immoral in a time where consumption is directly driving collapsing ecosystems. Neither is people eating beef 4 times a week because it's what they're used to.

Golden toilets allow you to take better *****. True talk.

I think that you missed my entire point - there is no such thing as renewable energy. Or rather, all energy is renewable, but we are using it way too fast for any of them to be renewable. All the so-called "renewable energy" is only so because we don't use it at scale. If instead of using fossil fuels, we had started to use wind energy at massive scales, we'd have huge ecological problems as well, just different ones.

 

[Alexidb]

Golden toilets allow you to take better *****. True talk.

I think that you missed my entire point - there is no such thing as renewable energy. Or rather, all energy is renewable, but we are using it way too fast for any of them to be renewable. All the so-called "renewable energy" is only so because we don't use it at scale. If instead of using fossil fuels, we had started to use wind energy at massive scales, we'd have huge ecological problems as well, just different ones.

Not to be a pendant Isn’t coal non-renewable due to the fact it was created during a period where microorganisms hadn’t developed the ability to break down wood yet?

 

[dieworkwear]

Potentially, I'm arguing more for "decimate the global 1-2%" rather than "raise everyone to an American middle class". I'd agree that the 2nd is definitely unsustainable (and outdated, even by today's technology), yet given how lopsided the wealth gap is and how over-consuming ultra-wealthy people are I think there's good evidence to suggest that the top 1,2 5%, globally, should be inherently restricted, or taxed out of existence.

I realise that's an odd point to make about sustainability, but if we frame the question as 'who pollutes the most? is it egregiously disproportionate?' then there's a very clear answer. Combined with some broad social changes that seems like a good place to start in places like the USA and Australia.

Perhaps I've mis-interpreted the post you've made, but it seemed to be about raising the bottom to the middle, rather than constraining the top. Apologies if I have.

I agree it's good to reduce inequality with regard to the top 1%. I don't know if that has much to do with sustainability. If you taxed the global rich, I don't know if that would even make a dent.

If you raised the bottom for the global poor, however, it would add a lot to natural resource consumption. For people who care about the global poor, I don't know how you solve that problem without putting a huge strain on material resources. You don't even have to raise people to the point of the American middle class.

There's often a tension between environmentalists and people who care about labor (or people who are materialists, in the broader sense). I don't know how that gets resolved.

 

[LA Guy]

Not to be a pendant Isn’t coal non-renewable due to the fact it was created during a period where microorganisms hadn’t developed the ability to break down wood yet?

Okay, fine. Coal is technically not renewable. But coal isn't what we are really talking about here, under the broad banner of fossible fuels.

 

[Philby]

I agree it's good to reduce inequality with regard to the top 1%. I don't know if that has much to do with sustainability. If you taxed the global rich, I don't know if that would even make a dent.

It absolutely would. I found it most astonishing and counter-intuitive just how skewed global consumption and emissions are towards the ultra-wealthy. Keeping in mind that you belong to the global top 1% by being, roughly, within the top 20% of the richest industrial nations.
Some quick Google searches, as I do not have the sources I am drawing from at hand.

'In monetary terms, most consumption still occurs in industrialized nations; according to the World Bank, the 2.3 billion residents of low-income countries accounted for less than 3% of public and private consumption in 2004, while the 1 billion residents of high-income countries consumed more than 80% of the global total (See Figure 1.) In this same year the United States accounted for 4.6 percent of the world's population and 33 percent of global consumption--more than $9 trillion U.S. dollars.'

How Much of the World's Resource Consumption Occurs in Rich Countries?

Global Policy Forum is a policy watchdog that follows the work of the United Nations. We promote accountability and citizen participation in decisions on peace and security, social justice and international law.

www.globalpolicy.org

World's richest 10% produce half of global carbon emissions, says Oxfam

But poorest half of world’s people contribute to just 10% of emissions, says British charity as negotiators work on UN climate change deal in Paris

www.theguardian.com

 

[dieworkwear]

I suppose, put it this way: I agree that rich countries should do everything they can. And this is not a black and white issue. You can have degrees of sustainability. People should change their personal habits and rally their governments to make more responsible choices.

But let's say that a benevolent dictator marshaled every rich country out of its political gridlock. And we were able to achieve every green policy (which is good). There's still the problem of the global poor.

In countries such as China, where industrialization and growth are happening at breakneck speed, any slowdown could pose a massive problem for the government. The central government is weak and constantly worried about getting thrown out of power. Revolution would be a huge problem.

I've been part of some econ development conferences with academics and government officials. Sometimes people representing China are there. While not always the case, it's often the case that Chinese officials get huffy when you bring up sustainable development and environmental issues. The attitude is often: "The West destroyed their environment, and now China is supposed to ask for permission to develop?" Fundamentally, they have practical power considerations, along with the usual considerations about raising the wellbeing of their citizens. They can't have any real stall in development.

In countries where you don't have that industrialization process, then the goal is to start it. Which is a strain on natural resources. You're creating another China.

Sometimes I see environmentalists point to agrarian communes, like a Jewish kibbutz. But those communes often exist in places with strong governments, which can provide things such as infrastructure (e.g. roads and bridges), security (e.g. national defense, local police, and hospitals), and rule of law (e.g. courts). Strong governments require money, which means taxes. To get taxes, you need industry. To get industry, you have the environmental Kuznetz curve problem.

Again, agree that rich governments should do everything they can. And difficult problems aren't a reason to not make an effort, or to say this is black and white. But I think you also have to come to grips with a larger problem. That can be about very practical political problems abroad (e.g. China) or just the sheer number of people who deserve better material livelihood.

This is like when I see people raise the solution: "buy local" or "buy less" (which is good!). Sometimes it's posed as "do you really need this cheap t-shirt?" (you don't!). But then it feels like it ignores the other side of this equation, which is that someone is producing this cheap t-shirt to literally live.

 

[LonerMatt]

Not to say I have solutions but just to quickly a note to say that the global poor are slanted to get disproportionately affected by climate change (drought, extreme weather, resource strain) so, to at least that extent, reducing the severity of climate change is alleviating a lot of those people from the severity of those forecasts. Not perfect but still an improvement.

 

[LonerMatt]

Golden toilets allow you to take better *****. True talk.

I think that you missed my entire point - there is no such thing as renewable energy. Or rather, all energy is renewable, but we are using it way too fast for any of them to be renewable. All the so-called "renewable energy" is only so because we don't use it at scale. If instead of using fossil fuels, we had started to use wind energy at massive scales, we'd have huge ecological problems as well, just different ones.

For sure, that's why I think it's important to be spending a lot of time and money on research while decarbonising.

There are no perfect solutions, just more easily stomached compromises. Though the fossil fuel industry is great at framing decarbonising as a return to the stone age (which is a furphy) and I think there are ways to compromise on things like waste, consumption, luxury and excess while maintaining things like 24/7 power.

I realise this is more tangential than direct, but I think our interests in this topic diverge slightly.

 

[LonerMatt]

There's often a tension between environmentalists and people who care about labor (or people who are materialists, in the broader sense). I don't know how that gets resolved.

It's a tough balance and, as I'm sure you'd agree, there isn't one resolving choice.

Here, there's a push to close coal mines and employ coal workers in projects around sustainability - reforestation, conservation, wind energy, solar, etc. It's a simple equation that's both reassuring and (probably) unrealistic (in that having a 1:1 job change is too neat), but it's a good model to start from: let's intentionally shift worker A into job B and see how we go (not everyone will be happy but more people will be satisfied than just a closure of a mine/power plant and a ''good luck' on the way out).