Most climate scientists say we need to make changes to our personal lives and changes to the system. If one lives in the overdeveloped world, one’s impact is potentially huge. There are basic things that make a difference: eat less meat from ruminants (beef, mutton), don’t fly, have fewer or no kids. Those are low hanging fruit, take little effort, and still leave time and energy for whatever system change tactic one wants to do.
I’ve encountered the term “Imperial mode of living” cited by Kohei Salto. Thanks for posting this interview.
On the theft of resources for the affluent lifestyle, I recommend Cobalt Red, about mining in the DRC. It’s a brutal read. Kids digging with hand tools in toxic pits for $1 a day.
May 1st colour being red is a nice subtle touch.
Or, proper running water systems vs having to buy plastic jugs of water.
Certainly the formula can be sharpened but it’s a decent heuristic for thinking about impact.
I = PAT
Impact is equal to population times affluence times technology.
Decreasing human population can help to decrease impact, as long as the smaller population doesn’t disproportionately increase its resource use (affluence x technology)
Hydrogen: the crypto of green energy.
Thank you for this.
Note that the population peak happens earlier in this UN model revision.
However there is a plausible case for population to peak much earlier (2040):
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/06/peak-population-projections/
Non-paywalled version.
Well, I guess boomers are chemicals polluting the environment if you think about it.
Damn I had to go to Europe to get my ass ate by a cryptid