longtom

> hacker news

Where opinion is being manipulated by the U.S. security/military complex.

The study is not by him. I wasn't even aware who hosted it; I only found this link somewhere on the web and thought it might be relevant.

> You're under the impression the first thing that would go in such a scenario would be the life-saving stuff?

I think once we admit nature to be more important than humans, we will quickly slip on the slope and reduce consumption too far. Politics is largely dumb, so the risk is there. What you call leisure and dispensable is someone else's existence (e.g. the tourism industry). Central redistribution is hard and mostly does not work and gets abused. There are few historical examples in which it worked well and many in which it has failed.

So? Reducing emissions in Germany is still a drop in the bucket.

> Unfortunately you are wrapping it in delusional hysteria such as "you will die of a horrible death from an infection without painkillers". So you're getting down voted because you are completely ignoring how things such as subsidies work.

Are you denying that reducing consumption drastically increase the chances of such a scenario? Of course what I wrote is only an illustrating, but likely plausible scenario, one of many ways in which it will increase ecological harshness.

EU's and Germany's emissions are negligible anyhow (9% and 2%, respectively). It's all about the U.S. and China (and maybe India) at this point, especially the latter two that have the strongest increase in emissions. There is no point in inflicting arguably some of the worst politicians in history on these relatively small European nations. They should rather be investing in building a strong workforce and military that can rebuild after storms. The fact that this is not being discussed openly is deeply suspicious.

The propaganda and media cooptation is just staggering. It's extremely suspicious that very little attention is paid to the fact that reducing consumption will likely increase poverty. If you trace, for example, the supply chain of some medicine you might use, or might depend on in future: The machinery, chemical refinery, transport, sourcing or resources, management, markets, and infrastructure below all that. All of this will get orders of magnitude more expensive if we reduce carbon emissions. You will not be able to afford medicine if you need it, and possibly die of a horrible death, e.g. from an infection and without painkillers. In the meanwhile, anyone raising these issues is defamed as climate change denier.

I dearly hope the Greens will not win. Reducing consumption is an extremely tricky problem, and likely unfeasible without creating large amounts of poverty. I'd rather live in a rich, powerful nation with strong workforce and military rebuilding after each storm than being stripped my last rights and eating worms while a tiny elite still enjoying the freedoms we once had. Please do not fall for the propaganda.

Edward Snowden's revelations provide very solid evidence that what can be done is being done.

We might as well have to accept that there is no solution to this problem.

Because Western imperialism is very likely only a secondary cause, if any. You see strong condemnation of sodomy all across Sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East and South Asia, with an extremely wide variety of religious and practical (STD prevention) underlying motivations, even in regions without any history of imperialist occupation, and such cultural norms are stronger in regions with higher birth rates, higher infectious disease death rates and lower hygiene standards.

When you look at rare events, then it is easy to get a quadrupling (or more) due to tail effects.