I’m laughing at this all. Great entertainment for a Friday after a long, exhausting workweek.
“But we don’t live lives of just enough, we do the opposite and live lives of wanting more.” That IS the human condition, though. It doesn’t matter what a person’s ethnicity, nationality, race, religion, sex, gender, socioeconomic status, or other criteria you want to use, we all want more over time. In other words, what’s “just enough” for one person is woefully inadequate for another, and simultaneously more than imaginable for yet another. THERE IS NO ONE UNIVERSAL STANDARD OF SUFFICIENCY FOR ALL HUMANS ACROSS THE WORLD. Stop trying to pretend that there is one and that we all must adapt to it.
I’m also laughing at how willingly Lloyd is to jump into an airplane and fly across the ocean to attend not one but TWO conferences on sustainability and sufficiency when he did the same thing not too long ago as part of another round table discussion panel. And that’s very telling because you have some climate change pundits out there arguing NO ONE should be allowed to fly more than four times in an *ENTIRE* lifetime … but if it’s for a “good cause” of promoting sustainability and sufficiency, do all of those carbon emissions suddenly cancel out someone else’s family vacation to the Canary Islands? Or maybe they have a lesser carbon intensity because the guilt of contributing to climate change is excusable when sharing the message of “only what’s needed and nothing more”?
Lloyd , you DO realize I’m taking the mickey out of this bullshit argument, I hope, because it has no fundamental meaning or value. The Nazis gave POW’s and Holocaust prisoners “just what they needed” to survive, “AND NOTHING MORE.” That’s ultimately the foundational truth that's being pushed by Klaus Schwab, the WEF, Leonardo DiCaprio, you, and all the other tree-hugging eco-warriors, whether or not they’re willing to admit it to the gullible readers of this substack—that YOU as the reader is a scourge to the planet and YOU must be eliminated, especially if you’re unwilling to drastically reduce your carbon footprint, while THEY continue to live their lives unimpeded by the decrees they demand YOU abide by.
Have a wonderful flight and vacation in London, Lloyd. I suggest you do the curious tourist thing and see as much of the city as you can, especially the museums, monuments, and bookstores. I’ll be enjoying my time here in Phoenix, living my best life.
Two more high-greenhouse-gas-emissions physical conferences. All conferences should be low-greenhouse-gas-emissions virtual conferences. That includes the COPxx conferences.
Long overdue are improvements in virtual conference software so that the functionality of virtual conferences exceeds the functionality of physical conferences - a very achievable goal.
Use one's influence to promote the transition to all conferences being virtual. For example, refuse to participate in a conference unless it is made virtual. For example, respond to every announcement of a physical conference with the reply that it should be a low-greenhouse-gas-emissions virtual conference, and surely for the conference next year. For example, if you are involved planning a conference, insist it be a virtual conference.
Not doable? ... Well, if that's the case, we are In deep deep trouble. It's far more doable than so many of the challenges that have to be met to defeat global warming.
Khazzoom–Brookes postulate vs sufficiency. I totally agree that sufficiency is a key puzzle piece but I have no idea how we're going to get there. I don't think there's a hope in hell that we will get there voluntarily. And current Western democracy seems to abhor putting any limits on what people can own or do. This seems like an unsolvable problem.
Except for the 1.5 degree lifestyle (on the average, I'm way below that if you count the carbon offset of my acres of trees), I think you're preaching to the choir on you blog.
Many of us do try to live a sustainable lifestyle (unlike the govt.). And, many of us do do with less (again unlike the govt.). Some out of choice, some out of necessity in these inflationary times. But we do all we can do.
Does that mean some can do more? Sure, but, as long as we have celebrities telling us how we should live our lives while they (the celebrities) do the opposite (the 'let them eat cake' syndrome), what's the point? Whatever little the masses can do will never offset the damage done by the celebrities.
Selfish? I don't think so, I'm just being realistic. Because outside of the celebrities, there are countries like India, China and Russia, not caring and laughing at the Western world as they strive to live in austerity and the big three are willing to provide the means to that as they increase their pollution factors.
great post- i loved the book- and i am trying to be as close to a 1.5 degree lifestyle as i can. Good Luck with the trip _ if you are in London _ I would be happy to host a trip to RGB Kew , i am developing the decarbonisation plan for them.
A great article Lloyd and right on point! A good complementary read that supports this idea of sufficiency is Kate Raworth’s Donut Economics. I highly recommend it.
Thank you for the recap of the conference Lloyd. I ended up adding the concept of sufficiency to my Recommendations to Reduce embodied Carbon in the Built Environment - soon to be released (will share a link when live).
Enjoy the worthwhile trip. The question I keep asking is why the US is so far behind in building passive houses vs the Canadians and other European countries. We are a country full of technologists and innovators but when it comes to building high performance homes using the latest construction workflows (modular panels) and wall assemblies that result in superior and more healthy homes where we live and sleep with our families not enough people in the US let alone contractors understand what a passive home is. (I am building one currently for myself and my family).
Part of me thinks you’re not understanding the topic of your own creation. Switching to electric vehicles is not going to make a significantly significant difference in our overall carbon emissions. We need a nationwide renewable powered high-speed rail system designed extremely professionally so that it’s facilitates municipalities having The same efficiency and net zero transportation through light rail facilities. Switching the industrial automotive system to electric is not enough. We need to remove 2/3 of the cars on the road and completely do away with the whole industrial process of creating them. Of the almost 900,000,000 domestic flights last year. And infrastructure Architecture that I just described would easily eliminate 700 million of them.
Your failure to mention the real things that absolutely must happen as in our total prerequisites to having a long term 2.5° max increase globally are the ending of fossil fuel extraction and by far the most important and I negotiable issue that is rarely addressed
The sequestration of carbon from the atmosphere formed into a valuable solid such as carbon fiber or nanotubes, structural pieces for architecture, infrastructure in endless other things. At least 10 entities are doing it for less than $1000 per ton right now. With a quality carbon fiber product retailing Between 26 and $32,000 per ton, the economic incentive is already there. We just need to politically incentivize the use of carbon over steel over wood we must stop the extraction process and every probable for all resources.
Restoration of the planet bioregional eagle habitat is a completely different issue that is also something that must be done to restore species and ecosystem balance. Or shall I be real and just say give it a chance to actually exist 25 years from now
I’m laughing at this all. Great entertainment for a Friday after a long, exhausting workweek.
“But we don’t live lives of just enough, we do the opposite and live lives of wanting more.” That IS the human condition, though. It doesn’t matter what a person’s ethnicity, nationality, race, religion, sex, gender, socioeconomic status, or other criteria you want to use, we all want more over time. In other words, what’s “just enough” for one person is woefully inadequate for another, and simultaneously more than imaginable for yet another. THERE IS NO ONE UNIVERSAL STANDARD OF SUFFICIENCY FOR ALL HUMANS ACROSS THE WORLD. Stop trying to pretend that there is one and that we all must adapt to it.
I’m also laughing at how willingly Lloyd is to jump into an airplane and fly across the ocean to attend not one but TWO conferences on sustainability and sufficiency when he did the same thing not too long ago as part of another round table discussion panel. And that’s very telling because you have some climate change pundits out there arguing NO ONE should be allowed to fly more than four times in an *ENTIRE* lifetime … but if it’s for a “good cause” of promoting sustainability and sufficiency, do all of those carbon emissions suddenly cancel out someone else’s family vacation to the Canary Islands? Or maybe they have a lesser carbon intensity because the guilt of contributing to climate change is excusable when sharing the message of “only what’s needed and nothing more”?
Lloyd , you DO realize I’m taking the mickey out of this bullshit argument, I hope, because it has no fundamental meaning or value. The Nazis gave POW’s and Holocaust prisoners “just what they needed” to survive, “AND NOTHING MORE.” That’s ultimately the foundational truth that's being pushed by Klaus Schwab, the WEF, Leonardo DiCaprio, you, and all the other tree-hugging eco-warriors, whether or not they’re willing to admit it to the gullible readers of this substack—that YOU as the reader is a scourge to the planet and YOU must be eliminated, especially if you’re unwilling to drastically reduce your carbon footprint, while THEY continue to live their lives unimpeded by the decrees they demand YOU abide by.
Have a wonderful flight and vacation in London, Lloyd. I suggest you do the curious tourist thing and see as much of the city as you can, especially the museums, monuments, and bookstores. I’ll be enjoying my time here in Phoenix, living my best life.
Sign me up! UN plot and all. Safe travels.
Two more high-greenhouse-gas-emissions physical conferences. All conferences should be low-greenhouse-gas-emissions virtual conferences. That includes the COPxx conferences.
Long overdue are improvements in virtual conference software so that the functionality of virtual conferences exceeds the functionality of physical conferences - a very achievable goal.
Use one's influence to promote the transition to all conferences being virtual. For example, refuse to participate in a conference unless it is made virtual. For example, respond to every announcement of a physical conference with the reply that it should be a low-greenhouse-gas-emissions virtual conference, and surely for the conference next year. For example, if you are involved planning a conference, insist it be a virtual conference.
Not doable? ... Well, if that's the case, we are In deep deep trouble. It's far more doable than so many of the challenges that have to be met to defeat global warming.
Khazzoom–Brookes postulate vs sufficiency. I totally agree that sufficiency is a key puzzle piece but I have no idea how we're going to get there. I don't think there's a hope in hell that we will get there voluntarily. And current Western democracy seems to abhor putting any limits on what people can own or do. This seems like an unsolvable problem.
Except for the 1.5 degree lifestyle (on the average, I'm way below that if you count the carbon offset of my acres of trees), I think you're preaching to the choir on you blog.
Many of us do try to live a sustainable lifestyle (unlike the govt.). And, many of us do do with less (again unlike the govt.). Some out of choice, some out of necessity in these inflationary times. But we do all we can do.
Does that mean some can do more? Sure, but, as long as we have celebrities telling us how we should live our lives while they (the celebrities) do the opposite (the 'let them eat cake' syndrome), what's the point? Whatever little the masses can do will never offset the damage done by the celebrities.
Selfish? I don't think so, I'm just being realistic. Because outside of the celebrities, there are countries like India, China and Russia, not caring and laughing at the Western world as they strive to live in austerity and the big three are willing to provide the means to that as they increase their pollution factors.
great post- i loved the book- and i am trying to be as close to a 1.5 degree lifestyle as i can. Good Luck with the trip _ if you are in London _ I would be happy to host a trip to RGB Kew , i am developing the decarbonisation plan for them.
A great article Lloyd and right on point! A good complementary read that supports this idea of sufficiency is Kate Raworth’s Donut Economics. I highly recommend it.
Thank you for the recap of the conference Lloyd. I ended up adding the concept of sufficiency to my Recommendations to Reduce embodied Carbon in the Built Environment - soon to be released (will share a link when live).
Enjoy the worthwhile trip. The question I keep asking is why the US is so far behind in building passive houses vs the Canadians and other European countries. We are a country full of technologists and innovators but when it comes to building high performance homes using the latest construction workflows (modular panels) and wall assemblies that result in superior and more healthy homes where we live and sleep with our families not enough people in the US let alone contractors understand what a passive home is. (I am building one currently for myself and my family).
Part of me thinks you’re not understanding the topic of your own creation. Switching to electric vehicles is not going to make a significantly significant difference in our overall carbon emissions. We need a nationwide renewable powered high-speed rail system designed extremely professionally so that it’s facilitates municipalities having The same efficiency and net zero transportation through light rail facilities. Switching the industrial automotive system to electric is not enough. We need to remove 2/3 of the cars on the road and completely do away with the whole industrial process of creating them. Of the almost 900,000,000 domestic flights last year. And infrastructure Architecture that I just described would easily eliminate 700 million of them.
Your failure to mention the real things that absolutely must happen as in our total prerequisites to having a long term 2.5° max increase globally are the ending of fossil fuel extraction and by far the most important and I negotiable issue that is rarely addressed
The sequestration of carbon from the atmosphere formed into a valuable solid such as carbon fiber or nanotubes, structural pieces for architecture, infrastructure in endless other things. At least 10 entities are doing it for less than $1000 per ton right now. With a quality carbon fiber product retailing Between 26 and $32,000 per ton, the economic incentive is already there. We just need to politically incentivize the use of carbon over steel over wood we must stop the extraction process and every probable for all resources.
Restoration of the planet bioregional eagle habitat is a completely different issue that is also something that must be done to restore species and ecosystem balance. Or shall I be real and just say give it a chance to actually exist 25 years from now