@jks the third link is a broken link. Please reply with a live link.
I appreciate that the second link is CC-BY licensed. Thank you.
@jks Unfortunately, people are not logical.
If they now all have to give up their cars and spend an extra hour every day getting to work by public transport.
You'll start creating more deniers again, just after we finally got rid of most of them.
If you don't have convenient public transport or the social groundwork laid down to go back to sharing appliances.
People will fight you.
@jks
Unfortunately, politics does not. Unless you are proposing a climate action dictatorship. You cannot be promising to take things away from people as a political campaign.
People had a fit at the WEF "You will own nothing and you will be happy" marketing campaign.
Maybe eventually?? people have been fighting capitalism for 200 years I don't see that changing in the 30 years we have to get to net-0.
That's a fallacious arguement based on people paying for a bad lifestyle because the alternative has been suppressed by those making money out of it.
If you provide free, efficient and robust public transport, most people won't need or want personal cars, so public transport will be fast and people will be wealthier and healthier, while drastically reducing the climate damage too.
@Ecosaurian @jks but there isn't free and available public transport. Some places it will never be convenient to use public transport just based on distance or locations. People need to carry goods or gear with them.
One thing I have noticed when I looked into the reason people don't use public transportation is there is the expectation of being on time and a crushing need to squeeze everything out of every second. A bus being late might lead to you being fired, to take the train might mean you have to wake up an hour earlier. This is a cultural thing that I can't see being changed by government intervention.
That's the point. There COULD be free public transport if it was properly resourced as a societal need instead of allowing certain industries to profiteer.
Here in Scotland we have free healthcare, and under 25's have free bus travel throughout the country. That is because we have a government willing to introduce such measures. I anticipate in the next few years that will be expanded, as a necessity to reduce our climate impact as well as for social good.
Other countries also have similar schemes - it doesn't have to be "everyone needs a car to get to work" because it can be done better and fairer if there is the will to do that - which is only lacking because of the influence of big business.
I live rurally and need a car - if we had a better bus service or local train I'd get rid of the car in a split second, leaving the road less busy for buses and those who absolutely need a car for mobility.
We have the necessary technology mostly now or very soon. There are some tricky stuff though (cement, air travel etc.)
We need to avoid anything that doesn't involve us reducing emissions right now.
Geo-engineering is a horror show and the best negative emissions technology is and probably will always be trees but we at limited on land.
@drsJekyll @jks The question is really about how can you convince people of that.
Degrowth will mean a lot of people will be unemployed, and governments will have less-tax in flows to pay for that.
Can you explain to someone who has lived their whole life inside capitalism what your new system will be and how it will provide for everyone?
In order for your ideas to work you need system change first but that will take far longer than swapping high emissions to low emissions technology.
I favour growth caused by more efficient uses of energy and all resources to degrowth.
@Narvuntien @jks
In order to convince people I think it's important to leave the loss frame behind and instead show the positive things we win when we stop polluting, like clean air, health, etc.
Degrowth is possible and necessary, and for inspiration and ideas on how degrowth can provide for everyone I recommend following @jasonhickel
@drsJekyll @Narvuntien @jks @jasonhickel for me, I would only go along with degrowth if there is a clear commitment from everyone, especially industry. I think many would be wary of individuals making change only to benefit the capitalist system.
Otherwise, better to show us how we can still meet our consumption and transport needs while making changes to reduce energy use.
I will take a look.
Yeah, that is how you do it politically. But your frame needs to be firmly on what you will gain and what you will prevent from losing. I wouldn't even call it degrowth it's a change in priorities.
I am concerned that we might create a technology gap internally. Rich will free themselves form a reliance on fuels and buy high quality and long lasting goods. While prices rise on everyone else. The whole design of cities can't be changed overnight it will take decades to build that public transport. Internal inequality is dangerous for the rise of Fascism.
I'd like to see progressive taxation to fund all social programs AND technology to lower atmospheric GHG.
@JohnLoader6
No, it does not need new technology. Green plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere. So does the withering of rocks.
What is very urgently needed is to stop extracting fossil fuels. But there is still a lot of money being invested in exploration, transport and combustion of ever more oil and coal. It is unstoppable, and we are heading for catastrophy.
@gerardbyrne @jks 80 million people are responsible for more climate impacts than half of the world: https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/carbon-inequality-in-2030-per-capita-consumption-emissions-and-the-15c-goal-621305/ .
Direct your attention at the people most responsible.
Rather than that dangerous nonsense.
The worldโs richest 1% are set to have per capita consumption emissions in 2030 that are still 30 times higher than the global per capita level compatible with the 1.5โฐC goal of the Paris Agreement, while the footprints of the poorest half of the world population are set to remain several times below that level. [โฆ]
@jks exactly!
But we refuse to redistribute wealth.
@jks
As a practical matter, the argument "you need to reduce your standard of living to benefit people you will never meet or interact with" is a next to impossible sell, politically.
As a practical matter, we need to beat global warming.
Thus, to practically and politically beat global warming, we need continual innovation. (Indeed, selling the fix as investing in innovation and jobs may be a successful approach!)
@jks
I hear this message, but there are also consumer grade technologies that just need scale which could get us out of this as well, which will allow other nations to largely skip the fossil fuel phase of development.
Electrify all the things!
... and do everything else too of course. It'll take pretty much everything at once at this point, right?
@jks The rich can only create wealth from extraction. It's all they know.
The rest of us know what real wealth is and know it doesn't come from extraction and imperialism.
"When you realize that under capitalism, a forest isnโt worth anything until it is cut down, you begin to see where the ecological crisis comes from."
- Adam Idek Hastie
"There is no wealth but life. Life, including all its powers of love, of joy, and of admiration. That country is the richest which nourishes the greatest numbers of noble and happy human beings; that man is richest, who, having perfected the functions of his own life to the utmost, has also the widest helpful influence, both personal, and by means of his possessions, over the lives of others."
- John Ruskin, Unto This Last
Yeah, Ruskin's pretty worthwhile :)
"The real science of political economy, which has yet to be distinguished from the bastard science, as medicine from witchcraft, and astronomy from astrology, is that which teaches nations to desire and labour for the things that lead to life: and which teaches them to scorn and destroy the things that lead to destruction."
- John Ruskin
It's out of copyright, so available on Project Gutenberg:
Climate Refugees at Han Island, Carteret Islands, Papua New Guinea
The islands are without electricity or internet.
The Carteret People depend on a rusty radio powered by a small solar panel or battery.
PS full reportage in fedi soon but on the .photo 
@[email protected]
Dear Mrs. Foxmann
Prof Julia Steinberger ๐๐น๐ฑ
Gssy
Martin Schรธnemann-Lund
Donny Winston
George Roter
Le Geant Jaune
Narvuntien
Southern Leftist
Ecosaurian ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ณ๓ ฃ๓ ด๓ ฟ 
Cwcooper
Gerda
Henry Ngo
Sรถren
Pampa
ex or current IDF unwelcome
Pieter Kuiper ๐ธ๐ช
Morgana
Gerard Byrne
Ruby Maelstrom
Michael Busch
kechpaja
Vance Ricks
Kevin Karhan 
Anton
CTrevethan๐ก๐ฅฃ
CUDA813
Very Human Robot
David Wynn
Rob Cornelius
Rhinos Worry Me has moved
Sebastian Lasse
Jake Rayson