greeneye12

Alright, it was a good talk! I still need to discover the forum and see where I can contribute 🙂

Hopefully we are not, depending on our choices, the tech we can develop and the regulations we set to incentivise the tech we want 🙂

Yeah, and you can also grow your vegetables! Depleting the planet (woods, food etc) works when we are millions but does not when we are billions unfortunately. Now if you factor in the costs of buying the land to grow a forest where the meat can run (which is why meat costs more, you need to feed animals with plants and water), it will be more expensive

Well, I would prefer not go into specific cases but I would say that vegetarian costs less than eating meat, take public transport (except london underground maybe) costs less than a car. And the point of the carbon tax is to collect money that will be used to transition to low carbon energy to subvention electric cars, clean electricity etc so there are as competitive as the current solutions that use fossil fuel. I agree for Brazil, western countries should give to prevent the forest burning. It's all too easy to complain and say it's of global concern but don't compensate for the profits they don't make.

Apologies, I was on a post limit as I was new to the forum (max of 5 posts for the first day) Really like your one @Ken Fabian, I like the analogy with stealing! Agreed, planes(Ryanair flights), car and fuel are way too cheap for the amount they pollute, same as cement. But if you are at very low income, you will not have a car, and you won't take a plane. And hopefully if you live in a european country (and other countries of course) where the energy mix is not only fossil fuel, electricity will be ok, but if it's not the case, electricity is way underpriced for the amount it pollutes too! Being ecological depends on where you live and how you decide to live (unless of course you use your own wind turbine, but I am not even sure the carbon footprint required to build it will be amortised over the lifetime of its production x)

haha sorry I still dont get it. If you don't have enough money, you will naturally be ecological. If you have money, with the current system, you have a choice of being or not being ecological. With a carbontax system, you are artificially poor as not being ecological is too expensive. Other solution is too have everyone without money at all, that works too, but we still end up with 6-8 tons per year, not 2-3, or we are talking about not heating houses, everyone growing their crops etc

Sorry, yes I don't understand your point! reducing waste, reducing consumption, being vegetarian (reducing water use and reducing soil area required) = reducing carbon footprint. So how is carbon footprint reduction going in the wrong direction? As to wait for the global system based on "rich trying to get richer" to be taken down before 2050 I would not bet on it. If pollution are accounted for in all activities, it's fine, someone can be richer, there will just be nowhere to spend it on as things will get too expensive, so not worth it. So it becomes less of an incentive to gather money. Yes, this approach only works if every country has the same regulations, not going to happen soon either, but any country can become a leader in this field and make their population proud Obviously this is only my personal opinion, I am not an economic researcher, not been studying human psychology etc And regarding the low-income, using the definition you give, I meant middle class indeed, not low income 🙂

@dimreeprI agree with you, and I turned to vegetarian for this reason, trying to reduce my carbon footprint. Though, reducing waste, reducing consumption etc is great but it does not get you there. You can probably reduce your carbon footprint from 12-15 tons per year to let's say 6-8 tons a year. Though if we are still 7 billions in 2050, it means 3 tons per person, if we are 10 billions, that's 2 tons per person.... To get there we also need low emissions energy, low emissions food production etc etc @Prometheus Only solution to me is carbon tax. Tax high carbon activities It's tough for low income households as everything will have to make efforts. But if the price of a car and the price of gas does not factor in pollution, it's flawed to give an easy access to it, as it should not have been in the first place (IMO)

Hi, thank you for the quick response. Indeed, this post was more of an introduction, as I could not find a specific section where members can introduce themselves, maybe there is? Nothing science specific to discuss right now, but I will deep dive in the relevant sections to check the content!

Hi everyone, I am new to the forum😎. After reading about carbon footprint I have decided to change job and to focus only on environmental projects😃 I am a believer that 2 things to solve climate change (and our planet), it will be a combination of high carbon footprint activity decline (stop taking a car when you can avoid it, stop flying 2000 miles for a week end trip etc, don't buy plastic packaging when you can avoid it) and green technology development (electric cars with low carbon footprint mix like nuclear or renewables, carbon sequestration etc). I feel like the community is generally split between the 2 sides: Aurelien Barreau or others for the decline side (and many more I don't know!) and Elon Musk for the "technology will save us, don't worry", what do you think? Also, I am looking for places where I can discuss tech and environment, this place looks great but there are probably a lot of others! What are your favorites 😃?