What does "reduce our quality of life" mean re reducing carbon emissions
February 14, 2023 12:51 AM Subscribe
What do people mean when they say that to reduce climate change, we need to reduce our quality of life?
Do they mean:
eating less meat;
living in a smaller house;
flying less in an airplane;
heating/cooling our homes less;
driving smaller cars;
driving cars less;
having less children;
buying less new clothes every year
or something else?
Asking because every time I hear it, I think "I'm a vegetarian who lives in a small house with zero children and no car, I haven't been on a plane since 2011, I only heat/cool my house to what is essential for my health, and I only buy the clothes I need - what am I missing that I am supposed to be doing? I don't see how I could reduce my quality of life and still meet my needs?"
Do they mean:
eating less meat;
living in a smaller house;
flying less in an airplane;
heating/cooling our homes less;
driving smaller cars;
driving cars less;
having less children;
buying less new clothes every year
or something else?
Asking because every time I hear it, I think "I'm a vegetarian who lives in a small house with zero children and no car, I haven't been on a plane since 2011, I only heat/cool my house to what is essential for my health, and I only buy the clothes I need - what am I missing that I am supposed to be doing? I don't see how I could reduce my quality of life and still meet my needs?"
To me, part of my quality of life is that I have a choice about those things. Things seem to changing is such a way that eventually you won’t have a choice about it so much. There won’t be cheap meat to say no to, cheap flights, they take away parking spots in the city so you are not able to drive to it. Doing things because you want to feels good, not being able to do things anymore because you can’t afford it or it’s been made impossible (for you as a person that’s not rich) feels like a blow to lifestyle.
posted by pairofshades at 1:20 AM on February 14, 2023 [12 favorites]
posted by pairofshades at 1:20 AM on February 14, 2023 [12 favorites]
So to add, where I live, they keep saying we need to reduce our quality of life (or variations on that theme) because they need/want to make changes to how things are for people who aren’t doing it willingly.
posted by pairofshades at 1:22 AM on February 14, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by pairofshades at 1:22 AM on February 14, 2023 [2 favorites]
So, I sort of work partly in the field of energy and policy , but I'm by no means an expert. I think there are a couple of overarching things about these kinds of questions. Firstly, my understanding, and my strong feeling, is that actual meaningful change to reduce carbon footprints must come at a policy or government level, and that individual choices are less impactful. However, it's also important that we feel we can make a change, and if enough people do, then things may change a little. I do appreciate that my attitude is not always very helpful!
So, in my opinion, significant reduction in carbon output would require significant investment in infrastructure and regulation across many areas. Just some examples: retrofitting insulation in old housing; strict regulation in new building for energy efficiency; construction of decentralised energy grids which allow the management and feed-in of variable renewable energy sources; massive investment in public transport.
What this actually translates into in actual quality of life for 'regular' people, would largely (in the west) be big tax increases. So regular individuals would have less money in their pocket. Housing, energy, and food would all become more expensive. Transport might become cheaper to use, but the cost of buying a car and petrol would be much, much higher. As other posters say, some things (like flying) which are currently a choice, would just not be an option.
I have less expertise relating to food and agriculture, but to truly reduce the carbon footprint of our food, as a consumer, we would see less choice, and much higher prices, especially for meat. Same for clothes and other consumables, which would be much more expensive.
Back to energy, a potential change might be to introduce pricing structures for energy which would reduce cost (and therefore demand) during peak hours. Hopefully, this would be voluntary, but it might mean rolling blackouts, or a cap on energy use for individual households (although, this should apply to commercial use first). Heating and cooling homes would be significantly curtailed, particularly cooling in relatively temperate climates.
I'm not sure any of these things will happen, but these seem to be the kind of big 'quality of life' changes that are being examined in my field.
posted by sedimentary_deer at 2:54 AM on February 14, 2023 [14 favorites]
So, in my opinion, significant reduction in carbon output would require significant investment in infrastructure and regulation across many areas. Just some examples: retrofitting insulation in old housing; strict regulation in new building for energy efficiency; construction of decentralised energy grids which allow the management and feed-in of variable renewable energy sources; massive investment in public transport.
What this actually translates into in actual quality of life for 'regular' people, would largely (in the west) be big tax increases. So regular individuals would have less money in their pocket. Housing, energy, and food would all become more expensive. Transport might become cheaper to use, but the cost of buying a car and petrol would be much, much higher. As other posters say, some things (like flying) which are currently a choice, would just not be an option.
I have less expertise relating to food and agriculture, but to truly reduce the carbon footprint of our food, as a consumer, we would see less choice, and much higher prices, especially for meat. Same for clothes and other consumables, which would be much more expensive.
Back to energy, a potential change might be to introduce pricing structures for energy which would reduce cost (and therefore demand) during peak hours. Hopefully, this would be voluntary, but it might mean rolling blackouts, or a cap on energy use for individual households (although, this should apply to commercial use first). Heating and cooling homes would be significantly curtailed, particularly cooling in relatively temperate climates.
I'm not sure any of these things will happen, but these seem to be the kind of big 'quality of life' changes that are being examined in my field.
posted by sedimentary_deer at 2:54 AM on February 14, 2023 [14 favorites]
What do people mean when they say that to reduce climate change, we need to reduce our quality of life?... what am I missing that I am supposed to be doing? I don't see how I could reduce my quality of life and still meet my needs?"
Well, they're not talking to you as an individual, with a detailed knowledge of your specific life and habits. They're talking about people in general across the whole population, including the many people who drive gas guzzling cars, fly frequently and/or unnecessarily, shop fast fashion, etc. Many of those people would regard it as a reduction in their quality of life to give those things up.
Public statements about encouraging behaviour change across a population as a whole, don't need to be read as a personal exhortation to do something you're already doing. Unless someone is literally knocking on your door telling you to do these things, you can ignore (or if you really feel an urge to act, you can campaign for others to follow in your footsteps, be they individuals or policy-makers).
If you don't smoke, you don't look at public health messages encouraging people to give up smoking, and worry that you should be giving up smoking more. This is of the same ilk.
posted by penguin pie at 3:04 AM on February 14, 2023 [28 favorites]
Well, they're not talking to you as an individual, with a detailed knowledge of your specific life and habits. They're talking about people in general across the whole population, including the many people who drive gas guzzling cars, fly frequently and/or unnecessarily, shop fast fashion, etc. Many of those people would regard it as a reduction in their quality of life to give those things up.
Public statements about encouraging behaviour change across a population as a whole, don't need to be read as a personal exhortation to do something you're already doing. Unless someone is literally knocking on your door telling you to do these things, you can ignore (or if you really feel an urge to act, you can campaign for others to follow in your footsteps, be they individuals or policy-makers).
If you don't smoke, you don't look at public health messages encouraging people to give up smoking, and worry that you should be giving up smoking more. This is of the same ilk.
posted by penguin pie at 3:04 AM on February 14, 2023 [28 favorites]
People are using this as a talking point to argue against effective reductions in carbon emissions. In some cases, it's out of a genuine belief that reducing emissions significantly would make much of their lifestyle impossible and in other cases, it's just a cynical phrase meant to evoke an emotional response that doesn't really refer to anything in particular.
No one is out there saying we all must individually reduce the quality of our lives in order to reduce carbon emissions. Anyone who is actually interested in reducing carbon emissions is going to talk about measures that actually reduce emissions or broader changes with effects on emissions.
More generally, some emissions reduction strategies will require changes that since groups don't like and other groups do. Overall, I don't think we're going to see quality of life affected negatively over the whole population, but for someone whose entire life and identity revolves around driving a big truck, eating a lot of read meat, owning a big house, and so on, you can see how the effects might be worse than the average.
posted by ssg at 3:22 AM on February 14, 2023 [10 favorites]
No one is out there saying we all must individually reduce the quality of our lives in order to reduce carbon emissions. Anyone who is actually interested in reducing carbon emissions is going to talk about measures that actually reduce emissions or broader changes with effects on emissions.
More generally, some emissions reduction strategies will require changes that since groups don't like and other groups do. Overall, I don't think we're going to see quality of life affected negatively over the whole population, but for someone whose entire life and identity revolves around driving a big truck, eating a lot of read meat, owning a big house, and so on, you can see how the effects might be worse than the average.
posted by ssg at 3:22 AM on February 14, 2023 [10 favorites]
Do they mean:
eating less meat;
living in a smaller house;
flying less in an airplane;
heating/cooling our homes less;
driving smaller cars;
driving cars less;
having less children;
buying less new clothes every year
or something else?
Yes.
posted by late afternoon dreaming hotel at 3:43 AM on February 14, 2023 [11 favorites]
eating less meat;
living in a smaller house;
flying less in an airplane;
heating/cooling our homes less;
driving smaller cars;
driving cars less;
having less children;
buying less new clothes every year
or something else?
Yes.
posted by late afternoon dreaming hotel at 3:43 AM on February 14, 2023 [11 favorites]
If you are interested in getting an expanding view of your personal role in this, without feeling the need to label it as a personal sacrifice, there is a tremendous amount of research and writing on this subject these days. Peter Singer's writing is a laudable jumping off point, practically-minded, and not couched in resentment that change can/should/must include personal responsibility (e.g. if you're vegetarian, what's standing between adopting a vegan approach to taking steps that are in your immediate control to address climate urgency).
As a general rule, people don't like the perception that they're being told what to do, chastized, assumed to be doing less than good, etc. We're defensive creatures. Hence the application of the "it's inconvenient" label, or the "my contribution to the problem isn't significant" label, or any number of other resentments standing between us an the very real, very discoverable ways we can address these issues without feeling like we're not failing to meet our needs or "reducing our quality of life."
posted by late afternoon dreaming hotel at 3:58 AM on February 14, 2023 [1 favorite]
As a general rule, people don't like the perception that they're being told what to do, chastized, assumed to be doing less than good, etc. We're defensive creatures. Hence the application of the "it's inconvenient" label, or the "my contribution to the problem isn't significant" label, or any number of other resentments standing between us an the very real, very discoverable ways we can address these issues without feeling like we're not failing to meet our needs or "reducing our quality of life."
posted by late afternoon dreaming hotel at 3:58 AM on February 14, 2023 [1 favorite]
I think part of this is that there's a lot of things made and marketed that shouldn't be made or shouldn't be as available as they are. Personal phones, computers, and "smart" anything all use minerals that absolutely wreck the areas they're mined in and there's not another way at the moment to make it possible for people to have new phones etc every other year without the environmental horrors of mining.
posted by Summers at 4:13 AM on February 14, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by Summers at 4:13 AM on February 14, 2023 [2 favorites]
They mean all these things. To expand:
- You live in an apartment now, not a detached house at all. Maybe a small apartment.
- When it's hot outside, people have to get sweaty going where they need to go - no more running between air conditioned boxes.
- Using a car at all for non-essential tasks is not possible. By non-essential I mean you will die if you don't do it. Driving 5 hours each way to do some weekend hiking is not possible.
- If your job is in location X, you can't live just anywhere in a 50 mile radius of X and plan on driving there. You would have to live within reasonable transit/walking/cycling (or combo) distance.
- The top 10% of airplane users (the majority of Americans already don't fly even once a year) go from multiple flights per year to maybe one or two per decade, if that.
- It's not that people go from eating beef multiple days per week to once per week. They eat beef once per year if at all.
Now, personally, I think the fact that walkable cities where you don't have to own a car are some of the most expensive places to live on Earth shows that actually, for many people, living a less carbon-intensive life would be an upgrade in quality of life. There's massive pent-up demand for that kind of lifestyle. But you can go to any of the threads on the Blue about climate change or #bancars to see lots of people don't agree. If governments got serious about climate change, the average lifestyle would have to change, but it's not immediately obvious to me that it would necessarily be worse. The most carbon intensive societies are also some of the most atomized and unhappy as it is.
posted by threementholsandafuneral at 4:24 AM on February 14, 2023 [9 favorites]
- You live in an apartment now, not a detached house at all. Maybe a small apartment.
- When it's hot outside, people have to get sweaty going where they need to go - no more running between air conditioned boxes.
- Using a car at all for non-essential tasks is not possible. By non-essential I mean you will die if you don't do it. Driving 5 hours each way to do some weekend hiking is not possible.
- If your job is in location X, you can't live just anywhere in a 50 mile radius of X and plan on driving there. You would have to live within reasonable transit/walking/cycling (or combo) distance.
- The top 10% of airplane users (the majority of Americans already don't fly even once a year) go from multiple flights per year to maybe one or two per decade, if that.
- It's not that people go from eating beef multiple days per week to once per week. They eat beef once per year if at all.
Now, personally, I think the fact that walkable cities where you don't have to own a car are some of the most expensive places to live on Earth shows that actually, for many people, living a less carbon-intensive life would be an upgrade in quality of life. There's massive pent-up demand for that kind of lifestyle. But you can go to any of the threads on the Blue about climate change or #bancars to see lots of people don't agree. If governments got serious about climate change, the average lifestyle would have to change, but it's not immediately obvious to me that it would necessarily be worse. The most carbon intensive societies are also some of the most atomized and unhappy as it is.
posted by threementholsandafuneral at 4:24 AM on February 14, 2023 [9 favorites]
It's a broad sentiment, and doesn't hold up well on closer inspection. It kind of implies that we have the choice to carry on as we are, and that that would have no impact on quality of life (it inevitably will, and in a worse way). It also implies a timeless baseline quality of life, which to most people in the world would seem a nonsense.
As sedimentary_deer said above, carbon reduction is going to be mostly achieved by policy/regulation, if at all. Individual actions are swamped by the effects of industry, power generation, transport and so on. We've been conditioned to think in terms of personal responsibility, but recycling and insulating our individual homes, etc. is just tinkering around the edges of the problem. The only meaningful way for an individual to have a strong effect is by campaigning for those policy/regulation changes. If you want to do more than you are, that would be an approach to take.
'Quality of life' is a woolly term, and I suspect many people think of it as the freedom to acquire endless amounts of cheap stuff, and to treat energy as if it's basically free. You're an outlier in the sense that you probably live the way you do as much because you like it that way as because it feels morally good. As others have said, the message isn't aimed at you; it's aimed at the people anxious about not being able to make monthly flights, buy a big SUV, eat cheap steaks, or heat their patio. Nobody knows exactly how individuals' 'quality of life' will change in coming years. We're being collectively forced by circumstances to consider what luxuries and freedoms we really value when balanced against the harms, which is no bad thing. There's an element of not liking to be told what to do, but there's also an element of not being able to imagine the benefits of a lower-carbon society, and how the adaptations we make will also have positives.
posted by pipeski at 4:36 AM on February 14, 2023 [7 favorites]
As sedimentary_deer said above, carbon reduction is going to be mostly achieved by policy/regulation, if at all. Individual actions are swamped by the effects of industry, power generation, transport and so on. We've been conditioned to think in terms of personal responsibility, but recycling and insulating our individual homes, etc. is just tinkering around the edges of the problem. The only meaningful way for an individual to have a strong effect is by campaigning for those policy/regulation changes. If you want to do more than you are, that would be an approach to take.
'Quality of life' is a woolly term, and I suspect many people think of it as the freedom to acquire endless amounts of cheap stuff, and to treat energy as if it's basically free. You're an outlier in the sense that you probably live the way you do as much because you like it that way as because it feels morally good. As others have said, the message isn't aimed at you; it's aimed at the people anxious about not being able to make monthly flights, buy a big SUV, eat cheap steaks, or heat their patio. Nobody knows exactly how individuals' 'quality of life' will change in coming years. We're being collectively forced by circumstances to consider what luxuries and freedoms we really value when balanced against the harms, which is no bad thing. There's an element of not liking to be told what to do, but there's also an element of not being able to imagine the benefits of a lower-carbon society, and how the adaptations we make will also have positives.
posted by pipeski at 4:36 AM on February 14, 2023 [7 favorites]
I think it can get really tricky to talk about needs in Western culture. I doubt there is anyone reading this who couldn't get by without something they consider essential. My house may seem small by US standards, but there are people who would consider it huge for one person. Historically, immigrants in the US have slept in shifts so they could share beds.
There is an excellent book called Living More with Less (by Doris Janzen Longacre, who also wrote the More with Less Cookbook). I think it was in that book I read a story of a woman who was living in a third world country and offered a young man an extra shirt. He said he didn't need it because he already had two: one to wear while the other was drying after being washed. I think of myself as only buying the clothes I need, but to this young man, I probably have a ridiculous amount of clothing.
I think when people talk about lowering standards of living, they mean different things, but I doubt that many people in Western countries are really talking about getting down to absolute essentials. For most of us, that is so far from our experience that we can't really imagine it. Probably at every level of consumption, we look at the next level up and think those are the people who are contributing to climate change.
Reducing quality of life means all of the things you mention, but many of those can be interpreted so that we already think we are doing everything we need to. I may pat myself on the back for being vegan, but I eat Ben and Jerry's non-dairy Pfish Food, and that is not something I can say I need.
posted by FencingGal at 5:17 AM on February 14, 2023 [4 favorites]
There is an excellent book called Living More with Less (by Doris Janzen Longacre, who also wrote the More with Less Cookbook). I think it was in that book I read a story of a woman who was living in a third world country and offered a young man an extra shirt. He said he didn't need it because he already had two: one to wear while the other was drying after being washed. I think of myself as only buying the clothes I need, but to this young man, I probably have a ridiculous amount of clothing.
I think when people talk about lowering standards of living, they mean different things, but I doubt that many people in Western countries are really talking about getting down to absolute essentials. For most of us, that is so far from our experience that we can't really imagine it. Probably at every level of consumption, we look at the next level up and think those are the people who are contributing to climate change.
Reducing quality of life means all of the things you mention, but many of those can be interpreted so that we already think we are doing everything we need to. I may pat myself on the back for being vegan, but I eat Ben and Jerry's non-dairy Pfish Food, and that is not something I can say I need.
posted by FencingGal at 5:17 AM on February 14, 2023 [4 favorites]
I really tried to write my answer so it was clear I wasn't criticizing you specifically. That's why I talked about my house and not yours and why I wrote about people in Western countries generally. Of course I don't know how many clothes you have or need. I'm sorry if I didn't make that obvious enough.
posted by FencingGal at 6:34 AM on February 14, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by FencingGal at 6:34 AM on February 14, 2023 [1 favorite]
If you peel back many of the arguments made by people who make the quality of life arguments, they very often boil down to “I might have to share space with and acknowledge the humanity of people who are a different race or social class than I am.”
posted by rockindata at 6:44 AM on February 14, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by rockindata at 6:44 AM on February 14, 2023 [2 favorites]
"Quality of life" is a political statement, not a policy program.
It could mean "the very wealthy continue to do whatever they want while the rest of us pay more taxes, have less healthcare, worse food and worse housing conditions, never see our families unless they live close by and de facto die sooner".
It could mean "from each according to their ability" - the very wealthy take the biggest hit because they have the most, the middle has a middling experience and the poorest get a boost because they don't make many changes and hey, now there's public transit and we're upgrading our housing stock. Remember that during rationing in WWII, working class people's diets actually improved.
Even when people say "oh, in the West we'll need big tax increases", it doesn't matter much as long as the big tax increases are evenly distributed and used to benefit all of us. Sure, it's going to suck if you're very rich and suddenly you can't have a fifth car and a third house and you're going to have merely a very secure and comfortable retirement instead of a movie-star one, but for most of us, it would be a good trade off to pay somewhat more taxes and fix our cities, housing, transit, etc.
posted by Frowner at 6:52 AM on February 14, 2023 [14 favorites]
It could mean "the very wealthy continue to do whatever they want while the rest of us pay more taxes, have less healthcare, worse food and worse housing conditions, never see our families unless they live close by and de facto die sooner".
It could mean "from each according to their ability" - the very wealthy take the biggest hit because they have the most, the middle has a middling experience and the poorest get a boost because they don't make many changes and hey, now there's public transit and we're upgrading our housing stock. Remember that during rationing in WWII, working class people's diets actually improved.
Even when people say "oh, in the West we'll need big tax increases", it doesn't matter much as long as the big tax increases are evenly distributed and used to benefit all of us. Sure, it's going to suck if you're very rich and suddenly you can't have a fifth car and a third house and you're going to have merely a very secure and comfortable retirement instead of a movie-star one, but for most of us, it would be a good trade off to pay somewhat more taxes and fix our cities, housing, transit, etc.
posted by Frowner at 6:52 AM on February 14, 2023 [14 favorites]
It's an interesting question, and I am fascinated by ssg's take, an angle I haven't thought of. I suppose it depends a lot on context. Where I am, I feel this is mostly about shaming people, and feeling morally superior to others. Maybe there is also a class thing? "Old Rich" people in this country enjoy holidays in primitive summer cottages their great-great grandfather built in 1890, and which they have never changed. Taking the train there is lovely. And in the city they live in old buildings that they don't feel any need to make look smart or expensive. They can walk to work, because that great-grandfather also built their city home in the middle of everything as the center of his business empire. Or they sold that old building and bought a beautiful and interesting space in a converted warehouse by the waterfront.
Before I often ridiculed people who believe the height of luxury is a holiday in Dubai. But then I realized that that was the case for many of my students who are children of refugees, and Dubai makes sense for them and their families in many ways that are perfectly logical. I mean, I'm still fiercely against the whole concept of Dubai and holidays in Dubai, but I now make more of an effort to explain why, and to open up to discussions about alternatives that can still fulfill the needs the families have, such as a safe place where people from all over Europe and Asia can meet, a place where you can go if Ramadan falls during summer in Scandinavia, and a place where you can rent spacious accommodations and find great food.
There are also a lot of people on the left here who enjoy the shaming thing, as sort of a variation of "eat the rich". They live relatively sustainably and don't think they need to change their habits or quality of life, but the rich need to scale down quite a bit and pay all the taxes so we can make the structural changes. To some extent, this is mainstream here (if not the rhetoric), in Europe, the carbon taxes are HUGE. I recently found out I had forgotten to send in the form for tax exemption for when you use electricity for heating (which is encouraged because a large percentage of the electricity comes from renewables), and I am now getting thousands of dollars back.
At the end of the day, what we need is change, and how that change will impact your quality of life is impossible to say. In one of the threads on the blue, I mentioned that 150 years ago, a rich man would have an equipage, a set of horses and a carriage with the staff to care for them. But his son wouldn't feel bad about having a smart car instead... I didn't use those exact words, but today I suddenly realized the analogy was a lot closer to home that I first remembered. My great granddad was a haulier. He freighted coal into the city in his horse-drawn wagon before WW2. He was also an angry, bitter man who was not much interested in change, like some of our days' white working class Trump voters. If someone had told him that by the 1980s, it would be impossible to keep horses within the municipality, he would have had a fit. He would definitely feel his quality of life would be endangered, and he would probably be right, since I get the impression that he liked horses more than people, and obviously he could have changed to a truck even back then, if he had wanted to. But in general, people's quality of life improved as the horses moved out (no direct correlation, though).
posted by mumimor at 7:11 AM on February 14, 2023 [4 favorites]
Before I often ridiculed people who believe the height of luxury is a holiday in Dubai. But then I realized that that was the case for many of my students who are children of refugees, and Dubai makes sense for them and their families in many ways that are perfectly logical. I mean, I'm still fiercely against the whole concept of Dubai and holidays in Dubai, but I now make more of an effort to explain why, and to open up to discussions about alternatives that can still fulfill the needs the families have, such as a safe place where people from all over Europe and Asia can meet, a place where you can go if Ramadan falls during summer in Scandinavia, and a place where you can rent spacious accommodations and find great food.
There are also a lot of people on the left here who enjoy the shaming thing, as sort of a variation of "eat the rich". They live relatively sustainably and don't think they need to change their habits or quality of life, but the rich need to scale down quite a bit and pay all the taxes so we can make the structural changes. To some extent, this is mainstream here (if not the rhetoric), in Europe, the carbon taxes are HUGE. I recently found out I had forgotten to send in the form for tax exemption for when you use electricity for heating (which is encouraged because a large percentage of the electricity comes from renewables), and I am now getting thousands of dollars back.
At the end of the day, what we need is change, and how that change will impact your quality of life is impossible to say. In one of the threads on the blue, I mentioned that 150 years ago, a rich man would have an equipage, a set of horses and a carriage with the staff to care for them. But his son wouldn't feel bad about having a smart car instead... I didn't use those exact words, but today I suddenly realized the analogy was a lot closer to home that I first remembered. My great granddad was a haulier. He freighted coal into the city in his horse-drawn wagon before WW2. He was also an angry, bitter man who was not much interested in change, like some of our days' white working class Trump voters. If someone had told him that by the 1980s, it would be impossible to keep horses within the municipality, he would have had a fit. He would definitely feel his quality of life would be endangered, and he would probably be right, since I get the impression that he liked horses more than people, and obviously he could have changed to a truck even back then, if he had wanted to. But in general, people's quality of life improved as the horses moved out (no direct correlation, though).
posted by mumimor at 7:11 AM on February 14, 2023 [4 favorites]
Asking because every time I hear it, I think "I'm a vegetarian who lives in a small house with zero children and no car, I haven't been on a plane since 2011, I only heat/cool my house to what is essential for my health, and I only buy the clothes I need - what am I missing that I am supposed to be doing? I don't see how I could reduce my quality of life and still meet my needs?"
I mean...you do recognize that you're an extreme outlier in this, right? Most of us are meat-eaters who live in as much space as we can afford, with more than one kid, more than one car, and closets packed full of clothes. A lot of us travel as much as our vacation time and salaries can accommodate, and heat or cool our homes to what makes us comfortable, not merely survivable. A lot of us are super racist and unaccustomed to sharing personal space in ANY regard, much less daily, constantly, and closely, in our home buildings, transit, etc.
Even those of us who are generally aware of these things still don't live all that sustainably--I may not have a car or kids, and I live in an apartment in a dense neighborhood, and my boyfriend often remarks on how few clothes I have. But believe me, I've lived in half as much space before, and rented a larger place out of sheer indulgence. It has air conditioning, a first for me. I have a lot of other, non-clothes things, I eat meat like it's going out of style (because it is) and travel as much as I possibly can. I am well aware of the things I can/should change but yes, I feel that giving these things up would be pretty miserable, and a serious downgrade in quality of life.
I'm not sure I entirely believe that you...don't know this? So I'm not sure what this question is really getting at. I'm sure some people who talk about quality of life reduction are thinking "well you live in your OWN house? Not a room in a large shared apartment building with three roommates and a bathroom down the hall? You use air conditioning at all ever? BOURGEOIS." But most of them are not talking about you.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 7:49 AM on February 14, 2023 [11 favorites]
I mean...you do recognize that you're an extreme outlier in this, right? Most of us are meat-eaters who live in as much space as we can afford, with more than one kid, more than one car, and closets packed full of clothes. A lot of us travel as much as our vacation time and salaries can accommodate, and heat or cool our homes to what makes us comfortable, not merely survivable. A lot of us are super racist and unaccustomed to sharing personal space in ANY regard, much less daily, constantly, and closely, in our home buildings, transit, etc.
Even those of us who are generally aware of these things still don't live all that sustainably--I may not have a car or kids, and I live in an apartment in a dense neighborhood, and my boyfriend often remarks on how few clothes I have. But believe me, I've lived in half as much space before, and rented a larger place out of sheer indulgence. It has air conditioning, a first for me. I have a lot of other, non-clothes things, I eat meat like it's going out of style (because it is) and travel as much as I possibly can. I am well aware of the things I can/should change but yes, I feel that giving these things up would be pretty miserable, and a serious downgrade in quality of life.
I'm not sure I entirely believe that you...don't know this? So I'm not sure what this question is really getting at. I'm sure some people who talk about quality of life reduction are thinking "well you live in your OWN house? Not a room in a large shared apartment building with three roommates and a bathroom down the hall? You use air conditioning at all ever? BOURGEOIS." But most of them are not talking about you.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 7:49 AM on February 14, 2023 [11 favorites]
Response by poster: I'm not sure I entirely believe that you...don't know this? So I'm not sure what this question is really getting at. I'm sure some people who talk about quality of life reduction are thinking "well you live in your OWN house? Not a room in a large shared apartment building with three roommates and a bathroom down the hall? You use air conditioning at all ever? BOURGEOIS." But most of them are not talking about you
I'm Australian, and also most of my friends are one or more of:
- poor;
- chronically ill/Disabled;
- environmentalists/green.
So possibly my baseline expectations are quite different to the average middle class US person?
I use a fair bit of airconditioning for health reasons (I have a medical condition that affects thermoregulation, and heat can make me very sick indeed).
posted by chariot pulled by cassowaries at 7:58 AM on February 14, 2023 [1 favorite]
I'm Australian, and also most of my friends are one or more of:
- poor;
- chronically ill/Disabled;
- environmentalists/green.
So possibly my baseline expectations are quite different to the average middle class US person?
I use a fair bit of airconditioning for health reasons (I have a medical condition that affects thermoregulation, and heat can make me very sick indeed).
posted by chariot pulled by cassowaries at 7:58 AM on February 14, 2023 [1 favorite]
When people say that, they do not mean that everyone individually should choose to lower their quality of life as low as they possibly can. They mean that for the average person, most of the personal choices that help reduce climate change will involve some decrease in quality of life. You're already doing the biggest ones by being vegetarian and avoiding flying, besides the other ones you mentioned.
Yes, you could go further - eat only food from dumpsters! dress only in thrifted clothes! buy nothing that isn't necessary to keep you alive! move to the tiniest apartment you can find with 20 new friends! only go places you can walk! But life shouldn't be a competition to have the world's smallest carbon footprint. Even if you somehow reduce your carbon footprint to zero, it's not going to singlehandedly stop climate change. Quality of life is important too, and at a certain point it makes more sense to stop and be satisfied with achieving the most meaningful changes instead of trying to achieve the high score. It sounds like you're around that point now. Great. You'd achieve much more from your efforts now by focusing on ways to achieve regulatory changes.
posted by randomnity at 8:21 AM on February 14, 2023 [10 favorites]
Yes, you could go further - eat only food from dumpsters! dress only in thrifted clothes! buy nothing that isn't necessary to keep you alive! move to the tiniest apartment you can find with 20 new friends! only go places you can walk! But life shouldn't be a competition to have the world's smallest carbon footprint. Even if you somehow reduce your carbon footprint to zero, it's not going to singlehandedly stop climate change. Quality of life is important too, and at a certain point it makes more sense to stop and be satisfied with achieving the most meaningful changes instead of trying to achieve the high score. It sounds like you're around that point now. Great. You'd achieve much more from your efforts now by focusing on ways to achieve regulatory changes.
posted by randomnity at 8:21 AM on February 14, 2023 [10 favorites]
The answer to this very much depends on how one defines quality of life.
I am very wary, even sceptical, of general appeals such as: "to reduce climate change, we need to reduce our quality of life". Who is the "we" in this statement?
As Frowner points out, this is a political statement. From your post and update i get the feeling you take it as a personal call to reduce your own quality of life (further), and i think that is not right: no one benefits when you stop doing laundry (for example) or get very sick from heat.
Also mumimor is right to mention shaming, which is happening but i believe fruitless and counter productive.
I believe the important part is to do what you can, which you seem to be doing.
On preview, what randomnity says.
posted by 15L06 at 8:27 AM on February 14, 2023 [1 favorite]
I am very wary, even sceptical, of general appeals such as: "to reduce climate change, we need to reduce our quality of life". Who is the "we" in this statement?
As Frowner points out, this is a political statement. From your post and update i get the feeling you take it as a personal call to reduce your own quality of life (further), and i think that is not right: no one benefits when you stop doing laundry (for example) or get very sick from heat.
Also mumimor is right to mention shaming, which is happening but i believe fruitless and counter productive.
I believe the important part is to do what you can, which you seem to be doing.
On preview, what randomnity says.
posted by 15L06 at 8:27 AM on February 14, 2023 [1 favorite]
This is Malthusian degrowth nonsense, and peak neoliberalism -- selling you the idea that by increasing your relative suffering, you can make up for the sins of humanity (really, capital).
This of course makes you a good person, and people who don't do the same thing, bad people. Which is great news for sustaining capitalism: nothing needs to change! We just need more good people to step up to the plate and suffer!
It's bullshit.
posted by so fucking future at 8:35 AM on February 14, 2023 [6 favorites]
This of course makes you a good person, and people who don't do the same thing, bad people. Which is great news for sustaining capitalism: nothing needs to change! We just need more good people to step up to the plate and suffer!
It's bullshit.
posted by so fucking future at 8:35 AM on February 14, 2023 [6 favorites]
I'm Australian, and also most of my friends are one or more of:
- poor;
- chronically ill/Disabled;
- environmentalists/green.
So possibly my baseline expectations are quite different to the average middle class US person?
Well. Your ideas of what you "need," compared to the historic baseline, are still quite substantial. To try to do apples to apples, for example, although I haven't done a material survey of your life, I imagine an indigenous person of your age, gender, and social status living in an uncolonized area or prior to colonization had significantly fewer clothes and less indoor individual living space (which enjoyed nothing but natural forms of temperature control) than you do. So before you get too comfortable with how environmentally enlightened you and your friends are, you should realize that a modern person doing well enough to own a house is still living to a ridiculously high standard on a historical scale. And hey! I like that standard. I don't want to live in a world where the a/c only turns on when it's 90 degrees F (which is still more than the mightiest king could enjoy in 1623). But getting one's mind around that concept is, unfortunately, essential to planning a sustainable future.
posted by praemunire at 8:38 AM on February 14, 2023 [10 favorites]
- poor;
- chronically ill/Disabled;
- environmentalists/green.
So possibly my baseline expectations are quite different to the average middle class US person?
Well. Your ideas of what you "need," compared to the historic baseline, are still quite substantial. To try to do apples to apples, for example, although I haven't done a material survey of your life, I imagine an indigenous person of your age, gender, and social status living in an uncolonized area or prior to colonization had significantly fewer clothes and less indoor individual living space (which enjoyed nothing but natural forms of temperature control) than you do. So before you get too comfortable with how environmentally enlightened you and your friends are, you should realize that a modern person doing well enough to own a house is still living to a ridiculously high standard on a historical scale. And hey! I like that standard. I don't want to live in a world where the a/c only turns on when it's 90 degrees F (which is still more than the mightiest king could enjoy in 1623). But getting one's mind around that concept is, unfortunately, essential to planning a sustainable future.
posted by praemunire at 8:38 AM on February 14, 2023 [10 favorites]
(And I don't mean that in a doomerist way! I just mean that everyone's sense of what is "needed" is silently historically conditioned, and we have to be aware of that, and try to think around it.)
posted by praemunire at 8:40 AM on February 14, 2023
posted by praemunire at 8:40 AM on February 14, 2023
I think what people are trying to point out is that broad, sweeping statements about "quality of life" not only are not about you, specifically, but also not about ANY one person, specifically. They also are not about what people need to do today to Be Good People; you living your life isn't saving the Earth, and even if everyone lived your life it probably wouldn't save the Earth.
They are talking about what will inevitably have to happen when we simply cannot sustain the level of material comfort currently had by some segment of the world's population. Eventually, we (those of us who are still alive at that time) will all be living somewhat less comfortably than you currently are now, by simple necessity. Your life, but in smaller, closer quarters with a vegetarian diet that is even less varied, and quite possibly very limited in quantity as well as quality.
You may be better prepared, psychologically, for this to be the case as you're much closer to a sustainable life than most of us, but you may also find you experience these as deprivations (loss of privacy, for example).
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 8:59 AM on February 14, 2023 [3 favorites]
They are talking about what will inevitably have to happen when we simply cannot sustain the level of material comfort currently had by some segment of the world's population. Eventually, we (those of us who are still alive at that time) will all be living somewhat less comfortably than you currently are now, by simple necessity. Your life, but in smaller, closer quarters with a vegetarian diet that is even less varied, and quite possibly very limited in quantity as well as quality.
You may be better prepared, psychologically, for this to be the case as you're much closer to a sustainable life than most of us, but you may also find you experience these as deprivations (loss of privacy, for example).
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 8:59 AM on February 14, 2023 [3 favorites]
> I couldn't get by with less sheets or less towels or less clothes than I have, because severe chronic fatigue and severe chronic pain means I cannot reliably do laundry.
> I use a fair bit of airconditioning for health reasons (I have a medical condition that affects thermoregulation, and heat can make me very sick indeed).
There's no point arguing with general suggestions on the basis that they do not suit your specialized needs. What experts are saying on TV or what people are writing in articles on the internet will never be suitable for your invidivual requirements exactly. You might be looking for a customized and personalized plan and that is work you need to do yourself (or hire consultants to do it for you if you can afford to).
posted by MiraK at 9:27 AM on February 14, 2023 [4 favorites]
> I use a fair bit of airconditioning for health reasons (I have a medical condition that affects thermoregulation, and heat can make me very sick indeed).
There's no point arguing with general suggestions on the basis that they do not suit your specialized needs. What experts are saying on TV or what people are writing in articles on the internet will never be suitable for your invidivual requirements exactly. You might be looking for a customized and personalized plan and that is work you need to do yourself (or hire consultants to do it for you if you can afford to).
posted by MiraK at 9:27 AM on February 14, 2023 [4 favorites]
I think when people say stuff like this they are just trying to evade doing anything. Or to excuse the people around them. I honestly have not heard this one, but maybe it's popular rhetoric where you are.
It's bullshit because it equates quality of life with eating meat, for example. Seems ridiculous to you, right? If that's their idea of quality of life, they are on a different wavelength from you.
I suppose if you hear it (from an actual person and not a talking head) you could ask them what they think the quality of life is like for someone who no longer has a home because the sea level rose and flooded them out.
posted by ewok_academy at 9:41 AM on February 14, 2023 [1 favorite]
It's bullshit because it equates quality of life with eating meat, for example. Seems ridiculous to you, right? If that's their idea of quality of life, they are on a different wavelength from you.
I suppose if you hear it (from an actual person and not a talking head) you could ask them what they think the quality of life is like for someone who no longer has a home because the sea level rose and flooded them out.
posted by ewok_academy at 9:41 AM on February 14, 2023 [1 favorite]
This is starting to seem like we're all talking in circles, but:
-yes, your understanding of what people mean by "reduce quality of life" is basically correct
-yes, you are already doing most of the things that they mean by this
-yes, there are probably also some other things that you aren't doing but it's not really...a big deal? nobody can do everything.
-yes, quite a lot of people would really hate doing those things and consider it a reduction in quality of life.
-yes, those people are different from you with different values and different current lifestyles
There's...really nothing more to it.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 10:51 AM on February 14, 2023 [9 favorites]
-yes, your understanding of what people mean by "reduce quality of life" is basically correct
-yes, you are already doing most of the things that they mean by this
-yes, there are probably also some other things that you aren't doing but it's not really...a big deal? nobody can do everything.
-yes, quite a lot of people would really hate doing those things and consider it a reduction in quality of life.
-yes, those people are different from you with different values and different current lifestyles
There's...really nothing more to it.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 10:51 AM on February 14, 2023 [9 favorites]
I'm not sure what you need to know.
But I think my family's experience probably shows a few changes. When I was growing up, the assumption was that I would go to a university far away and live in a dorm and go to Europe at least once (I went twice) and get a car asap (I got one in my 4th year of university.) We all ate a ton of burgers and steaks. All of my grandparents also travelled and lived in large detached family homes, like the one my parents upgraded to in my teens. My grandparents didn't renovate that much but my parents were pretty much always updating something - carpets, wallpaper, skylights, cabinets, counters. All the adults had their own cars.
Flash forward and my family lives intergenerationally, with my MIL living with us. She doesn't have a car; she has an e-trike. My son applied to schools locally and is choosing one where he can live at home. He doesn't have a license yet (by choice) and will use transit/bike to get to school. Last year we ate beef twice, pork a few times, chicken maybe 15-20 times when we lost the plot and got a rotisserie one, and fish a bit more than that. We're "mostly vegetarian, vegan where possible, sometimes pescatarian." Which really just means we've decentralized animal products from our menu.
None of this is something I would consider a loss of quality of life. Having my MIL with us adds to our lives, even though it lowers the square feet per adult and we have to plan showers a bit. My son will be going to a better school than I went to. Barbecue smashed chickpeas instead of pulled pork sandwiches, etc. - not really a loss.
But on economic metrics I bet it shows up that way.
posted by warriorqueen at 11:07 AM on February 14, 2023 [4 favorites]
But I think my family's experience probably shows a few changes. When I was growing up, the assumption was that I would go to a university far away and live in a dorm and go to Europe at least once (I went twice) and get a car asap (I got one in my 4th year of university.) We all ate a ton of burgers and steaks. All of my grandparents also travelled and lived in large detached family homes, like the one my parents upgraded to in my teens. My grandparents didn't renovate that much but my parents were pretty much always updating something - carpets, wallpaper, skylights, cabinets, counters. All the adults had their own cars.
Flash forward and my family lives intergenerationally, with my MIL living with us. She doesn't have a car; she has an e-trike. My son applied to schools locally and is choosing one where he can live at home. He doesn't have a license yet (by choice) and will use transit/bike to get to school. Last year we ate beef twice, pork a few times, chicken maybe 15-20 times when we lost the plot and got a rotisserie one, and fish a bit more than that. We're "mostly vegetarian, vegan where possible, sometimes pescatarian." Which really just means we've decentralized animal products from our menu.
None of this is something I would consider a loss of quality of life. Having my MIL with us adds to our lives, even though it lowers the square feet per adult and we have to plan showers a bit. My son will be going to a better school than I went to. Barbecue smashed chickpeas instead of pulled pork sandwiches, etc. - not really a loss.
But on economic metrics I bet it shows up that way.
posted by warriorqueen at 11:07 AM on February 14, 2023 [4 favorites]
Ok so you know how every time one of those "I retired at 35 and you can too by following this advice" kind of bullshit articles makes the rounds and gets posted to the Blue and people lose their fucking minds?
In the same way that "stop buying that daily Starbucks and save for a house instead!" is not financial advice aimed at people living paycheck to paycheck, "save the environment by cutting back on carbon heavy luxuries" is not environmental advice aimed at people who don't engage in many carbon heavy luxuries.
tl;dr This isn't for you.
posted by phunniemee at 11:25 AM on February 14, 2023 [8 favorites]
In the same way that "stop buying that daily Starbucks and save for a house instead!" is not financial advice aimed at people living paycheck to paycheck, "save the environment by cutting back on carbon heavy luxuries" is not environmental advice aimed at people who don't engage in many carbon heavy luxuries.
tl;dr This isn't for you.
posted by phunniemee at 11:25 AM on February 14, 2023 [8 favorites]
Another aspect is that there are no other alternatives. Either people who have a high environmental impact lifestyle need to reduce their wants and live a different lifestyle, or we all suffer the effects of climate change to an intolerable degree. There isn't a third alternative, some kind of technological solution, or carbon offsetting, or whatever, that will make enough of a difference.
posted by Jabberwocky at 2:21 PM on February 14, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Jabberwocky at 2:21 PM on February 14, 2023 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Sorry for all the dismissive answers you've been getting.
I've had the same problem because poverty really skews your idea of what good quality of life is. I make less than $20k a year and I'm considered the rich friend in my social circle. I live similarly to you and consider myself quite comfortable, and so when people talked about how we're all going to have to start being more uncomfortable to deal with climate change it made me want to cry because I didn't want to go back to living without such comforts as... a one bedroom apartment with 2 people and a cat, new clothes every 3 years, a new phone every 6 years, a road trip vacation once a decade, and fresh meat once every few months.
Then the internet exploded with these trendy "calculate your carbon footprint so we can sell you on our carbon offset program!" sites. I took one and was fucking baffled because half the time the options didn't go as low as my standard of living. "How much electricity do you use a month?" Lowest option: "A little - Around 320 kWh/month." We never go above 200. "How big is your living space?" Lowest option: "Small apartment - 1,300 square feet." Our apartment, which I consider quite spacious for 2 people and a cat is 700 square feet. On and on with the lowest option being luxuries I can't imagine. The calculator was specifically adjusted for 2 adults, so it's not like it was overestimating for parents with kids or whatever.
The end result was a cheery graphic showing the average carbon output of Americans per year, with my household as a tiny sliver next to it. It also helpfully showed me next to a number of countries considered "third world" which I was roughly even with. Let me remind you, this is site whose whole purpose is to try and convince you that you need to do more about climate change so you'll give them money. The framing around the graphs was, "WOW, aren't you shocked by how much carbon you emit? Want to give usindulgences money so we can fix how much you're fucking up the environment?"
But even gamed as fuck by marketing to make people feel bad, it wasn't able to hide the fact that my lifestyle is wildly more environmentally sustainable than your average American's. And this totally shocked me because I do almost nothing to be more environmentally sustainable other than drive a hybrid car (which we use for a 7-minute commute four days a week and then otherwise are constantly avoiding going out on the weekend whenever possible). Not because I don't care but because I didn't have the bandwidth. And I always felt bad about it because I thought I was one of those "comfortable" Americans who need to give up more.
If your social circle is all people in poverty, and you're slightly better off than them (by which I mean you have about $500 in savings to lend friends who are out of food and their food stamps don't refill for another two weeks), then it can be easy to think you're living a comfortable, middle class lifestyle. You're not! The middle class lifestyle and above is the problem, not anything poor people are doing. If middle class people lived like you and I, carbon emissions would drop DRASTICALLY. It's not about you, but the internet loooooves to say, "If you think you're not the problem, you're the problem!"
Next time you read about how people need to reduce their carbon emissions, mentally adjust for the middle class lifestyle where people own multiple cars and fly on vacation at least once a year and buy clothes every few months and a new phone every year etc. Then give yourself a nice mental "check, done!" and move on.
posted by brook horse at 2:45 PM on February 14, 2023 [5 favorites]
I've had the same problem because poverty really skews your idea of what good quality of life is. I make less than $20k a year and I'm considered the rich friend in my social circle. I live similarly to you and consider myself quite comfortable, and so when people talked about how we're all going to have to start being more uncomfortable to deal with climate change it made me want to cry because I didn't want to go back to living without such comforts as... a one bedroom apartment with 2 people and a cat, new clothes every 3 years, a new phone every 6 years, a road trip vacation once a decade, and fresh meat once every few months.
Then the internet exploded with these trendy "calculate your carbon footprint so we can sell you on our carbon offset program!" sites. I took one and was fucking baffled because half the time the options didn't go as low as my standard of living. "How much electricity do you use a month?" Lowest option: "A little - Around 320 kWh/month." We never go above 200. "How big is your living space?" Lowest option: "Small apartment - 1,300 square feet." Our apartment, which I consider quite spacious for 2 people and a cat is 700 square feet. On and on with the lowest option being luxuries I can't imagine. The calculator was specifically adjusted for 2 adults, so it's not like it was overestimating for parents with kids or whatever.
The end result was a cheery graphic showing the average carbon output of Americans per year, with my household as a tiny sliver next to it. It also helpfully showed me next to a number of countries considered "third world" which I was roughly even with. Let me remind you, this is site whose whole purpose is to try and convince you that you need to do more about climate change so you'll give them money. The framing around the graphs was, "WOW, aren't you shocked by how much carbon you emit? Want to give us
But even gamed as fuck by marketing to make people feel bad, it wasn't able to hide the fact that my lifestyle is wildly more environmentally sustainable than your average American's. And this totally shocked me because I do almost nothing to be more environmentally sustainable other than drive a hybrid car (which we use for a 7-minute commute four days a week and then otherwise are constantly avoiding going out on the weekend whenever possible). Not because I don't care but because I didn't have the bandwidth. And I always felt bad about it because I thought I was one of those "comfortable" Americans who need to give up more.
If your social circle is all people in poverty, and you're slightly better off than them (by which I mean you have about $500 in savings to lend friends who are out of food and their food stamps don't refill for another two weeks), then it can be easy to think you're living a comfortable, middle class lifestyle. You're not! The middle class lifestyle and above is the problem, not anything poor people are doing. If middle class people lived like you and I, carbon emissions would drop DRASTICALLY. It's not about you, but the internet loooooves to say, "If you think you're not the problem, you're the problem!"
Next time you read about how people need to reduce their carbon emissions, mentally adjust for the middle class lifestyle where people own multiple cars and fly on vacation at least once a year and buy clothes every few months and a new phone every year etc. Then give yourself a nice mental "check, done!" and move on.
posted by brook horse at 2:45 PM on February 14, 2023 [5 favorites]
Best answer: Also, I know lots of poor people who have felt the same way you do. They're anxious that they're not doing enough about climate change, that they're consuming too much, not realizing how fucking bonkers the middle class lifestyle is compared to theirs. Unless you grow up with middle class friends, you just have no idea. So of course you assume all those ads and articles are about you, because you are at a point in your life where you have such luxuries as seeing the dentist once a year. Which is still poor, but it's easy to feel like it's not it when your friends haven't seen the dentist in a decade.
It doesn't help that middle class people love to talk about how they're broke or living paycheck to paycheck while still maintaining this lifestyle. Which is functionally true, if they aren't able to put anything in savings. But it makes it easy for poor people to assume that they must be living the same lifestyle when that's completely not the case.
posted by brook horse at 3:04 PM on February 14, 2023 [1 favorite]
It doesn't help that middle class people love to talk about how they're broke or living paycheck to paycheck while still maintaining this lifestyle. Which is functionally true, if they aren't able to put anything in savings. But it makes it easy for poor people to assume that they must be living the same lifestyle when that's completely not the case.
posted by brook horse at 3:04 PM on February 14, 2023 [1 favorite]
Quality of life is already being negatively impacted by climate change. Evacuating from a natural disaster negatively impacts your life, to say nothing of losing your home because of one.
Mitigating climate change might entail lower quality of life, but it's also possible that it will increase the quality of life beyond what it will be if we don't work to mitigate it.
There are definitely disagreements about what sorts of actions we can take individually or collectively and how much difference they will make, as well as the fact that actions have different costs for different individuals. There are also downstream and cumulative effects that can change the whole equation.
So it's complicated.
I used to try to be pure in a lot of areas, but it wasn't sustainable. Now I try to do as well as I can reasonably do and not sweat everything else.
posted by katmai at 4:02 PM on February 14, 2023
Mitigating climate change might entail lower quality of life, but it's also possible that it will increase the quality of life beyond what it will be if we don't work to mitigate it.
There are definitely disagreements about what sorts of actions we can take individually or collectively and how much difference they will make, as well as the fact that actions have different costs for different individuals. There are also downstream and cumulative effects that can change the whole equation.
So it's complicated.
I used to try to be pure in a lot of areas, but it wasn't sustainable. Now I try to do as well as I can reasonably do and not sweat everything else.
posted by katmai at 4:02 PM on February 14, 2023
Many of the things you listed, if everyone was doing them, if society was structured around them, would increase quality of life. Saving the planet, that means having a healthy planet, and thus a healthier happier human.
I think the next thing I would expect to see on a list like the one you made would be intersectionality awareness.
posted by aniola at 8:00 AM on February 15, 2023 [1 favorite]
I think the next thing I would expect to see on a list like the one you made would be intersectionality awareness.
posted by aniola at 8:00 AM on February 15, 2023 [1 favorite]
While I think individual behavior does matter AND systemic issues require systems solutions, greenwashing is also very real and corporations have launched huge marketing campaigns to push individual responsibility forward so the burden is on the consumer. For example, BP's fossil fuel advertising dollars are why "carbon footprint" is such a common concept today. So climate anxiety is delegated to us, while companies continue to exploit resources on a massive scale and the 1% is busy flying on private jets.
posted by derez at 12:31 PM on February 15, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by derez at 12:31 PM on February 15, 2023 [1 favorite]
Other people have covered what is meant and who it is meant for well. I would add that some of it stems from a (christian) morality that demands that achieving something virtuous must require denying yourself something. Sometimes that’s true, but in combating climate change we have found a couple of times, that it does not need to be.
It turns out, that renewable energy is cheaper that digging stuff out of the ground and burning it.
BEVs are cheaper to built, (probably) last longer and are plain more fun to drive than those with internal combustion engines.
There was a huge gnashing of teeth when incandescent bulbs were phased out, but LEDs made a lot of new things possible and almost everyone seems fine with them now.
The movement to eat less meat has brought a bunch of new ingredients to my rural corner of the woods and it’s pretty great.
If we ever manage to get away from concrete I don’t think many people will miss it.
We recently talked about an abundance of energy renewables could bring. Getting to 100% renewables is hard, but once you reach that, getting to 110% is easy and at that point you can do all kinds of useful things that we currently don’t do because they are very inefficient.
So this message is not for you and in the end it might be for no one. Whether it helps move the world forward in combating climate change is debatable.
posted by the_dreamwriter at 11:15 AM on February 16, 2023
It turns out, that renewable energy is cheaper that digging stuff out of the ground and burning it.
BEVs are cheaper to built, (probably) last longer and are plain more fun to drive than those with internal combustion engines.
There was a huge gnashing of teeth when incandescent bulbs were phased out, but LEDs made a lot of new things possible and almost everyone seems fine with them now.
The movement to eat less meat has brought a bunch of new ingredients to my rural corner of the woods and it’s pretty great.
If we ever manage to get away from concrete I don’t think many people will miss it.
We recently talked about an abundance of energy renewables could bring. Getting to 100% renewables is hard, but once you reach that, getting to 110% is easy and at that point you can do all kinds of useful things that we currently don’t do because they are very inefficient.
So this message is not for you and in the end it might be for no one. Whether it helps move the world forward in combating climate change is debatable.
posted by the_dreamwriter at 11:15 AM on February 16, 2023
Many of my "middle class" friends make about $300K, have 2-3 kids, live in giant 3-storey houses with a ton of airspace that's warmly heated or cooly air conditioned year round, the family easily spends $2000-5000 on new clothes / toys / books / purses / shoes each season and would never even consider buying any of it secondhand, eat meat twice a day with daily restaurant food and gourmet coffee drinks (ie monoculture foods shipped in from other places), have large grass lawns with sprinklers and pesticide spray, own 2 SUVs, drive 6 hours round trip most weekends to their heated / air conditioned cottage, play in the lake in a motorboat or jetski all weekend, and fly to the Caribbean for all-inclusive resort vacations and cruises 2 times a year. And that's - by far - not even the richest people I'm friends with! So there's a LOT they could do.
posted by nouvelle-personne at 9:04 AM on February 24, 2023
posted by nouvelle-personne at 9:04 AM on February 24, 2023
« Older Buying a high-end guitar - do I need to try it out... | Looking for a children's book about a girl called... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
And of course most of us aren't already doing as much, and most of us could do better. I prefer vacation destinations that I can reach by train, but last summer I took a plane to attend a wedding in Istanbul. Sometimes I have to travel by plane for my job. I really don't need to always wear the latest fashion, but I have a pretty full closet of stuff I'm no longer wearing, because I've got a bit of a history of weight-cycling. Like you, I don't have kids and a car, and I live in a small house in the suburbs, but I'm living there alone, and even a small house could be considered rather a lot of space for a single person. Suburbs in general are terribly for the climate, although mine at least doesn't require me to have a car, because there's sufficient public transport. Still, I could probably reduce my carbon foodprint by moving into a small flat in the city, or by taking in flatmates. But I feel that both of these measures would indeed noticably reduce my quality of life.
posted by sohalt at 1:17 AM on February 14, 2023 [12 favorites]