[longtom]

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

[scrollaway]

You have a kernel of truth there which isn't talked about enough (the fact that CO2 consumption brings advantages which reduce death and misery AND potentially reduce further CO2 consumption as well, in a "you gotta spend money to make money" way).

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

[longtom]

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

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