No it's not a reasonable assumption.
Which specific groups are you aware of that think dealing with climate change by phasing out burning fossil fuels will reduce standards of living? I think you'll find a common funding source behind them.
Which specific groups are you aware of that think dealing with climate change by phasing out burning fossil fuels will reduce standards of living? I think you'll find a common funding source behind them.
For example, House Resolution 109 of the 116th Congress[0] mentions "[ensuring] prosperity and economic security" as an objective, but being sandwiched between "[achieving] net-zero greenhouse gas emissions" and "[promoting] justice and equity" it's difficult to see it as more than hand-waving and one that won't be forfeited for those other goals once the rubber meets the pavement.
Bernie Sanders' website on the issue[1] doesn't mention the standard of living at all among the Key Points. AOC's[2] does but in the same way as HR 109, which makes sense given that she was the sponsor behind it. The New York Times explainer[3] on the issue does not even discuss whether the average person's material standard of living will change.
The number one goal from all sources is the categorical imperative of going "net-zero" or "100% renewable", without asking or answering the question of "at what cost at the margins" (again, other than the undefined cost of calamity), which is what I'm really interested in addressing; because it's going to be a very hard sell to tell the people of the developed world to scale back on their standard of living, and a great moral injustice to tell the people of the yet-to-be-developed world that they cannot take advantage of cheap, abundant energy sources.
[0]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolutio... [1]: https://berniesanders.com/issues/green-new-deal/ [2]: https://www.ocasiocortez.com/green-new-deal [3]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/climate/green-new-deal-qu...
global warming at or above 2 degrees Celsius beyond preindustrialized levels will cause -
* (B) more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year 2100;
... other bad stuff..
* (F) a risk of damage to $1,000,000,000,000 of public infrastructure and coastal real estate in the United States
Which is just a summary of the IPCC which goes into great detail on the GDP impacts.
And that's just the "Green" part, they immediately launch into a bunch of things that just are standard of living and how they want to improve it.
> life expectancy declining while basic needs, such as clean air, clean water, healthy food, and adequate health care, housing, transportation, and education, are inaccessible to a significant portion of the United States population;
So I think we've conclusively demonstrated, that you're not reading/hearing what these peaple are actually saying.
edit: on Bernie's relatively short page which you provided the link to:
> The cost of inaction is unacceptable. Economists estimate that if we do not take action, we will lose $34.5 trillion in economic activity by the end of the century. And the benefits are enormous: by taking bold and decisive action, we will save $2.9 trillion over 10 years, $21 trillion over 30 years, and $70.4 trillion over 80 years.
And this is from a plan that pays for itself in 15 years.
But I posit that you are able to enjoy a car-less life due to the existence of fossil fuel-burning elsewhere: the public transportation you presumably ride, the groceries that are delivered to the store presumably within walking distance from where you live, the construction of your residence and all commercial buildings near you, the massive industrial production at scale that allows you to trade a smaller amount of your time for more goods and services. All of those things are, as you point out, built on the back of cheap energy. It would be downright immoral to deny that same opportunity to the people of the developing world.
And objectively speaking, having the capacity to do something is better than not having it. Whether you eat meat or not, it is objectively better for the common folk to be able to afford it; whether you own a car or not, it is objectively better to have the ability to move people and goods across long distances at an affordable price; whether you artificially cool and heat your home or not, it is objectively better for people to be able to live in comfort in places they otherwise may not be able to. Privation may end up being better for your health, both mental and physical, but only if it arises out of choice.
I’m not so sure I would universalize this. Up to a point sure, but there’s certainly a point at which having the capacity to do something quickly or easily can be detrimental. Some examples:
- We have a ton of unhealthy, nutrient-poor, high-calorie foods practically at arm’s reach in the US. Not all of us have the self-control to avoid grabbing them in the supermarket. Myself included! I certainly wish I didn’t have quite so many unhealthy options nearby; I’d probably be healthier if I didn’t.
- Being able to easily move people long distances (in particular via cars, which are horrifically space-inefficient) has led to people moving far away from population centers and infrastructure that requires cars for transportation. The presence of convenient cars as an option in a sense removes choices, because the infrastructure required to sustain them makes other forms of transportation impractical. I would gladly trade the capacity to move quickly through my city in a car for the ability to safely bike around it.
Well yes, but much, much less of it than if everyone drives everywhere.
> And objectively speaking, having the capacity to do something is better than not having it.
All else being equal, then sure. But all else is not equal. There's a significant cost to producing all of that energy. And it is not likely to be feasible to sustain the entire world at US (or even European) levels of energy usage anytime soon. As such, it's quite reasonable to start having a conversation about what high-energy usage activities we might be able to cut out without having too significant an impact on quality of life. Things like reducing meat consumption (not necessarily cutting it out entirely), reducing car usage, and cutting down on air travel, etc are obvious candidates for this.
Either the developed world gives up on its luxuries or they will be forcefully taken by a complex climate system that is not beholden to political statements.
I guess we're going to have to wait until several major cities are utterly destroyed, or a few mass-heat-death events occur, before some people finally get it.
We don't have time, we don't have the resources, and we don't have the global societal cohesion to address this problem in the way a lot of the fantasists in this thread would prefer.