Being an avid fan of Sci-fi, it sounds like the start of an aggressive social engineering program designed to maximize govt control of the populace.
I think it's fairly straight forward what it means. Public transportation = less reliance on personal vehicles and therefor less emissions. Especially if the transportation is based on green energy. Consuming less = less production. Less meat = less reliance on methane producing cattle and so on though this leaves out the possibility of using fish, chickens, turkeys and so on. Why do you try and take apart every little sentence and make it into something it is not? You already have people telling you what I'm sure you want to hear in this thread concerning social engineering, taking away your freedoms, and so on. And I know you'll come back with the "I didn't mean anything by this this was just an innocent question" sort of response as usual when we both know you are trying to hint towards a certain response.
Edit: You think that the arguments put forward is that we are going to run out of food and kill each other? You always seem to put out the most 'alarmist' and ignorant responses to argue against. why is that? A 'true environmentalist' would look at alternative sources of energy and see that yes, indeed, there may very well be cheaper sources of energy. right now in various parts of the world wind power is actually cheaper than fossil fuels and solar isn't far behind.
Edit: This is where I got it from "The usual red herring regarding questions like this is the belief that we are going to continue doubling our population until we run out of food and being killing each other. " no where in the answer you responded to was anything about killing each other. Are we going to run out of food? Food and the nutritional value of it will decline if we continue on the same path. However we will still be able to grow food only less of it will end up as an end product. Can technology assist? Yes look up the term 'vertical gardens'. There are many different techniques that can be used.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/07/...
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/224...
It's all over the web and on all kinds of news sites. Do you not read the news? What is being stated concerns the problems and how one can go about fixing those problems. With reference to the answer given yes, it does have to do with changing our lifestyle so we give off less of a fingerprint on the planet and in the atmosphere. Sorry it's not about some vast socialist conspiracy to install a one world government.
It could also be about trying to avoid mass starvation.
<@Climate Realist: "It could also be about trying to avoid mass starvation."
OK! What do you think it means? And just because you don't agree that it is not the time to "get into an alternative model," does not mean that everyone agrees that it isn't.
The poorest people in the poorest nations can't eat SUVs or drink oil.
It's one way of making less CO2 per person. However, it's not enough to make a significant difference. Remember, each person on earth can only make about a ton of CO2/year, and Americans make 20. That's a lot of conservation, and I doubt many people have thought through what that means.
No private automobiles. No airplanes. Nothing but conventional rail and barge transport, and return of animal power for local transport and farming. No out of season food or anything but grass fed meat. Severe limits on store hours and energy usage (much less frozen and convenience food). Severe and strict rationing of electricity (150 kwh/month or less, which will not even power an average American home for a week). Basically, we'd have an economy and a living standard closer to that of sub-Saharan Africa, with attendant extreme unemployment, discomfort, and hunger. We'll never push a policy that will come close to any of that, but that's what we have to do to stabilize CO2 levels.
So no, I think people who are pushing it feel that it's climate policy. It just doesn't go near far enough to actually address the problem. Going far enough would be extremely unpopular, so no one advocates that.
DK
The current model of growth is an increase of consumerism, clearly this is not achievable (ignoring AGW) for the rich countries when the poor countries are now coming on-line demanding a slice of the pie.
PS now it is you who is being alarmist "Eating less meat" is hardly mass starvation for people in North America.
Are you really that dull??????????????
Move towards efficient public transportation to reduce CO2
Conserving less reduces use of natural resources and generates less waste products and CO2 based shipping
Eating less meat reduces methane by reducing herds it also conserves water as raising cattle for meat is the most water intensive form of agriculture.
Hippy
According to IPCC official Ottmar Edenhoffer:
"...one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy... One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..."
AGW is all about using cherry picked science to push a far leftist agenda. This is just more evidence not that I needed any.
Here is a general statement:
"People will have to change their behavior. We must move away from the current model of growth by expanding public transportation, consuming less, and even eating less meat."
Is that strictly a policy for solving a climate crisis or is it for some other goal? I guess a more general question would be, what problems are being addressed here?
