This is a third world-focused paper, in a development studies (as in "developing nation") journal. It's basically talking about what I described in the last paragraph - everyone gets to live in Mainstreet, India, and nobody in Mainstreet, USA.

It would, indeed, involve everyone getting medically adequate nutrition, education, a flush toilet and an internet connection, which is how they're defining "decent standard of living". Specifically, see table 1.

You could argue this is worth it, and that argument wouldn't be crazy. But, it's not a higher standard of living for the average Lemmy user.

[–] AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 minutes ago

Yeah possibly. Only one phone and one tablet or laptop per person, no PC battlestation :(

But I would argue it still does mean more luxury in the developed world for one simple reason: The biggest luxury in life is time. But if you only use 30% resources and energy, you can probably cut working hours / employment to something like half.

That is not just lazing about, it's being able to read and learn, to raise your children without having to work, to be relaxed about the future and the economic outlook. Just looking at how children are raised and educated today vs 50 years ago, quality of life has drastically sunk. Gadgets and multiple cars are not all there is to quality of life. There are those comparisons to medical servs who only worked 20 hours a week.

But the larger point is to show the sheer scale and enormity it would take to really address climate change. Banning most meat production would be simple (but hard) because people can just eat potatoes. But most of the rest is hard. It will not be achieved by a carbon tax.

Basically people are tired of greenwashing.