rbn

Man stelle sich nur vor, was möglich wäre, wenn wir weiter das Neun-Euro-Ticket oder gar kostenlosen Nahverkehr hätten.

Fast alle meine Bekannte fahren (auch) Auto, inklusive mir. Zu Zeiten des Neun-Euro-Tickets haben trotzdem die meisten zusätzlich das ÖPNV-Ticket gekauft und zumindest teilweise genutzt. Zumindest für die Fahrten, wo der ÖPNV keine großen Umstände macht, waren viele bereit, den auch zu nutzen. In den Supermarkt für den Wocheneinkauf ist man dann trotzdem mit der Karre aber ins Kino, zum Zahnarzt oder ähnlichem hat man sich eben in den Bus gesetzt. Selbst wenn das nur ein Drittel aller Fahrten wäre, wäre das doch schon ein super Fortschritt. Und wenn die Busse dann voller wären, muss man es eben weiter ausbauen. Wenn neue Linien kommen, kann man dann noch mehr Strecken damit abdecken usw.

Bei 50€ im Monat lohnt es sich für hybride Nutzer kaum. Wertverlust des Autos, Versicherung, Kfz-Steuer und so weiter fällt alles sowieso an. Und der reine Kraftstoff ist leider meistens billiger und führt dann wieder bei mehr Fahrten zur Pro-Auto-Entscheidung.

I never said that I want to just wait. We should leverage all possibilities in parallel to reduce the carbon footprint:

• Increase green energy: solar power, wind turbines, tidal power etc.
• Reduce energy consumption
• Find ways to increase prices of products and services that are bad for the environment (not only CO2, but also methane, PTFE etc.)
• Fine companies which violate environmental laws or thresholds with significantly higher amounts than today
• Increase tolls in imported products and ban imports of products that do not meet sustainability criteria [...]

All these measures are important steps to take to reduce the average footprint. But still on top of all these things the total number of humans is a signicifant multipler for the total footprint.

A human can only use less ressources only no human will take no ressources.

Once again: I do not promote state-forced birth control, I do not condemn parents, children etc. I'm simply saying that if people voluntarily decide to reproduce at a lower scale, that that has a positive impact on the planet and in the end helps the future generations.

If we simply just stopped using fossil fuels today without a smooth transition to green energies, all supply chains will shatter immediately, people will freeze to death, you'll have a world-wide famine and neighbors fighting for the last remaining ressources.

Furthermore, the only way to force such an immediate exit from fossils would be to establish a violent dictatorship as there's no democratic majority for it.

As much as I'd like the transition to happen as soon as possible, it's pretty obvious that the solution can't be as simple as 'just forbid using fossils'.

I think the majority of people would prefer to use green energy but - as said in my previous - I do not think that the same majority is willing to accept significant cut backs on their lifestyle. As long as they can continue to live as they're used to they're all in on the green deal. But when they are asked to use less individual transportation in favor of public transport, lower their heating by a few degrees and wear a sweater instead or buy regional food over stuff that is imported from overseas, then unfortunately a lot of people react in a rejective or even aggressive way. Green politicians in Germany for instance are confronted with a lot of hate for all attempts to initiate some change.

So to me it seems like phasing out fossils in a democratic manner is only possible over a longer period of time, unfortunately probably several decades.

I do agree that these companies are at fault. But wouldn't even the emissions of the most evil companies in the world go down with a smaller humanity? If you look at the top 5 in the ranking, it's all fossil fuel companies. Do you think if we had 25% less humans, the remaining 75% would still burn 100% of fossils?

And I am not not fingerpointing at anyone. I neither condemn parents nor children. Just saying that less people have less impact than more people.

I read through the article and still can't see how my post is related to facism. If we assume a number of X humans with an average environmental footprint of Y that leads to an overall footprint for humanity of X * Y.

If we want to bring that number down, this can by achieved by lowering either of the factors. If you want to cut pollution by let's say 50% with a constant polulation, it goes along with harsher cut backs for the individuals' lifestyle. Looking at the current discourse, such cut backs are highly controverse and measures in that direction are rarely accepted ('they want to take out meat', 'they want to take our cars' etc.).

If the number of humans decreased by 25% due to a naturally lowered birth rate, it means that the individual pollution must be lowered only by 33% instead of 50% to achieve the same result. I would argue that less individual impact will lead to a higher acceptance for a environment-friendly humanity.

If I wrote 'kill the poor' or something like that I'd get your point but I just said that fewer people will have a positive impact on nature. Which is not facism but a simple fact.

By the way. Your liked Wikipedia article also warns about the term 'ecofacism' being misused by the far right to discredit any form of pro-environment statements. So, please think twice before if you really want to use that term and call random people fascists.

Detractors on the political right tend to use the term "ecofascism" as a hyperbolic general pejorative against all environmental activists, including more mainstream groups such as Greenpeace, prominent activists such as Greta Thunberg, and government agencies tasked with protecting environmental resources.

What exactly is facism about naturally (non-enforced) lowering birth rates?

While lower birth rates may lead to economic issues on a medium term (too many old people VS. too few young people), it's probably one of the most efficient measures to combat climate change. Less people comsuming ressources means less pollution and hopefully also less competition and conflicts for said ressources.

Even though I'll be probably one of the many old people one day that the society may not be able to support adequately, I think that it's positive news for humanity.

From my perspective, the best way to deal with a shrinking population would be a shift away from capitalism in its current form. Infinite growth, bigger, faster etc. is not a realistic and definitely not a sustainable target.

We should focus on the basic needs to make food, housing, care etc. affordable for everyone with as few working hours as possible, so that less people are able to do the job.

Um Geld geht es fast jedem und überall. Das größte Problem sehe ich eher darin, dass der Fokus immer nur auf kurzfristigen Gewinnen steht. Solange die Landwirtschaft halbwegs geeint so weiter macht, wird das vermutlich auch aufgehen. Die großen Gewinne jetzt sind privatisiert, wenn irgendwann die großen Ernteausfälle kommen, wird man dann vom Staat gerettet. Die Landwirtschaft als ganzes ist einfach too big to fail.

That's new to me. For me so far it was sufficient to follow this part from the linked article...

Or, if Windows is already installed, from either the Sign on screen or the Start menu, select Power (Power button icon) > hold Shift while selecting Restart. Select Troubleshoot > Advanced options > UEFI Firmware settings.

As you're currently using Windows on your PC, you might have to do an extended reboot. By default Windows skips the UEFI/USB step in the boot sequence to make Windows boot slightly faster.

Check out this link for reference' https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/manufacture/desktop/boot-to-uefi-mode-or-legacy-bios-mode?view=windows-11