I can agree with you as to the last two, but to suggest that you could reduce agricultural output, fossil fuels with or water consumption without impacting on living standards just beggars belief.
More than that, it flies in the face of the environmentalist argument that America's consumption patterns are too high. You can't call for a reduction in consumption levels in the abstract and then complain that you didn't mean to cut working class living standards. It's absurd.
>
>and in any case, it doesn't follow that the only way to reduce other forms of
>consumption is by lowering wages. lowering profits, interest,
>rent, executive perks, etc. would serve quite as well.
>
No, indeed one could cut luxury consumption on the part of the ruling classes, but the single largest component of GDP is still employees compensation, I take it? The ruling elite being a small minority, their consumption, though considerable individually, collectively wouldn't make the difference that the environmentalists are asking for.
The recent growth in US energy consumption corresponds quite closely to the growth in employment, I think. I suppose you could reduce energy consumption by closing down your industry.
All in all it strikes me as hypocrisy to demand a reduction in consumption and then complain that you didn't mean that you wanted to reduce living standards. -- James Heartfield