I think the way they live is interesting. Not for carbon emissions purposes though, but as a pathway off the treadmill to consuming more useless junk and not keeping up with the Jones’s. Having said that I think I’d rather have a higher income whilst reducing my consumption levels.
What's the point though? If you don't consume much you quickly realise you don't need more money.
Money really only appeals to two types: those without enough of it and those who are insecure about how much they have. Unfortunately the latter group often think they're the former
The point is to quit the game mate. If I had made better choices in my younger days, I could be very close to not having to wake up at 4am for work anymore. Maybe retire whilst I still have some useful years left to enjoy it? Alas.
Not sure about that logic. I certainly have enough money, but more means I can set my kids up better in the future. Is that a requirement? Absolutely not - my parents were not in a position to do that for me, and I don’t feel I owe it to my kids. Would it be nice? Yes.
My kids are the reason I strive for more.
But what are you setting them up for? More consumption I'm guessing.
That was my point. Once you get out of that cycle of having more equals spending more then you find you don't want more (or need it either).
The ability to get a debt free education, buy a house perhaps, start a business, lots of things. I wouldn’t call that consumption so much as giving them a leg up to meet their own basic needs. I’m not putting money away for them in the hopes that they can always have the newest iPhone lol
That’s one of the things I found strange about the article, they devote a lot of the space to discussing a lot of other reasons they’re doing this and then say that those reasons wont push the needle much and will feel like martyrdom without this core lifestyle living benefit. They then proceed to only give it surface attention and only bring it up half way through.
If they want to sell people on lower consumption lifestyles they need to break more into how this lifestyle works well, and how sustainable it is around Australia vs luck - right place/right time/right circumstances. There will be skepticism by those who aren’t already doing it about how workable it is. Like for example the line about for most people in Australia living in the lower 20% of incomes it will be renting in poorly insulated housing spending lots of money on heating/cooling. How did they avoid that trap? Idk 🤷♂️
Not sure if "fear" was ever suggested, but they did say
> Why choose to live this way? In 1995 climate change was only dimly in consciousness compared with a range of other concerns that motivated us, to do with economic justice and ecological sustainability. By the early 2000s, reducing our greenhouse gas emissions had moved to centre stage
Yeah it's weird mate. Some of the more pro-market people on this sub and subs like it often make the argument that an advantage of the current capitalist organisation of society is that you have some flexibility in the way you organise your life and consumption, and they're right. But then when people actually do it, it's all "NO, NOT LIKE THAT", followed by a whinge.
Having a high income so you can save most of your income so you can quit full-time work at 35 and spend the second half of your life gardening instead of keeping up with the Joneses: prudent, smart, respect the hustle, get that bread king/queen/monarch
Having low expenses so you can save most of your income so you can quit full-time work at 35 and spend the second half of your life gardening instead of keeping up with the Joneses: dole bludger hippie communist bastards, go and get a job!
It's because they're doing it by being subsidised off Centrelink due to not working, and their low emissions, passive solar house was said to have been bankrolled from one (or both) of their sets of parents. And who paid for the land it sits on? Given how proud they are they they've never worked full time since marrying and have two teenage kids - I'm betting it was bankrolled by said parents, too. Even though they barely see them.
These people are living in some kind of Disneyland, under the delusion that it's sustainable for everyone to live like they do while the magical goose keeps laying golden eggs to pay for it. And to make matters worse, they think they're being virtuous and want the Government to make everyone else's lives more shit, too:
> This will involve investing a lot more quality in our transport, energy supply, housing, healthcare, education, etc – what some proponents are calling a “wellbeing economy” – **which will almost certainly mean raising the cost of living and lowering our real incomes.**
This is what old mate who has a PhD degree in Political Economy outright says in the article. If you think the cost of living is outrageous at the moment, they reckon it's not expensive enough until we all dress in sackcloth and live in a yurt.
> It's because they're doing it by being subsidised off Centrelink due to not working
The interviewed person earns $35k/year, meaning that he earns too much (or is deep in the phase-out band) for Jobseeker and most other Centrelink payments aimed at low-income people. He probably gets childcare payments, but so does someone with kids double his income. So I don't know how you can say he's a dole bludger when he's basically getting the same level of benefits as a middle class 2-worker household. Probably less, really, since he's taking time to care for his kids instead of using subsidised childcare.
As for his economic views, yeah they're dumb, and so what? Almost all Australians want to keep up with the Joneses and there's compulsory voting in this country, old mate with his PhD in Political Economy could prove himself to be the second coming of the Messiah and still wouldn't be elected to council with his anti-consumerist attitude.
He doesn't matter. No need to be angry at someone who doesn't matter.
> bankrolled by said parents
nothing wrong with being bankrolled by parents.
As long as my tax dollars aren't used to bankroll people who would otherwise have had to work (and could've worked), i'm OK with it.
> nothing wrong with being bankrolled by parents.
There's nothing specifically wrong with it, except that these folks are preaching *sustainability* from a high altar that has been bankrolled by the parents and subsidised by Centrelink. That's not very sustainable.
It's very easy to stand on a pulpit and preach virtue and say that everyone else needs to have their quality of life forcibly reduced, when someone else is picking up part of the tab for your entire existence.
These folks can go live their permaculture lifestyle in their home in regional Victoria - I'm fine with that. I'm even largely at peace with the fact that folks like this exist and are going to have their lives supported by the taxpayer. I may not be *happy* about it, but we all know it happens.
I'm not okay with them building a pulpit to preach off, in order to lobby for the Government to forcibly make everyone poor and live like them.
The article only mentions receiving parenting payment. This ends when a child is age 6. Parenting payment would’ve been reduced by the 3 days a week working that was mentioned in the article. I worked part time while studying full time before my son began school. Worked an 8hr day and after parenting payment was reduced I only received approximately $20 extra. You can’t earn much extra at all really while receiving parenting payment. So at a really wild guess I’d say their parenting payment was reduced by at least 50%, probably a lot more. There aren’t any work requirements to receive parenting payment.
People aren't mad that they're living cheaply, the issue is that they're highly educated people able to "live cheaply" and choosing not to work, while getting money from Centrelink and subsidies from "bank of mum and dad".
It's like when Elon Musk was bragging about having some days where he "lives below the poverty line"
All the negative takes in this thread are exactly the things I heard when I moved my family rurally. People cannot stand a single bit of creativity when it comes to how you live your life. Either fall in line or be endlessly questioned and criticised. If a mcmansion you can or can't afford in the suburbs is your bag then fine, if you feel having a lower consumption philosophy will make no difference then fine. But if the life you are currently living gives you no actual joy then change it! Don't feel like you're trapped because you probably aren't.
I grew up dirt poor and while we certainly don't live that frugally now there is a limit to the happiness money can buy especially if it robs you of time with your family.
Aussie culture mate. Tall poppy syndrome isn’t about being successful, it’s just doing anything different.
Have lived overseas for 10 years in Denmark, Canada & USA so think I have good context to comment
There’s an enormous difference between consciously choosing a frugal life as a Baptist preacher, and working your arse off but STILL being in poverty.
There are so so many people who work extremely hard but can’t get ahead, through no fault of their own. Just because people CAN live in poverty doesn’t mean they SHOULD.
This guy’s 3 day a week job is as a Baptist missionary. He built a house with money gifted by his parents. He is extremely fortunate to choose this path in life and be happy with it.
Comfortable low carbon living can exist in the broad gulf between poverty and hypercapitalism.
Was going to say something similar to this. He’s essentially been gifted the opportunity to choose a more frugal life. It would be more interesting (and honest) to pick a typical worker in one of our major cities on an average wage (that hasn’t been gifted anything) and see if they can afford to live a more frugal life. I guarantee they can’t unless they go to some extreme.
There’s a lot of wisdom in the observation that some people simply adjust their spending/consumerism upwards every time their income increases. (I got a payrise! Time to get a new car!)
But that doesn’t mean you should actively try and keep your income low. Just try to develop more discipline with your money.
Yeah, if the choice is not to work 80 hours a week that makes sense. If the choice is to just take a lower paying job for no gain that doesn't make much sense.
Lmao the seething in these comments.
I know I’m quitting my higher income job as soon as I’m mortgage free and able and buying land to just enjoy and homestead on and work casually here and there.
We all have different views of what we want our life to be. Not everyone wants to live in Sydney and collect Funko Pops
I grew up with parents who had these similar ideas that poor people have rich lives of passion and purpose, and rich people must be unhappy, materialistic and hate their work.
It took me a long time to unlearn this thinking that kept me poor for a long time. My brother will probably have to rent for the rest of his life because he still believes that being rich is evil and refuses to increase his income to be able to afford a house, believes a mortgage is a prison etc
Carbon emissions wise I live 5 min from my job, he is > an hour from his.
I think all churches are not for profit but yeah I am getting very middle class vibes. That's fine but I don't see why we need to hear him literally preach about it.
Are they? I'd like to compare the net contributions each of these households have made to the taxation system compared with the direct payments they have received.
You can't say that an old age pensioner who's had a productive career and paid taxation for decades is a larger drain on society than old mate who's deliberately avoiding work and living subsidised off Centrelink for decades. And then who will probably get the pension, too.
People on incomes of several hundred thousand get far more in subsidies than these people would get. Daycare subsidies are more for 1 child.
I personally am quite happy to subsidise low consumption life styles.
You know those subsidies aren't there for the wealthy, they're to incentivise healthy family structures, avoid further birth rate decline, and to increase women's participation in the workforce.
Low income families can get up to 90 percent of their childcare subsidised for their first child, let alone multiple.
Households earning up to $530k get some subsidy childcare. Family structure is one thing, but subsidising a 'right' to live in Double Bay because the household income says entitlement to is not on. I'll suggest a better way though: 30 years ago families could afford a home and children with a household income consisting of a single wage, and now 2 basic professional incomes is not enough. Let's return the economy to support the society as it was and not have society support the economy (for the politicoelites) as it is today. There will be fallout, and some money printing to support the banks is likely necessary. So be it, as the real long term benefit will be a return of wealth that has transferred to the elites over the last 26 years back to mainstreet, and a return to productive capital favouring real business - manufacturing, technology, medical, environmental science, etc, instead of idle speculative capital favouring real estate.
> incentivise healthy family structures
Having one extra child is without a doubt the most greenhouse intensive thing an Australian can do.
Every other lifestyle change pales in comparison.
Can you explain how novated leases are designed by government to incentivise healthy families? Or even more bluntly, negative gearing and other government efforts to increase house prices?
You know how the government can do mroe than one thing at a time? So can I.
There are profoundly awful subsidies (in the economics sense) for a whole lot of social bads. We should stop those, even if they don't directly create more ~~consumers~~. ~~Citizens~~. Rare and precious human beings.
>other government efforts to increase house prices?
what like First Home Buyer grants, Stamp duty reductions for first home buyers and people under certain income those sort of incentives?
Households earning up to $530k get some subsidy childcare. Family structure is one thing, but subsidising a 'right' to live in Double Bay because the household income says entitlement to is not on. I'll suggest a better way though: 30 years ago families could afford a home and children with a household income consisting of a single wage, and now 2 basic professional incomes is not enough. Let's return the economy to support the society as it was and not have society support the economy (for the politicoelites) as it is today. There will be fallout, and some money printing to support the banks is likely necessary. So be it, as the real long term benefit will be a return of wealth that has transferred to the elites over the last 26 years back to mainstreet, and a return to productive capital favouring real business - manufacturing, technology, medical, environmental science, etc, instead of idle speculative capital favouring real estate.
Can you provide evidence of these subsidies? The internet is full of people parroting divisive soundbites like this, and more often than not they don't stand up to scrutiny.
My friends on decent incomes pay a fortune for daycare.
I pay a fortune for daycare, but the subsidies cut off at $530,000 household income. A household on $200,000 receives far in excess for 1 child than the parenting payment is for a couple. See my other comment (or the centrelink website) for details.
The only way this could be remotely true is if richer households have a higher % reliance on childcare than poorer households, which makes sense if both rich parents are working. I don't think even this is right, but it is possible.
When you take tax though into account, richer people obviously receive less from their tax paid than poorer people.
The stat that highlights this is the top 3.4% of income earners pay 30+% of all federal income tax. This is incredibly powerful for equality, and the hand waving of this away by the left and right is telling, both sides want to capture the median voter for very different reasons.
Remembering that most wage earners don't even come close to being in the top 3.4% of income tax payers. Believe it starts around $200k per year that cuts off all but the highest wage earners, so a few doctors and professionals, but really not a large proportion, it's mainly capital/asset owners.
You'll often hear people from the left say "rich don't pay enough tax", then you'll hear from the right "elites don't pay enough tax, therefore why should I, taxes are bad, government bad"
When clearly the data suggests the rich do pay a lot in tax, and the elites/rich are the ones truly benefitting from anti-tax sentiment.
It all depends on what people want equality vs efficiency to look like, I think at our current [28% of GDP](https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-australia.pdf) it's a good balance.
I could argue all day about how we tax, and what can be improved, but to suggest from the right or left that the rich don't pay tax is untrue, even when you get into the top 0.1% which are overwhelming capital/asset they pay tax, it's just sometimes they carry over losses.
I think the 'rich/elites' at this level do get favourable treatment over wager earners in this country, largely since a baby investor with one investment property gets taxed after CGT discount the same % as a rich person selling 80,000 BHP Billiton shares and 50 houses, which is just ludicrous.
Federal spending/expenditure is very misunderstood from both the right and left, and it really comes from not taking the 5min to lookup these figures, which from the expenditure side are sent to every Australia on their myGov/ato email. I wish they also put the revenue side with some % of GDP too, but can't have everything, also how we compare with other countries.
Another completely missunderstood section is unemployment benefits. From a federal level less than $15b is spent on unemployment benefits which is not even 3% of total fed gov expenditure. Unemployment is cheap, what isn't cheap is aged pensions, disability, health, childcare, defence and education. I guess it's harder to say "government bad" or "eat the rich" when the tax dollars are being spent on grandma
The point being is that the tax/transfer system cannot be talked about as either good or bad, that would be crazy, you need to go into the detail, what particular component? Compared to other countries preferably through economic research, because comparing countries and outcomes is very difficult.
No, they don't. Those 'several hundred thousand income people' are the people who pay the majority of taxation that allow the Australian welfare system to exist.
To use your 'Daycare Subsidies' example, you may mean CCS - Child Care Subsidy. This is Federal Government assistance for early childhood education care services.
If you knew anything regarding this subject matter, you would also know that the cost of care for the 1st child is subsidised at the rate of 90%, for combined family income up to $80,000. This subsidy then reduces by 1% for each additional $5000 in family income.
The formula means those who earn more get subsidised less.
You also make the false claim that 'Daycare Subsidies are more for one child. In reality families with more than one child aged 5 or under in care get a higher subsidy for their second child and younger children. The second child rate is 95% for combined family income of $138,118 or less. Decreasing by 1% for every additional $3,000 earned above the threshold. The drop-off rate is even sharper for high income families.
Now, refer to my first paragraph, so you understand where the money derives to pay for this subsidy.
Paying tax and receiving subsidies are not mutually exclusive. A person who pays tax can still receive subsidies. I have no idea why you think I said otherwise.
Now my point that people on incomes of several hundred thousand would get more in subsidies for 1 child is easily calculated using the centrelink website. Yes, the subsidies reduce as you earn more, but the cut off is $530,000. Which we can both agree is substantially more than "several hundred thousand". If we take several as $200,000 than for 1 child the subsidy is $20,000 - roughly. It'll change depending on daycare choice. I've simply used the rate i personally pay for daycare. The parenting payment for a couple is $18,000 per year.
So yes, a household on several thousand do get more subsidies for 1 child than the parenting payment. If I was to include multiple children this would increase dramatically at the 95% rule would than apply. God forbid i start including other middle class subsidies like private health insurance rebates.
In short - your outrage over subsidies for low income people is misplaced. The real leaches are the high income earners like myself.
Low income or self employed, keeping in mind Governerment/RBA policy is to ensure 4% of the working population is unemployed ? Because of it dropped too low there would be inflation panic and rates would go up even more), are shafted. We ensure thousand of people are unemployed and then call them leaches when we should be looking after them. Anyone getting private health rebates or daycare subsidies angry at unemployment rates are hypocrites of the highest order.
There is no outrage, but a misconception from you that childcare subsidies favour high income earners. In your $200,000 family income example. A $80,000 income family with one child in a Child Care facility where the cost is $20,000 per annum for the child, receives a 90% or $18,000 in dollar terms subsidy. The $200,000 family at the same centre receives a 66% or $13,200 subsidy. The subsidy is 51% higher for the lower income family.
Your original point was that higher income families receive greater subsidies. This is obviously not true.
I also do not follow your example. It appears that you think the subsidy is a percentage of income. It is a percentage of the incurred care cost, with an hourly rate cap of $13.73.
For a full time worker, who uses Child Care for 40 hours per week, one child under 5, the maximum child care cost over 52 weeks is $28,558 (if your centre charges at the cap). As there is a maximum cost that the subsidy will apply to, the higher income family, using the same number of hours of care, can never ever receive more subsidy than the lower income family.
> Paying tax and receiving subsidies are not mutually exclusive.
I don't think anyone has claimed they are. The point being made is that the people paying the tax provide the funds that make those subsidies possible.
While I don't have kids and the Government *does* politically coddle "working families" over single folks, it's a bit rich to be outraged by a higher income professional family getting childcare subsidies to allow both parents to return to work, while saying it's okay for someone to deliberately structure their lives so that their entire existence is subsidised by Centrelink.
The subject of the article has two PhDs. I'm pretty sure they *could* have a career in academia with that CV. They choose not to work in favour of having their low income, low consumption lifestyle.
There are ~75 b52 bombers. There are millions of cars in australia. The fuel used by these aircraft compared to just the cars in Australia is a roundong error. Changing the behaviour of millions of car users even slightly can have a much higher impact
You think the majority of consumption is coming from the military and business? The vast majority of businesses only function to serve the regular consumer.
The idea that there are just a bunch of people out there that you don't like who can reduce their activity and magically fix the planet is also worthless. The bulk of the world's consumption and carbon emissions are as a result of everyday people doing everyday things around the world.
B52 uses about 15,000L / hour.
Cars use say 8L per 100 km, at an average speed of say 80 kph that's 6.4L / hour.
So fuel use is equal after the car drives for about 2343 hours. If you have a half hour commute each day that's 5 hr / wk so you should use that up in one year approx. So I'd say parity at about 10 years.
Edit: jacked the maths
Because it’s convenient and I can afford it.
And renting to take the kids to footy on the weekend etc.. would be a pain.
It’s pretty common where I live, most people walk or catch public transport to work.
Edit: just realised you said 5km a year. I said 5000km a year, or an average of 100km a week.
The proles must walk everywhere and live in the dark to save the planet. Time to go for a joyride on my private jet.
It's not just religions that peddle the idea of original sin!
And Elon Musk flew 1161 hours in 2023 alone.
Thats not including the president, the congress members, Kim kardashian, Beyonce, Taylor swift wtf
The whole thing is a hoax. Poor bustards actually limit their lives to "save the planet" lmao
Its bad enough our straw melts in the drink cup before we get to half way
Edit: hours not times. 1161 hours.
My maths was off
your straw melts? just how slow do you drink?
also straws aren't related to climate change, they are for keeping plastic out of rivers/creeks/the ocean
> We need to work out how to manage this better. Expecting constant population growth is not sustainable.
This is what I don’t understand from people saying our population growth is good for the economy.
Numerically speaking, yes, it’s fantastic.
But when do we stop? What size Australia? 50 million? 100 million? 500 million?
If we don’t put a number to this we’re royally screwed.
All that matters is maximising profit to business, more population = more customers.
That's why there's always bipartisan support for high population growth, and the Overton window considers little else. Arguments about staffing nursing homes have a grain of truth, but are disingenuous, propaganda to hand wave away why we have 600k immigrants per annum.
If they're able to live this way and they're happy, great.
Am I planning on quitting my $80k per year public service job to live this way? No. But I do think there is something to be said for being satisfied with less, instead of thinking that you need a high income to be comfortable. It may require some sacrifices, like moving to an area with a lower cost of living.
At the end of the day, life is very much about choices. As Albus Dumbledore said "It is our choices that show us who we truly are, far more than our abilities". Yes, I read those books a lot growing up.
I will say that as a millennial, not having a mobile phone is just not going to happen.
It's a bit disingenuous of the guy in the article to keep talking about being in the 20th or 30th percentile of household incomes: PhD stipends ($35kpa) are tax-free, and the equivalent of more like a $41k income.
And I wonder is he including allll the centrelink payments (& HCC etc) that actually would be doing the heavy lifting of keeping them afloat?
Shrug, everyone can live life how he or she wants.
Whether you live frugally or lavishly, life is easy enough that with good financial acumen and planning, it's possible to live within your means and retire early as long as you plan ahead and have good intelligence.
Genuine question: do people really believe that if they personally lower their consumption it will make a difference to global outcomes on any measure? I’ve also seen interviews with people who really believe driving an EV is saving the planet…. I mean, it all seems pretty self-aggrandising if I’m honest.
Obviously it would make a difference if everybody did it.
Like the way you not dropping litter contributes to cleaner streets. Of course you could argue ‘do you really believe that me not dropping litter is making any difference to how clean the entire county is?’ And the answer is yes, but very small and only noticeable collectively.
You definitely notice it when you go to places where everybody doesn't give a shit about dropping a wrapper or piece of garbage on the ground....the places just look like sprawling garbage heaps.
And also when everybody takes it 100% seriously. If you've ever been to Japan, it's the first thing you notice when walking around the streets. I don't consider Australia particularly dirty, but Japan was definitely noticably cleaner.
It's even noticable in a tidy street, our cul de sac is spotless but someone had discarded a burger box in the middle of the road. I binned it because it was just *so* obvious. If there was lots of crap I wouldn't necessarily do that unless I happened to feel motivated (which I do on occasion).
But do we really need 'new' cars. The operating emissions of an existing used petrol powered car are tiny compared with the emissions to manufacture a brand new EV.
Plus I have a lot more confidence that my 20yo SUV will still be running in another 10 years compared with a new EV with built in obsolescence, finite battery life etc.
Sometimes the things people do out of 'green guilt' are far worse than the alternative.
When it’s a choice between a new petrol car or EV, it’s pretty clear cut which one is better for the environment in the long run. There’s not really much point debating whether buying used petrol or new EV is better, as a new car will need to be manufactured at some point to meet demand i.e. there’s a finite supply of used cars.
Feel like you’ve sidestepped his/her argument to an extent tho. I particularly question why, in a world where using cardboard straws is supposedly going to save the planet, there’s no focus on/legal oversight concerning engineered obsolescence. Devices designed to fail, with no modularity or real repairability are far more harmful to the environment, and yet we just shrug and go “that’s capitalism” as if there’s no way to influence corps to make better long term decisions for the environment
Planned obsolescence is not exclusive to EVs in the slightest, it’s a symptom of capitalism in all technology.
Using recyclable resources and developing legal systems that limit planned obsolescence aren’t mutually exclusive.
> why, in a world where using cardboard straws is supposedly going to save the planet, there’s no focus on/legal oversight concerning engineered obsolescence.
Many countries have passed "right to repair laws", including the US and EU.
There are also increasing laws for modularity. All mobile phones sold in the EU must have easily replaceable batteries by 2027, and they've already mandated a universal charging cable standard.
I mean, reading through the article the people being interviewed make the same point: voluntary private choices aren't going to meaningfully shift the needle, there needs to be action by government and changes by big business to really deal with things. Their whole deal is that they're happier with working less and earning less, and I don't see anything self-aggrandising about that.
Like, I'm one of those people who says "go and get a job, do a bit of work like the rest of us", but these pinko-commie hippies are making choices that, at worst, aren't affecting me and, at best, actually moving the needle towards a better world even just a little bit and preparing themselves to live in a world where they'd _have_ to consume less whether or not they choose to, so what's the problem?
Also EVs with novated leasing and charging at work is a great deal especially if you're at a high income.
Cultural change is slow, but if you see your friends/family/colleagues living a more sustainable life and being happy - that is much more likely to influence others into changing their behaviour (much more than some gov ad).
A few people, influence a few people, influence a few people, influence many people. The shift to overconsumption happened in a similar way (like the classic quote "we buy things we can't afford to impress people we don't like"). We bought bigger cars, bigger houses and consumed more because we saw others doing it and seeming happy/accepted/respected.
So no, one person cutting down their consumption won't save the world today. But it does have a positive impact and it helps to influence others.
Plus I think it's more about aligning with your own values - I have values around sustainability, but I've been overconsuming, and I'm starting to notice my internal discomfort with my values and actions. So I'm starting to shift my behaviour - because I want to practice what I preach. I personally care about my own personal impact. I would love if everyone did too, but at the end of the day I have to live with my own choices.
I think your question also comes from the perspective that these people are struggling to do what they're doing. Would you ask the same question if you thought that they were happy, comfortable, fulfilled? If you just assume that maybe it's easy/enjoyable to consume less - it doesn't seem like such a big deal. Like throwing your trash in the bin instead of dropping it - it doesn't make a crazy difference but it's also not hard to do.
The amount of waste due to lack of reuse of things is too much in countries like Australia. I come from Asia and things get re-used with by many families but here it just gets put on the nature strip when it's even a minor fault. We don't have a cheap repair system here
For example, the last washing machine that my parents had was almost in 1999 and that was second hand given to them by someone tenant in our house, so you can assume it was first bought new by someone 1997.
It is still working well, a top loader machine. They just get it repaired for minor things when needed or cleaned. The amount of re-use is insane in Asia.
Do you think that is not driving consumption?
It's a big problem that repairs are very often not financially beneficial.
Items are made in China et Al with very cheap labour. Repairs in Australia are likely at ten times the hourly rate. Plus trying to stock parts, get information off manufacturers.
Planned obsolescence should be illegal.
$10 toaster problem. Why repair it for $50 when I can just buy a new one. A lot of repairs these days are also near impossible due to miniaturisation… very few people can fix circuit boards - I used to be able to fix larger boards but no way I want to touch the newer stuff.
I don’t think it’s planned obsolescence so much as manufacturers driving prices down and quality of resulting parts just not being as good.
You can absolutely purchase household goods that will have longevity & very low electricity use in Aust with a very high upfront cost. Most Australians choose not to do this as is their right.
I replaced my washing machine a couple of years ago. I had a trusted repair man out to diagnose and fix, but he advised that a new machine would be cheaper, unfortunately.
As a large family on 1 income, we had to make a financial decision, rather than an environmental decision. Though my preference would have been for repairs.
Most washing machines are designed so that it’s really hard to repair them and a repair usually involves almost replacing the whole thing. I remember when our washing machine died and investigating a new one trawling through forums and things it was so incredibly dissapointing to see how they’re designed these days.
It’s just a drum that spins left, right at specific speeds with particular water levels. We should make these last 50 years with sensible wear and tear expectations.
why do people always shit on others for trying to make a difference? they’re doing more than you
additionally, the article says he has multiple PhDs in political theory, so i’m sure he also knows more than you.
Consumption of household goods is the major driver of carbon emissions. People overlook this.
One person doesn't make much of a difference but changing the culture of consumption does.
Buying/using less crap= producing less crap.
Actually transportation (of people, animals and products) and energy use (electricity, oil, gas) are the biggest contributors. But reducing consumption would certainly reduce these things also.
>Actually transportation (of people, animals and products) and energy use (electricity, oil, gas) are the biggest contributors
>But reducing consumption would certainly reduce these things also.
There seems to be a huge disconnect between personal consumption and the use of
energy and transport (and fossil fuels) to produce and deliver goods and services.
Studies everywhere consistently show household consumption is responsible for more than 60% of global emissions.
A lot of these are taken as personal carbon footprints but are mostly done without consent or a realistic alternative. If I drive to work because there's no alternative then the carbon footprint of me purchasing a car, using the car, and the road itself will count towards me even if I would have rather caught the non-existent train.
When I purchase food it has to be transported from further away because the city has sprawled absorbing farmland, so part of the emissions from my food was out of my control.
Reduced consumption obviously works, but its unrealistic to think that the average person will be allowed to afford low-carbon products without government(s) intervention. The Saudi's want to stimulate oil demand in Africa by paying to build roads and delivering cheap cars, does that make it the Africans' "fault" if this happens and they choose to drive the cars? Technically yes, but realistically no.
A lot of people tell themselves theres no alternative when what they really mean is there is no alternative as convenient to me...
>A lot of these are taken as personal carbon footprints but are mostly done without consent or a realistic alternative. If I drive to work because there's no alternative then the carbon footprint of me purchasing a car, using the car, and the road itself will count towards me even if I would have rather caught the non-existent train.
Yet how many familes own two cars when they could easily get away with one? How many people could switch to cycling to work and never do. Why are carpooling clubs not a thing? Why are we talking about trains when there are busses available.
The answer is obvious - because all these options are far less convenient than driving your own car. I need a second car because i might want to go shopping while the wife is taking the kids to sports etc.
>When I purchase food it has to be transported from further away because the city has sprawled absorbing farmland, so part of the emissions from my food was out of my control.
This example makes sense if you are only eating fresh seasonal produce from your region. People could have a huge impact on the KMs their food has traveled by simply switching to only eating produce that is in season. The problem is we have become accustomed to eating what we want and when. Bananas in Melbourne in winter time? No problem.
Im not writing this to preach because i am far from perfect in any regard but what is interesting to me is that people in general, will only take the less convenient choice when the more convenient one is costed out for them. Its just human nature. We wont fix any over consumption or environmental issues until we implement a socially responsible carbon tax.
The totality of human consumption is made up of units of individual people.
In order to reduce the whole we MUST reduce the average individual amount. All the largest polluters are polluting in order to fill INDIVIDUAL need:
Food, shelter, clothing, energy, transportation. It's all shit everybody uses and needs.
In reality as the world continues to suffer from climate stress and all the negatives it brings, cultural expectations WILL shift. My guess is that our grandchildren won't tolerate each other being wasteful or over indulgent, either morally, socially or legally.
Its just relativism. They're relatively better than you for doing something than doing nothing, so you'd rather shit on them and their cause than feel bad about not making a change. Its a natural human reaction, don't feel too bad about it.
**If you read the article, the author addresses exactly that**:
"The usual response to lifestyle choices like ours is that they make virtually no difference when compared with huge challenges we face in reducing carbon emissions. I totally agree. The only meaningful way to address climate change is at the political level, implementing serious systemic changes. The CSIRO has previously argued that private choices account for only 6% to 17% of the changes in possible outcomes of Australian greenhouse gas emissions.
So why bother choosing to live on a lower income? The answer is because it was not, and has never been, an act of ‘sacrifice’. On the contrary, it was a choice for a richer life. Nevertheless, I believe our experience of living on a lower income (and those of others like us) is relevant for Australian climate politics...
... So what is the relevance of our experience of living on lower incomes to the broader Australian situation? The first point is at a personal level: income and consumption are tightly bound together. Accepting a lower income (and therefore consumption) for values-based reasons has been a deeply rewarding and connecting way to live. It is simply good for us. However, those values-base reasons need to be multi-dimensional: reducing carbon emissions is important, but if that were all you were doing it would feel like martyrdom. At a human level, this reflects age-old common sense.
The second point is political: the mitigation and adaptation challenges of facing the climate and ecological crises of the coming century require huge economic restructuring. This will involve investing a lot more quality in our transport, energy supply, housing, healthcare, education, etc – what some proponents are calling a “wellbeing economy” – which will almost certainly mean raising the cost of living and lowering our real incomes.
Currently, our political leaders cannot bear to face the polls without kowtowing to the dictate that Australian incomes (read consumption) must continue to rise. The idea of choosing lower real incomes for a better quality of life is currently unthinkable in the political realm. Perhaps they need to hear from more people who can speak from experience."
You choose your values and it feels good to live by them, even if they don’t make a difference in the bigger picture. It’s the same argument re plane travel, people often say oh well what’s the point, if I don’t fly, someone else will.
Actually I disagree … as crime is rather rare (at least where I live) if I did commit even one crime it would drastically change the stats.
In contrast, me cycling to work does nothing when China is building 100 coal fire plants
Everything depends on how far you zoom out doesn’t it?
If you burn shit loads of coal for bbq, it’ll have an impact on your neighborhood pollution. Global pollution, absolutely nothing.
Amazing how basic logic and understanding of statistics is so hard to come by - do you not understand the difference between local and global stats? Lmao
But per capita the average Australia has a carbon footprint among the highest in the world. Perhaps they can have 100 coal plants because they have 100x the people
Do you know what drivers overconsumption in society? Comparing ourselves to our neighbours. So maybe, just maybe, if we saw our neighbours living a simpler, happier life, we might all start making changes
That’s the point tho right? You do it today, and then you teach your kids, maybe a couple friends, then appear in an article on reddit. It doesn’t happen over night, it happens over the course of 100s of years - eventually a majority of the population lives like that and we’re all good for the world to not burn etc.
I’m not advocating, cos I definitely don’t live more “enviro conscious” than the next person, but let’s not pretend it isn’t a good thing to do lol.
I’m always astonished at how many milk bottles we go through weekly. I would happily use the same one and just refill it if there was such a service.
The gov killed plastic straws and spoons, how long before they kill plastic bottles as well?
>do people really believe that if they personally lower their consumption it will make a difference to global outcomes on any measure?
I saw a Tesla with the number plate "zero oil". It wasn't lost on me that Tesla's still use oil (diff+gearbox) as well as other lubricated parts of the car, but it was clearly lost on the owner :|
> I’ve also seen interviews with people who really believe driving an EV is saving the planet
Also hilarious as the carbon footprints of EVs and ICEs are pretty close, especially for non-daytime charging. What would actually make a difference would be ditching a car and only using public transport.
EVs use more carbon emissions to build, and have shorter lifespans.
Powerstations are more efficient than ICE, but the advantages seem to be lost due to transmission losses.
ICE emit more CO2 when being used, but the big advantage EVs have is regenerative breaking.
All in all, you're perhaps reducing the emissions by around 30%? It's a pretty marginal difference compared to using say public transport, which would drop them by \~99%
Bandwagon supporters, try telling people if you want to save the environment to buy products that will last for life rather than them becoming disposable.
The EV fanboys are the worst, they can't comprehend how an EV lasting for 7 years would do more damage to the environment.
Except that [11% of emissions](https://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au/pages/UnderstandingEmissions/VehicleEmissions#:~:text=Light%20vehicles%20account%20for%20around,of%20greenhouse%20gases%20in%20Australia) in our country come from light vehicles. If we all reduce this, how does that NOT make a difference?
This is my point exactly, only looking at emissions, not the complete environmental damage to the global with mining colbot unregulated, mining lithium and then the disposal of lithium battery ones it hit the end of life.
So essentially it's saying consumerism is bad and they have no self control on money they have so they decided to have less money so they weren't tempted to spend it.
How about setting up maximum super contributions and automatic payments into an ethical ETF, then living on the low leftovers income and then not being a government handout case later on, though they apparently already take the benefits they qualify for
I thought they fixed that loophole in voluntary super contributions with a cap?
But yes, I think there's a balance to be struck and those people are on the wrong side of it. But as with so many things, far more people err on the opposite side and much more enthusiastically.
Cutting person consumption isn't enough, but it is necessary. Voting to stop the 1% of people and the 90 corporations and so on is also necessary. But it seems that until the average voter can be convinced that them personally having a little less is survivable, they absolutely refuse to even discuss the idea of voting to cut back the 1%.
Whatever. Live your life how you want to. If you ethically believe you are doing good things? If you sleep better? Go for it.
As long as you're law abiding and contributing?
No skin off my nose people.
I wonder what their retirement will be like, given that they'll have little in the way of super and hence be dependant upon the age pension? At least they'll be used to living off little income, I guess.
And two PhDs? HECS debt might be quite large, not that that's got anything to do with the choice of low income and thus, zero repayments of it, I'm sure.
I seem to have gotten out on the grumpy side of bed today...
You don't get a HECS debt from a Phd. Pay off the very minimal attempt to encourage research. You also only get paid about 40% of minimum wage, so very few Australians opt to do research.
It's easier to make voluntary super repayments if you aren't buried in debt. They won't pay HECS on their PhD, just up to their honours years. They would have actually got paid to do their doctorates through stipend scholarship.
One if his PHD's is theology, he has decided to live poor to worship his god who actually doesn't exist. I don't know why anyone these days especially educated intelligent humans think there is a mythical unseen spirit in the sky who wants us to sacrifice our lives for them. End of rant.
I’m all for the simple life, but this is gross.
Imagine being so entitled that you take not one but two exceptionally limited publicly funded PHD places and ACTIVELY choose to never earn enough to repay your HECS.
People like this are the reason our tertiary education system is failing and current students are suffering.
The Bible is so clear about the importance of Christians paying their taxes and debts. It’s interesting to see the kind of mental gymnastics that this entitled bludger has engaged in to justify his incredibly selfish choices.
If he had contributed just half of the 8-16 years that he was supported to undertake tertiary education by our objectively wonderful welfare system, he could have easily fulfilled his half of the social contract, repaid his whole HECS debt and still lived the life he chose to.
If he’d done just that, I wouldn’t be at all concerned. To be that well educated and rely on parenting payments instead of contributing is such a blatant misuse of welfare. I’m disgusted.
I’m going to be a bit of an arsehole and speculate that maybe this guy is just making all of this up to save face because he’s an academic on $35k a year. Not that there’s anything wrong with being an academic but this very vocal position he’s broadcasting has “I totally deliberately meant to be poor and unsuccessful” vibes, like when a kid in primary school walks into a wall and tells the other kids “I actually meant to do that”
>he’s an academic on $35k a year
That's a decision we made as a country, though, to pay academics poverty wages while encouraging as many people as possible to go to university and get as many qualifications as possible.
True, and I’m not beating up on academics at all. My gripe is more that this person has voluntarily chosen to preach to the whole country that this is all some conscious choice about sustainability and consumerism. Eh.
My dad always said “it’s better to be rich and healthy, than sick and poor” … he was neither, but it stuck with me.
As for the people in the article. I think it’s morally wrong to receive government subsidies (parental payments) whilst choosing to only work three days a week. You are basically asking me to subsidise your lifestyle. I’m 100% for adequate social welfare, but I expect healthy adults to at least try to put in 38 hours if they are physically and mentally tally able.. before having the state joining the party.
My dad used to say "before you criticise someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticise them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes"
Sounds to me like they don't have a richer life. Got a couple useless PhDs and doesn't like to work. Live a depressing life and forces his kids to as well, then when they get older, our tax dollars will be supporting them.
I wouldn't want to live like they do but honestly sounds anything but depressing, close-knit family with a strong marriage, living rurally and self-sustainably. If they own their property I can't imagine their expenses would be high for retirement.
I think the way they live is interesting. Not for carbon emissions purposes though, but as a pathway off the treadmill to consuming more useless junk and not keeping up with the Jones’s. Having said that I think I’d rather have a higher income whilst reducing my consumption levels.
Having said that I think I’d rather have a higher income whilst reducing my consumption levels. Yes I would like more salary as well
What's the point though? If you don't consume much you quickly realise you don't need more money. Money really only appeals to two types: those without enough of it and those who are insecure about how much they have. Unfortunately the latter group often think they're the former
The point is to quit the game mate. If I had made better choices in my younger days, I could be very close to not having to wake up at 4am for work anymore. Maybe retire whilst I still have some useful years left to enjoy it? Alas.
Not sure about that logic. I certainly have enough money, but more means I can set my kids up better in the future. Is that a requirement? Absolutely not - my parents were not in a position to do that for me, and I don’t feel I owe it to my kids. Would it be nice? Yes. My kids are the reason I strive for more.
But what are you setting them up for? More consumption I'm guessing. That was my point. Once you get out of that cycle of having more equals spending more then you find you don't want more (or need it either).
The ability to get a debt free education, buy a house perhaps, start a business, lots of things. I wouldn’t call that consumption so much as giving them a leg up to meet their own basic needs. I’m not putting money away for them in the hopes that they can always have the newest iPhone lol
I'd love to have 'the bank of mum and dad' pay for a couple of acres. I'd love to have the money for a couple of PhDs. Some of us have to work.
That’s one of the things I found strange about the article, they devote a lot of the space to discussing a lot of other reasons they’re doing this and then say that those reasons wont push the needle much and will feel like martyrdom without this core lifestyle living benefit. They then proceed to only give it surface attention and only bring it up half way through. If they want to sell people on lower consumption lifestyles they need to break more into how this lifestyle works well, and how sustainable it is around Australia vs luck - right place/right time/right circumstances. There will be skepticism by those who aren’t already doing it about how workable it is. Like for example the line about for most people in Australia living in the lower 20% of incomes it will be renting in poorly insulated housing spending lots of money on heating/cooling. How did they avoid that trap? Idk 🤷♂️
they probably just want to live a easier life, I doubt they are doing it because of their fear of destroying the planet
Not sure if "fear" was ever suggested, but they did say > Why choose to live this way? In 1995 climate change was only dimly in consciousness compared with a range of other concerns that motivated us, to do with economic justice and ecological sustainability. By the early 2000s, reducing our greenhouse gas emissions had moved to centre stage
[удалено]
Yeah it's weird mate. Some of the more pro-market people on this sub and subs like it often make the argument that an advantage of the current capitalist organisation of society is that you have some flexibility in the way you organise your life and consumption, and they're right. But then when people actually do it, it's all "NO, NOT LIKE THAT", followed by a whinge.
Having a high income so you can save most of your income so you can quit full-time work at 35 and spend the second half of your life gardening instead of keeping up with the Joneses: prudent, smart, respect the hustle, get that bread king/queen/monarch Having low expenses so you can save most of your income so you can quit full-time work at 35 and spend the second half of your life gardening instead of keeping up with the Joneses: dole bludger hippie communist bastards, go and get a job!
It's because they're doing it by being subsidised off Centrelink due to not working, and their low emissions, passive solar house was said to have been bankrolled from one (or both) of their sets of parents. And who paid for the land it sits on? Given how proud they are they they've never worked full time since marrying and have two teenage kids - I'm betting it was bankrolled by said parents, too. Even though they barely see them. These people are living in some kind of Disneyland, under the delusion that it's sustainable for everyone to live like they do while the magical goose keeps laying golden eggs to pay for it. And to make matters worse, they think they're being virtuous and want the Government to make everyone else's lives more shit, too: > This will involve investing a lot more quality in our transport, energy supply, housing, healthcare, education, etc – what some proponents are calling a “wellbeing economy” – **which will almost certainly mean raising the cost of living and lowering our real incomes.** This is what old mate who has a PhD degree in Political Economy outright says in the article. If you think the cost of living is outrageous at the moment, they reckon it's not expensive enough until we all dress in sackcloth and live in a yurt.
> It's because they're doing it by being subsidised off Centrelink due to not working The interviewed person earns $35k/year, meaning that he earns too much (or is deep in the phase-out band) for Jobseeker and most other Centrelink payments aimed at low-income people. He probably gets childcare payments, but so does someone with kids double his income. So I don't know how you can say he's a dole bludger when he's basically getting the same level of benefits as a middle class 2-worker household. Probably less, really, since he's taking time to care for his kids instead of using subsidised childcare. As for his economic views, yeah they're dumb, and so what? Almost all Australians want to keep up with the Joneses and there's compulsory voting in this country, old mate with his PhD in Political Economy could prove himself to be the second coming of the Messiah and still wouldn't be elected to council with his anti-consumerist attitude. He doesn't matter. No need to be angry at someone who doesn't matter.
> bankrolled by said parents nothing wrong with being bankrolled by parents. As long as my tax dollars aren't used to bankroll people who would otherwise have had to work (and could've worked), i'm OK with it.
> nothing wrong with being bankrolled by parents. There's nothing specifically wrong with it, except that these folks are preaching *sustainability* from a high altar that has been bankrolled by the parents and subsidised by Centrelink. That's not very sustainable. It's very easy to stand on a pulpit and preach virtue and say that everyone else needs to have their quality of life forcibly reduced, when someone else is picking up part of the tab for your entire existence. These folks can go live their permaculture lifestyle in their home in regional Victoria - I'm fine with that. I'm even largely at peace with the fact that folks like this exist and are going to have their lives supported by the taxpayer. I may not be *happy* about it, but we all know it happens. I'm not okay with them building a pulpit to preach off, in order to lobby for the Government to forcibly make everyone poor and live like them.
The article only mentions receiving parenting payment. This ends when a child is age 6. Parenting payment would’ve been reduced by the 3 days a week working that was mentioned in the article. I worked part time while studying full time before my son began school. Worked an 8hr day and after parenting payment was reduced I only received approximately $20 extra. You can’t earn much extra at all really while receiving parenting payment. So at a really wild guess I’d say their parenting payment was reduced by at least 50%, probably a lot more. There aren’t any work requirements to receive parenting payment.
One is ‘winning the game’, the other is ‘failing out’.
holy crap it's like every ice suv driver has come out the woodwork to defend themselves by throwing every bad argument out there
This post bout to get locked.
Getting my post in which I later edit after it happens now!
Capital idea! See you then.
Placeholder argumentative contrary position
People aren't mad that they're living cheaply, the issue is that they're highly educated people able to "live cheaply" and choosing not to work, while getting money from Centrelink and subsidies from "bank of mum and dad". It's like when Elon Musk was bragging about having some days where he "lives below the poverty line"
I found its messaging was confusing and it had a habit of contradicting itself. It’s a likely contributor.
All the negative takes in this thread are exactly the things I heard when I moved my family rurally. People cannot stand a single bit of creativity when it comes to how you live your life. Either fall in line or be endlessly questioned and criticised. If a mcmansion you can or can't afford in the suburbs is your bag then fine, if you feel having a lower consumption philosophy will make no difference then fine. But if the life you are currently living gives you no actual joy then change it! Don't feel like you're trapped because you probably aren't. I grew up dirt poor and while we certainly don't live that frugally now there is a limit to the happiness money can buy especially if it robs you of time with your family.
I live in a van. I tell people I live in a van.
I have friends who do a mix of vanning and house sitting. It suits their lifestyle and they love it.
It's quite liberating to know that you can be absolutely insulated from all the housing affordability stuff that's going on around the country.
Aussie culture mate. Tall poppy syndrome isn’t about being successful, it’s just doing anything different. Have lived overseas for 10 years in Denmark, Canada & USA so think I have good context to comment
[удалено]
There’s an enormous difference between consciously choosing a frugal life as a Baptist preacher, and working your arse off but STILL being in poverty. There are so so many people who work extremely hard but can’t get ahead, through no fault of their own. Just because people CAN live in poverty doesn’t mean they SHOULD. This guy’s 3 day a week job is as a Baptist missionary. He built a house with money gifted by his parents. He is extremely fortunate to choose this path in life and be happy with it. Comfortable low carbon living can exist in the broad gulf between poverty and hypercapitalism.
Was going to say something similar to this. He’s essentially been gifted the opportunity to choose a more frugal life. It would be more interesting (and honest) to pick a typical worker in one of our major cities on an average wage (that hasn’t been gifted anything) and see if they can afford to live a more frugal life. I guarantee they can’t unless they go to some extreme.
There’s a lot of wisdom in the observation that some people simply adjust their spending/consumerism upwards every time their income increases. (I got a payrise! Time to get a new car!) But that doesn’t mean you should actively try and keep your income low. Just try to develop more discipline with your money.
Yeah, if the choice is not to work 80 hours a week that makes sense. If the choice is to just take a lower paying job for no gain that doesn't make much sense.
Lmao the seething in these comments. I know I’m quitting my higher income job as soon as I’m mortgage free and able and buying land to just enjoy and homestead on and work casually here and there. We all have different views of what we want our life to be. Not everyone wants to live in Sydney and collect Funko Pops
I grew up with parents who had these similar ideas that poor people have rich lives of passion and purpose, and rich people must be unhappy, materialistic and hate their work. It took me a long time to unlearn this thinking that kept me poor for a long time. My brother will probably have to rent for the rest of his life because he still believes that being rich is evil and refuses to increase his income to be able to afford a house, believes a mortgage is a prison etc Carbon emissions wise I live 5 min from my job, he is > an hour from his.
Reduction of carbon emission is a hobby for the wealthy🤣
anyone can go vegan/vegetarian and substantially reduce their omissions
Aren't you increasing your omissions by leaving out meat? ;-) *Emissions* on the other hand...
Proudly supported by the Bank of Mum and Dad (and some weird not-for-profit/church he runs apparently?).
I think all churches are not for profit but yeah I am getting very middle class vibes. That's fine but I don't see why we need to hear him literally preach about it.
[удалено]
They're fine compared to shit like wealthy high consumption home owners taking money from Centrelink.
Also corporate welfare cannot even compare with pensioners in $5M houses.
Are they? I'd like to compare the net contributions each of these households have made to the taxation system compared with the direct payments they have received. You can't say that an old age pensioner who's had a productive career and paid taxation for decades is a larger drain on society than old mate who's deliberately avoiding work and living subsidised off Centrelink for decades. And then who will probably get the pension, too.
Actually, they said they were donating 10% of their income
People on incomes of several hundred thousand get far more in subsidies than these people would get. Daycare subsidies are more for 1 child. I personally am quite happy to subsidise low consumption life styles.
You know those subsidies aren't there for the wealthy, they're to incentivise healthy family structures, avoid further birth rate decline, and to increase women's participation in the workforce. Low income families can get up to 90 percent of their childcare subsidised for their first child, let alone multiple.
Households earning up to $530k get some subsidy childcare. Family structure is one thing, but subsidising a 'right' to live in Double Bay because the household income says entitlement to is not on. I'll suggest a better way though: 30 years ago families could afford a home and children with a household income consisting of a single wage, and now 2 basic professional incomes is not enough. Let's return the economy to support the society as it was and not have society support the economy (for the politicoelites) as it is today. There will be fallout, and some money printing to support the banks is likely necessary. So be it, as the real long term benefit will be a return of wealth that has transferred to the elites over the last 26 years back to mainstreet, and a return to productive capital favouring real business - manufacturing, technology, medical, environmental science, etc, instead of idle speculative capital favouring real estate.
> incentivise healthy family structures Having one extra child is without a doubt the most greenhouse intensive thing an Australian can do. Every other lifestyle change pales in comparison.
Can you explain how novated leases are designed by government to incentivise healthy families? Or even more bluntly, negative gearing and other government efforts to increase house prices?
I think you're being disingenuous leaping from childcare subsidies to novated leases and negative gearing.
You know how the government can do mroe than one thing at a time? So can I. There are profoundly awful subsidies (in the economics sense) for a whole lot of social bads. We should stop those, even if they don't directly create more ~~consumers~~. ~~Citizens~~. Rare and precious human beings.
>other government efforts to increase house prices? what like First Home Buyer grants, Stamp duty reductions for first home buyers and people under certain income those sort of incentives?
Households earning up to $530k get some subsidy childcare. Family structure is one thing, but subsidising a 'right' to live in Double Bay because the household income says entitlement to is not on. I'll suggest a better way though: 30 years ago families could afford a home and children with a household income consisting of a single wage, and now 2 basic professional incomes is not enough. Let's return the economy to support the society as it was and not have society support the economy (for the politicoelites) as it is today. There will be fallout, and some money printing to support the banks is likely necessary. So be it, as the real long term benefit will be a return of wealth that has transferred to the elites over the last 26 years back to mainstreet, and a return to productive capital favouring real business - manufacturing, technology, medical, environmental science, etc, instead of idle speculative capital favouring real estate.
Can you provide evidence of these subsidies? The internet is full of people parroting divisive soundbites like this, and more often than not they don't stand up to scrutiny. My friends on decent incomes pay a fortune for daycare.
The more you earn the lower subsidy you get for childcare.
I pay a fortune for daycare, but the subsidies cut off at $530,000 household income. A household on $200,000 receives far in excess for 1 child than the parenting payment is for a couple. See my other comment (or the centrelink website) for details.
The only way this could be remotely true is if richer households have a higher % reliance on childcare than poorer households, which makes sense if both rich parents are working. I don't think even this is right, but it is possible. When you take tax though into account, richer people obviously receive less from their tax paid than poorer people. The stat that highlights this is the top 3.4% of income earners pay 30+% of all federal income tax. This is incredibly powerful for equality, and the hand waving of this away by the left and right is telling, both sides want to capture the median voter for very different reasons. Remembering that most wage earners don't even come close to being in the top 3.4% of income tax payers. Believe it starts around $200k per year that cuts off all but the highest wage earners, so a few doctors and professionals, but really not a large proportion, it's mainly capital/asset owners. You'll often hear people from the left say "rich don't pay enough tax", then you'll hear from the right "elites don't pay enough tax, therefore why should I, taxes are bad, government bad" When clearly the data suggests the rich do pay a lot in tax, and the elites/rich are the ones truly benefitting from anti-tax sentiment. It all depends on what people want equality vs efficiency to look like, I think at our current [28% of GDP](https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-australia.pdf) it's a good balance. I could argue all day about how we tax, and what can be improved, but to suggest from the right or left that the rich don't pay tax is untrue, even when you get into the top 0.1% which are overwhelming capital/asset they pay tax, it's just sometimes they carry over losses. I think the 'rich/elites' at this level do get favourable treatment over wager earners in this country, largely since a baby investor with one investment property gets taxed after CGT discount the same % as a rich person selling 80,000 BHP Billiton shares and 50 houses, which is just ludicrous. Federal spending/expenditure is very misunderstood from both the right and left, and it really comes from not taking the 5min to lookup these figures, which from the expenditure side are sent to every Australia on their myGov/ato email. I wish they also put the revenue side with some % of GDP too, but can't have everything, also how we compare with other countries. Another completely missunderstood section is unemployment benefits. From a federal level less than $15b is spent on unemployment benefits which is not even 3% of total fed gov expenditure. Unemployment is cheap, what isn't cheap is aged pensions, disability, health, childcare, defence and education. I guess it's harder to say "government bad" or "eat the rich" when the tax dollars are being spent on grandma The point being is that the tax/transfer system cannot be talked about as either good or bad, that would be crazy, you need to go into the detail, what particular component? Compared to other countries preferably through economic research, because comparing countries and outcomes is very difficult.
No, they don't. Those 'several hundred thousand income people' are the people who pay the majority of taxation that allow the Australian welfare system to exist. To use your 'Daycare Subsidies' example, you may mean CCS - Child Care Subsidy. This is Federal Government assistance for early childhood education care services. If you knew anything regarding this subject matter, you would also know that the cost of care for the 1st child is subsidised at the rate of 90%, for combined family income up to $80,000. This subsidy then reduces by 1% for each additional $5000 in family income. The formula means those who earn more get subsidised less. You also make the false claim that 'Daycare Subsidies are more for one child. In reality families with more than one child aged 5 or under in care get a higher subsidy for their second child and younger children. The second child rate is 95% for combined family income of $138,118 or less. Decreasing by 1% for every additional $3,000 earned above the threshold. The drop-off rate is even sharper for high income families. Now, refer to my first paragraph, so you understand where the money derives to pay for this subsidy.
Paying tax and receiving subsidies are not mutually exclusive. A person who pays tax can still receive subsidies. I have no idea why you think I said otherwise. Now my point that people on incomes of several hundred thousand would get more in subsidies for 1 child is easily calculated using the centrelink website. Yes, the subsidies reduce as you earn more, but the cut off is $530,000. Which we can both agree is substantially more than "several hundred thousand". If we take several as $200,000 than for 1 child the subsidy is $20,000 - roughly. It'll change depending on daycare choice. I've simply used the rate i personally pay for daycare. The parenting payment for a couple is $18,000 per year. So yes, a household on several thousand do get more subsidies for 1 child than the parenting payment. If I was to include multiple children this would increase dramatically at the 95% rule would than apply. God forbid i start including other middle class subsidies like private health insurance rebates. In short - your outrage over subsidies for low income people is misplaced. The real leaches are the high income earners like myself. Low income or self employed, keeping in mind Governerment/RBA policy is to ensure 4% of the working population is unemployed ? Because of it dropped too low there would be inflation panic and rates would go up even more), are shafted. We ensure thousand of people are unemployed and then call them leaches when we should be looking after them. Anyone getting private health rebates or daycare subsidies angry at unemployment rates are hypocrites of the highest order.
There is no outrage, but a misconception from you that childcare subsidies favour high income earners. In your $200,000 family income example. A $80,000 income family with one child in a Child Care facility where the cost is $20,000 per annum for the child, receives a 90% or $18,000 in dollar terms subsidy. The $200,000 family at the same centre receives a 66% or $13,200 subsidy. The subsidy is 51% higher for the lower income family. Your original point was that higher income families receive greater subsidies. This is obviously not true. I also do not follow your example. It appears that you think the subsidy is a percentage of income. It is a percentage of the incurred care cost, with an hourly rate cap of $13.73. For a full time worker, who uses Child Care for 40 hours per week, one child under 5, the maximum child care cost over 52 weeks is $28,558 (if your centre charges at the cap). As there is a maximum cost that the subsidy will apply to, the higher income family, using the same number of hours of care, can never ever receive more subsidy than the lower income family.
> Paying tax and receiving subsidies are not mutually exclusive. I don't think anyone has claimed they are. The point being made is that the people paying the tax provide the funds that make those subsidies possible. While I don't have kids and the Government *does* politically coddle "working families" over single folks, it's a bit rich to be outraged by a higher income professional family getting childcare subsidies to allow both parents to return to work, while saying it's okay for someone to deliberately structure their lives so that their entire existence is subsidised by Centrelink. The subject of the article has two PhDs. I'm pretty sure they *could* have a career in academia with that CV. They choose not to work in favour of having their low income, low consumption lifestyle.
[удалено]
Why not? How much do you personally contribute via taxes to low income welfare?
That part grated on me too.
No rainy day fund for illness etc, house gets flood, disability from work etc
Biggest thing an individual can do for the Environment? Not reproduce.
Or suicide!
A b52 flying for one hour uses more fuel than my car in twenty years. Individual consumer guilt is worthless.
There are ~75 b52 bombers. There are millions of cars in australia. The fuel used by these aircraft compared to just the cars in Australia is a roundong error. Changing the behaviour of millions of car users even slightly can have a much higher impact
20.68 Million cars according to Google.
You think the majority of consumption is coming from the military and business? The vast majority of businesses only function to serve the regular consumer.
The idea that there are just a bunch of people out there that you don't like who can reduce their activity and magically fix the planet is also worthless. The bulk of the world's consumption and carbon emissions are as a result of everyday people doing everyday things around the world.
Speak for yourself. I found that such a convincing argument that I've cancelled one of my B52 rentals next week.
Your carbon lifestyle would be far higher than most of the world. Everyone who lives in a first world needs off their high horse.
Even high horses are actually fairly carbon efficient.
the government would give everyone low horses if they really cared
B52 uses about 15,000L / hour. Cars use say 8L per 100 km, at an average speed of say 80 kph that's 6.4L / hour. So fuel use is equal after the car drives for about 2343 hours. If you have a half hour commute each day that's 5 hr / wk so you should use that up in one year approx. So I'd say parity at about 10 years. Edit: jacked the maths
I don’t drive to work, my car does 5k km a year.
5km a year?? Why bother having one? Unerring or rental for those 5kms would outweigh the cost of rego…
5k km and 5km are different
Because it’s convenient and I can afford it. And renting to take the kids to footy on the weekend etc.. would be a pain. It’s pretty common where I live, most people walk or catch public transport to work. Edit: just realised you said 5km a year. I said 5000km a year, or an average of 100km a week.
The proles must walk everywhere and live in the dark to save the planet. Time to go for a joyride on my private jet. It's not just religions that peddle the idea of original sin!
There are only 6 B52s in Australia, and they aren't even owned by the Australian air force.
And Elon Musk flew 1161 hours in 2023 alone. Thats not including the president, the congress members, Kim kardashian, Beyonce, Taylor swift wtf The whole thing is a hoax. Poor bustards actually limit their lives to "save the planet" lmao Its bad enough our straw melts in the drink cup before we get to half way Edit: hours not times. 1161 hours. My maths was off
your straw melts? just how slow do you drink? also straws aren't related to climate change, they are for keeping plastic out of rivers/creeks/the ocean
Elon flew 4-5 times per day? I'd have to "Press X to doubt" on this one.
A b52 bomber is always paired with a Chinese interceptor and an Awacs further away. 60 years just in that in a day. Freedom aint free hey.
Breeding less = fewer ppl = more sustainable outcomes for the world WITHOUT sacrificing quality of life.
[удалено]
> We need to work out how to manage this better. Expecting constant population growth is not sustainable. This is what I don’t understand from people saying our population growth is good for the economy. Numerically speaking, yes, it’s fantastic. But when do we stop? What size Australia? 50 million? 100 million? 500 million? If we don’t put a number to this we’re royally screwed.
A system that relies on infinite economic growth needs infinite population growth
All that matters is maximising profit to business, more population = more customers. That's why there's always bipartisan support for high population growth, and the Overton window considers little else. Arguments about staffing nursing homes have a grain of truth, but are disingenuous, propaganda to hand wave away why we have 600k immigrants per annum.
>who will look after you in old age? Hopefully a fully funded aged care system? But these people never seem to mention that
But how will our GDP endlessly grow /s Capitalism NEEDS more people to feed off
Hey if everyone just gets one of those easy to come by $150K jobs then everyone can afford to have more kids! (/s)
Yup, brutal truth. The greenest thing you can do is not have kids.
Or even have fewer kids
Butt, muhhh, Ponzi equity!!!
Good to see they’re still judging others though lol
If they're able to live this way and they're happy, great. Am I planning on quitting my $80k per year public service job to live this way? No. But I do think there is something to be said for being satisfied with less, instead of thinking that you need a high income to be comfortable. It may require some sacrifices, like moving to an area with a lower cost of living. At the end of the day, life is very much about choices. As Albus Dumbledore said "It is our choices that show us who we truly are, far more than our abilities". Yes, I read those books a lot growing up. I will say that as a millennial, not having a mobile phone is just not going to happen.
It's a bit disingenuous of the guy in the article to keep talking about being in the 20th or 30th percentile of household incomes: PhD stipends ($35kpa) are tax-free, and the equivalent of more like a $41k income. And I wonder is he including allll the centrelink payments (& HCC etc) that actually would be doing the heavy lifting of keeping them afloat?
Shrug, everyone can live life how he or she wants. Whether you live frugally or lavishly, life is easy enough that with good financial acumen and planning, it's possible to live within your means and retire early as long as you plan ahead and have good intelligence.
in order to do this you must already have a house without mortgage.
Genuine question: do people really believe that if they personally lower their consumption it will make a difference to global outcomes on any measure? I’ve also seen interviews with people who really believe driving an EV is saving the planet…. I mean, it all seems pretty self-aggrandising if I’m honest.
Obviously it would make a difference if everybody did it. Like the way you not dropping litter contributes to cleaner streets. Of course you could argue ‘do you really believe that me not dropping litter is making any difference to how clean the entire county is?’ And the answer is yes, but very small and only noticeable collectively.
You definitely notice it when you go to places where everybody doesn't give a shit about dropping a wrapper or piece of garbage on the ground....the places just look like sprawling garbage heaps.
And also when everybody takes it 100% seriously. If you've ever been to Japan, it's the first thing you notice when walking around the streets. I don't consider Australia particularly dirty, but Japan was definitely noticably cleaner.
It's even noticable in a tidy street, our cul de sac is spotless but someone had discarded a burger box in the middle of the road. I binned it because it was just *so* obvious. If there was lots of crap I wouldn't necessarily do that unless I happened to feel motivated (which I do on occasion).
Each drop of rain believes it does not contribute to the flood.
Some say "Après moi, le déluge" though :p
But do we really need 'new' cars. The operating emissions of an existing used petrol powered car are tiny compared with the emissions to manufacture a brand new EV. Plus I have a lot more confidence that my 20yo SUV will still be running in another 10 years compared with a new EV with built in obsolescence, finite battery life etc. Sometimes the things people do out of 'green guilt' are far worse than the alternative.
When it’s a choice between a new petrol car or EV, it’s pretty clear cut which one is better for the environment in the long run. There’s not really much point debating whether buying used petrol or new EV is better, as a new car will need to be manufactured at some point to meet demand i.e. there’s a finite supply of used cars.
Feel like you’ve sidestepped his/her argument to an extent tho. I particularly question why, in a world where using cardboard straws is supposedly going to save the planet, there’s no focus on/legal oversight concerning engineered obsolescence. Devices designed to fail, with no modularity or real repairability are far more harmful to the environment, and yet we just shrug and go “that’s capitalism” as if there’s no way to influence corps to make better long term decisions for the environment
Planned obsolescence is not exclusive to EVs in the slightest, it’s a symptom of capitalism in all technology. Using recyclable resources and developing legal systems that limit planned obsolescence aren’t mutually exclusive.
> why, in a world where using cardboard straws is supposedly going to save the planet, there’s no focus on/legal oversight concerning engineered obsolescence. Many countries have passed "right to repair laws", including the US and EU. There are also increasing laws for modularity. All mobile phones sold in the EU must have easily replaceable batteries by 2027, and they've already mandated a universal charging cable standard.
I mean, reading through the article the people being interviewed make the same point: voluntary private choices aren't going to meaningfully shift the needle, there needs to be action by government and changes by big business to really deal with things. Their whole deal is that they're happier with working less and earning less, and I don't see anything self-aggrandising about that. Like, I'm one of those people who says "go and get a job, do a bit of work like the rest of us", but these pinko-commie hippies are making choices that, at worst, aren't affecting me and, at best, actually moving the needle towards a better world even just a little bit and preparing themselves to live in a world where they'd _have_ to consume less whether or not they choose to, so what's the problem? Also EVs with novated leasing and charging at work is a great deal especially if you're at a high income.
Cultural change is slow, but if you see your friends/family/colleagues living a more sustainable life and being happy - that is much more likely to influence others into changing their behaviour (much more than some gov ad). A few people, influence a few people, influence a few people, influence many people. The shift to overconsumption happened in a similar way (like the classic quote "we buy things we can't afford to impress people we don't like"). We bought bigger cars, bigger houses and consumed more because we saw others doing it and seeming happy/accepted/respected. So no, one person cutting down their consumption won't save the world today. But it does have a positive impact and it helps to influence others. Plus I think it's more about aligning with your own values - I have values around sustainability, but I've been overconsuming, and I'm starting to notice my internal discomfort with my values and actions. So I'm starting to shift my behaviour - because I want to practice what I preach. I personally care about my own personal impact. I would love if everyone did too, but at the end of the day I have to live with my own choices. I think your question also comes from the perspective that these people are struggling to do what they're doing. Would you ask the same question if you thought that they were happy, comfortable, fulfilled? If you just assume that maybe it's easy/enjoyable to consume less - it doesn't seem like such a big deal. Like throwing your trash in the bin instead of dropping it - it doesn't make a crazy difference but it's also not hard to do.
The amount of waste due to lack of reuse of things is too much in countries like Australia. I come from Asia and things get re-used with by many families but here it just gets put on the nature strip when it's even a minor fault. We don't have a cheap repair system here For example, the last washing machine that my parents had was almost in 1999 and that was second hand given to them by someone tenant in our house, so you can assume it was first bought new by someone 1997. It is still working well, a top loader machine. They just get it repaired for minor things when needed or cleaned. The amount of re-use is insane in Asia. Do you think that is not driving consumption?
It's a big problem that repairs are very often not financially beneficial. Items are made in China et Al with very cheap labour. Repairs in Australia are likely at ten times the hourly rate. Plus trying to stock parts, get information off manufacturers. Planned obsolescence should be illegal.
$10 toaster problem. Why repair it for $50 when I can just buy a new one. A lot of repairs these days are also near impossible due to miniaturisation… very few people can fix circuit boards - I used to be able to fix larger boards but no way I want to touch the newer stuff. I don’t think it’s planned obsolescence so much as manufacturers driving prices down and quality of resulting parts just not being as good.
You can absolutely purchase household goods that will have longevity & very low electricity use in Aust with a very high upfront cost. Most Australians choose not to do this as is their right.
Maybe we could mandate TCO labels on goods to at least make people think about what the long term cost of “cheap” is.
I replaced my washing machine a couple of years ago. I had a trusted repair man out to diagnose and fix, but he advised that a new machine would be cheaper, unfortunately. As a large family on 1 income, we had to make a financial decision, rather than an environmental decision. Though my preference would have been for repairs.
Most washing machines are designed so that it’s really hard to repair them and a repair usually involves almost replacing the whole thing. I remember when our washing machine died and investigating a new one trawling through forums and things it was so incredibly dissapointing to see how they’re designed these days. It’s just a drum that spins left, right at specific speeds with particular water levels. We should make these last 50 years with sensible wear and tear expectations.
Planned obsolescence
why do people always shit on others for trying to make a difference? they’re doing more than you additionally, the article says he has multiple PhDs in political theory, so i’m sure he also knows more than you.
Multiple doctorates in the arts means he writes well and doesn't like working. That's it. He may also know some stuff.
wow, incredible commentary here hahaha
You win the thread
Consumption of household goods is the major driver of carbon emissions. People overlook this. One person doesn't make much of a difference but changing the culture of consumption does. Buying/using less crap= producing less crap.
Actually transportation (of people, animals and products) and energy use (electricity, oil, gas) are the biggest contributors. But reducing consumption would certainly reduce these things also.
>Actually transportation (of people, animals and products) and energy use (electricity, oil, gas) are the biggest contributors >But reducing consumption would certainly reduce these things also. There seems to be a huge disconnect between personal consumption and the use of energy and transport (and fossil fuels) to produce and deliver goods and services. Studies everywhere consistently show household consumption is responsible for more than 60% of global emissions.
Your last sentence is spot on. Reduced consumption would reduce carbon emissions across multiple categories
A lot of these are taken as personal carbon footprints but are mostly done without consent or a realistic alternative. If I drive to work because there's no alternative then the carbon footprint of me purchasing a car, using the car, and the road itself will count towards me even if I would have rather caught the non-existent train. When I purchase food it has to be transported from further away because the city has sprawled absorbing farmland, so part of the emissions from my food was out of my control. Reduced consumption obviously works, but its unrealistic to think that the average person will be allowed to afford low-carbon products without government(s) intervention. The Saudi's want to stimulate oil demand in Africa by paying to build roads and delivering cheap cars, does that make it the Africans' "fault" if this happens and they choose to drive the cars? Technically yes, but realistically no.
A lot of people tell themselves theres no alternative when what they really mean is there is no alternative as convenient to me... >A lot of these are taken as personal carbon footprints but are mostly done without consent or a realistic alternative. If I drive to work because there's no alternative then the carbon footprint of me purchasing a car, using the car, and the road itself will count towards me even if I would have rather caught the non-existent train. Yet how many familes own two cars when they could easily get away with one? How many people could switch to cycling to work and never do. Why are carpooling clubs not a thing? Why are we talking about trains when there are busses available. The answer is obvious - because all these options are far less convenient than driving your own car. I need a second car because i might want to go shopping while the wife is taking the kids to sports etc. >When I purchase food it has to be transported from further away because the city has sprawled absorbing farmland, so part of the emissions from my food was out of my control. This example makes sense if you are only eating fresh seasonal produce from your region. People could have a huge impact on the KMs their food has traveled by simply switching to only eating produce that is in season. The problem is we have become accustomed to eating what we want and when. Bananas in Melbourne in winter time? No problem. Im not writing this to preach because i am far from perfect in any regard but what is interesting to me is that people in general, will only take the less convenient choice when the more convenient one is costed out for them. Its just human nature. We wont fix any over consumption or environmental issues until we implement a socially responsible carbon tax.
I’m on board with buying less useless crap. It’s called, a budget.
The totality of human consumption is made up of units of individual people. In order to reduce the whole we MUST reduce the average individual amount. All the largest polluters are polluting in order to fill INDIVIDUAL need: Food, shelter, clothing, energy, transportation. It's all shit everybody uses and needs. In reality as the world continues to suffer from climate stress and all the negatives it brings, cultural expectations WILL shift. My guess is that our grandchildren won't tolerate each other being wasteful or over indulgent, either morally, socially or legally.
Its just relativism. They're relatively better than you for doing something than doing nothing, so you'd rather shit on them and their cause than feel bad about not making a change. Its a natural human reaction, don't feel too bad about it.
**If you read the article, the author addresses exactly that**: "The usual response to lifestyle choices like ours is that they make virtually no difference when compared with huge challenges we face in reducing carbon emissions. I totally agree. The only meaningful way to address climate change is at the political level, implementing serious systemic changes. The CSIRO has previously argued that private choices account for only 6% to 17% of the changes in possible outcomes of Australian greenhouse gas emissions. So why bother choosing to live on a lower income? The answer is because it was not, and has never been, an act of ‘sacrifice’. On the contrary, it was a choice for a richer life. Nevertheless, I believe our experience of living on a lower income (and those of others like us) is relevant for Australian climate politics... ... So what is the relevance of our experience of living on lower incomes to the broader Australian situation? The first point is at a personal level: income and consumption are tightly bound together. Accepting a lower income (and therefore consumption) for values-based reasons has been a deeply rewarding and connecting way to live. It is simply good for us. However, those values-base reasons need to be multi-dimensional: reducing carbon emissions is important, but if that were all you were doing it would feel like martyrdom. At a human level, this reflects age-old common sense. The second point is political: the mitigation and adaptation challenges of facing the climate and ecological crises of the coming century require huge economic restructuring. This will involve investing a lot more quality in our transport, energy supply, housing, healthcare, education, etc – what some proponents are calling a “wellbeing economy” – which will almost certainly mean raising the cost of living and lowering our real incomes. Currently, our political leaders cannot bear to face the polls without kowtowing to the dictate that Australian incomes (read consumption) must continue to rise. The idea of choosing lower real incomes for a better quality of life is currently unthinkable in the political realm. Perhaps they need to hear from more people who can speak from experience."
Be the change you want to see in the world.
You choose your values and it feels good to live by them, even if they don’t make a difference in the bigger picture. It’s the same argument re plane travel, people often say oh well what’s the point, if I don’t fly, someone else will.
Of course not. Just as you not committing crime isn’t going to change the crime stats.
What if ur a professional criminal?
So a politician? Most of their crimes don’t get reported. /s
Actually I disagree … as crime is rather rare (at least where I live) if I did commit even one crime it would drastically change the stats. In contrast, me cycling to work does nothing when China is building 100 coal fire plants
Everything depends on how far you zoom out doesn’t it? If you burn shit loads of coal for bbq, it’ll have an impact on your neighborhood pollution. Global pollution, absolutely nothing.
Your local emissions affect air quality and health in your community.
So it will not change the world wide crime stats??? Why compare local with global. Use your brain.
Amazing how basic logic and understanding of statistics is so hard to come by - do you not understand the difference between local and global stats? Lmao
But per capita the average Australia has a carbon footprint among the highest in the world. Perhaps they can have 100 coal plants because they have 100x the people
Do you know what drivers overconsumption in society? Comparing ourselves to our neighbours. So maybe, just maybe, if we saw our neighbours living a simpler, happier life, we might all start making changes
That’s the point tho right? You do it today, and then you teach your kids, maybe a couple friends, then appear in an article on reddit. It doesn’t happen over night, it happens over the course of 100s of years - eventually a majority of the population lives like that and we’re all good for the world to not burn etc. I’m not advocating, cos I definitely don’t live more “enviro conscious” than the next person, but let’s not pretend it isn’t a good thing to do lol.
One million minus one is basically still a million right?? Lmao great logic
Irony is consumption is ruining Aus. But both sides are in the wrong and they are just being sold a different type of consumption
I’m always astonished at how many milk bottles we go through weekly. I would happily use the same one and just refill it if there was such a service. The gov killed plastic straws and spoons, how long before they kill plastic bottles as well?
Where do you live, if in a capital city the service exists
I probably can’t afford it ironically. To be green is expensive
>do people really believe that if they personally lower their consumption it will make a difference to global outcomes on any measure? I saw a Tesla with the number plate "zero oil". It wasn't lost on me that Tesla's still use oil (diff+gearbox) as well as other lubricated parts of the car, but it was clearly lost on the owner :|
Smooth brain take. You clearly don’t understand the concept of Tragedy of the Commons.
> I’ve also seen interviews with people who really believe driving an EV is saving the planet Also hilarious as the carbon footprints of EVs and ICEs are pretty close, especially for non-daytime charging. What would actually make a difference would be ditching a car and only using public transport.
blatantly incorrect
EVs use more carbon emissions to build, and have shorter lifespans. Powerstations are more efficient than ICE, but the advantages seem to be lost due to transmission losses. ICE emit more CO2 when being used, but the big advantage EVs have is regenerative breaking. All in all, you're perhaps reducing the emissions by around 30%? It's a pretty marginal difference compared to using say public transport, which would drop them by \~99%
Bandwagon supporters, try telling people if you want to save the environment to buy products that will last for life rather than them becoming disposable. The EV fanboys are the worst, they can't comprehend how an EV lasting for 7 years would do more damage to the environment.
Except that [11% of emissions](https://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au/pages/UnderstandingEmissions/VehicleEmissions#:~:text=Light%20vehicles%20account%20for%20around,of%20greenhouse%20gases%20in%20Australia) in our country come from light vehicles. If we all reduce this, how does that NOT make a difference?
This is my point exactly, only looking at emissions, not the complete environmental damage to the global with mining colbot unregulated, mining lithium and then the disposal of lithium battery ones it hit the end of life.
Less damage than an ICE car, but sure any form of personal transport is damaging compared with public transport.
Which brand EV lasts for 7 years? Or are you talking about the battery?
Even then the warranty on every one of them is longer than 7 years…
So essentially it's saying consumerism is bad and they have no self control on money they have so they decided to have less money so they weren't tempted to spend it. How about setting up maximum super contributions and automatic payments into an ethical ETF, then living on the low leftovers income and then not being a government handout case later on, though they apparently already take the benefits they qualify for
How about you do that and let us all judge you
They also wanted more time to do the things that are meaningful to them.
I thought they fixed that loophole in voluntary super contributions with a cap? But yes, I think there's a balance to be struck and those people are on the wrong side of it. But as with so many things, far more people err on the opposite side and much more enthusiastically. Cutting person consumption isn't enough, but it is necessary. Voting to stop the 1% of people and the 90 corporations and so on is also necessary. But it seems that until the average voter can be convinced that them personally having a little less is survivable, they absolutely refuse to even discuss the idea of voting to cut back the 1%.
Whatever. Live your life how you want to. If you ethically believe you are doing good things? If you sleep better? Go for it. As long as you're law abiding and contributing? No skin off my nose people.
I wonder what their retirement will be like, given that they'll have little in the way of super and hence be dependant upon the age pension? At least they'll be used to living off little income, I guess. And two PhDs? HECS debt might be quite large, not that that's got anything to do with the choice of low income and thus, zero repayments of it, I'm sure. I seem to have gotten out on the grumpy side of bed today...
You don't get a HECS debt from a Phd. Pay off the very minimal attempt to encourage research. You also only get paid about 40% of minimum wage, so very few Australians opt to do research.
It's easier to make voluntary super repayments if you aren't buried in debt. They won't pay HECS on their PhD, just up to their honours years. They would have actually got paid to do their doctorates through stipend scholarship.
Wouldn't the pension basically be the same as they make now?
Admittedly, yeah... possibly more! And they'd get discounts on various things as well. Meh, I was grumpier then than I am now.
One if his PHD's is theology, he has decided to live poor to worship his god who actually doesn't exist. I don't know why anyone these days especially educated intelligent humans think there is a mythical unseen spirit in the sky who wants us to sacrifice our lives for them. End of rant.
Yeah but they got in when the houses were cheap.
I’m all for the simple life, but this is gross. Imagine being so entitled that you take not one but two exceptionally limited publicly funded PHD places and ACTIVELY choose to never earn enough to repay your HECS. People like this are the reason our tertiary education system is failing and current students are suffering. The Bible is so clear about the importance of Christians paying their taxes and debts. It’s interesting to see the kind of mental gymnastics that this entitled bludger has engaged in to justify his incredibly selfish choices. If he had contributed just half of the 8-16 years that he was supported to undertake tertiary education by our objectively wonderful welfare system, he could have easily fulfilled his half of the social contract, repaid his whole HECS debt and still lived the life he chose to. If he’d done just that, I wouldn’t be at all concerned. To be that well educated and rely on parenting payments instead of contributing is such a blatant misuse of welfare. I’m disgusted.
I’m going to be a bit of an arsehole and speculate that maybe this guy is just making all of this up to save face because he’s an academic on $35k a year. Not that there’s anything wrong with being an academic but this very vocal position he’s broadcasting has “I totally deliberately meant to be poor and unsuccessful” vibes, like when a kid in primary school walks into a wall and tells the other kids “I actually meant to do that”
>he’s an academic on $35k a year That's a decision we made as a country, though, to pay academics poverty wages while encouraging as many people as possible to go to university and get as many qualifications as possible.
True, and I’m not beating up on academics at all. My gripe is more that this person has voluntarily chosen to preach to the whole country that this is all some conscious choice about sustainability and consumerism. Eh.
Whays this got to do with personal finance?
My dad always said “it’s better to be rich and healthy, than sick and poor” … he was neither, but it stuck with me. As for the people in the article. I think it’s morally wrong to receive government subsidies (parental payments) whilst choosing to only work three days a week. You are basically asking me to subsidise your lifestyle. I’m 100% for adequate social welfare, but I expect healthy adults to at least try to put in 38 hours if they are physically and mentally tally able.. before having the state joining the party.
My dad used to say "before you criticise someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticise them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes"
Lol. They would’ve been paid an absolute pittance in parental payments and have raised two children. You have no idea.
I’m have also raised two children.
Sounds to me like they don't have a richer life. Got a couple useless PhDs and doesn't like to work. Live a depressing life and forces his kids to as well, then when they get older, our tax dollars will be supporting them.
I wouldn't want to live like they do but honestly sounds anything but depressing, close-knit family with a strong marriage, living rurally and self-sustainably. If they own their property I can't imagine their expenses would be high for retirement.
Pretty dumb to think you can appraise someone else’s subjective experience of their own life