If only

The other part is systemic. We build sprawling suburban nightmare towns. Places where there are square miles of just homes and roads and maybe some parks. Serviced by mega malls or mega chain stores where everyone for 20sq mikes must go to shop and do business. Everyone has to drive miles just to get to a place they can work. That’s bad. If we build communities where homes and businesses intermix, where a person could live their life without needing to even own a car and still be able to work and shop and play- that goes a long way.

Not trucking and flying out of season or “exotic” produce that can’t grow anywhere near us is another big one. As is having infrastructure to provide the food need of a population without needing to ship in thousands of miles for basic crops that COULD grow there.

There’s a ton of things like that but basically- the simple solution to “save the earth” is to give up consumerism. One asks- “how can that be profitable?” Ah. Simple. You just have to MAKE IT so that any other way is LESS Profitable or completely illegal. Taxes, fines, things like that. Land is too expensive to use to farm in this state? Ohh. Not when it costs $200,000 to move $150k in crops across state lines. When an ikea bed frame is $2500 and a solid oak one is $2500- suddenly buying that oak bed frame that will outlast your great grand kids even if it “is out of style” seems like a great value- and the guy who buys the $2500 ikea frame ain’t going to be as likely to bust it up or leave it on the curb when they move.

When there’s a $50 tax on plastic bottles, and a $20 tax on glass- you’ll see a lot more people carrying their own bottles and not using disposable ones- and taking care of what they have. When a pair of jeans is $300 on a cheap sale, consumers are going to demand they last decades and aren’t likely to turn and burn em- and what’s more? The “obesity problem” all but solves itself at that point because it is suddenly very expensive to need to buy new clothes that fit, and more expensive to live a way that leads to weight gain than not.

Tl:dr- by forcing manufacturers to focus on quality over quantity, and imposing financial burdens that make consumers and producers more mindful of their habits, as well as legal prohibitions in the form of regulation on industry, you can get a good way there. Having less and learning to enjoy it more, appreciate and care for it more- and putting “value” above cost. To finish it off stricter zoning and development laws and more “planned” communities which emphasize autonomy would take us most of the rest of the way there.

Put simply- businesses can ALWAYS make profit. They find a way to turn anything into a way to make profit. The law is usually slow to keep up with technology and industry practices as we have seen with companies like Uber or door dash which circumvent existing laws for their industries by claiming to be a “new” industry not bound by such regulations. It’s no coincidence that going through the deregulation boom of the 80’s etc that we saw increasing income disparity and economic troubles for “joe Everyman” as well as ever worsening environmental issues. The recent shift to “velocity model” in business compounds this. Businesses are supposed to make profit within the law- the law isn’t supposed to be so that politicians with business interests can make profit.

Industry is motivated by profit not consumers. Kim K and others have made brands out of hate. Being liked or wanted doesn’t factor in. If it makes money and they can- they do. So it isn’t a consumer demand that can or will drive “green” industry in any real sense because of forced to choose between an imperative abstract and a trivial present reality- most people will address the present and real to them. Corporations in China make money- have made money. In the USSR they made money. A business will find ways to make profit regardless of what the rules or the stakes are. So regulate em.

The problem with that being.... that drastically slows economics even if everyone is full and happy and has a home. That causes potential GLOBAL disadvantage. As progress slows and industry slows- you run the risk that less “green” neighbors will catch up or eclipse you in technology and or wealth. That was the problem Soviet Russia faced amongst others and a real driver in the Cold War. Communism doesn’t work- but it can’t work independently and on a large scale unless EVERYONE or most everyone is communist too.

Think of it like this- if you’re playing sports the “healthiest” way is to not over train. Not use drugs. But- if one person doesn’t care about consequences and just wants to win- they will overtrain. Now if you don’t- you won’t likely be able to compete. But game theory- everyone else knows this too. So if one guy starts- others who don’t want to get left behind join in. Before long you’re the only one training light and holistic and it may be smarter long term for health- but you’re losing. So you join and now everyone is training hard so no one has an advantage... until one guy uses drugs....

So picture the olympics. Everyone wants to win gold. Everyone is on drugs. How do you win the gold medal- AND quit drugs and start training lightly? Not likely you can unless everyone else does too right? Unless they pass hard rules and enforce them to stop the destructive behavior right? It’s hard enough to do that yourself though- what do you do with the guy who would rather fight you than go along? And if he’s juiced up and you’re just “in good shape” his odds of beating you and getting his way are pretty good no? So you still lose the gold, he wins, and you get beat down so you still end up hurt.

Except with the planet- it doesn’t matter who destroys it. Anyone can. One guy, one country- unchecked and motivated can do it. So the question becomes- do you want to eat big based protein bars and walk from your tiny house to your job at the farm and end up just as dead when someone 3,000+ miles away has choked the water and air by enjoying a big house and fast comfy car and good food- or do you want to enjoy that crap yourself since there’s no sign he’s giving it up?

Game theory. We are trapped on a life raft with a bunch of other people and nowhere to go. Limited food, and if you don’t take it now the other guy might right? If you only eat a tiny ration a day and they eat more- they’ll be stronger eventually and can take all the food that’s left right? “But if they do that they die too!” Yeah. But we all die. And you might be hopeful or mindful of the future and trying to hold out but they might not be, or would rather die sooner and happier than later and more miserable. So if you don’t eat more than them they’ll beat you up and everyone dies. That’s modern global politics in a nutshell.

So I guess- the UN or green leave or someone has to go around and just flatten any country that doesn’t play it “green” while governments regulate and tax the living crap out of everything that contributes to pollution. Or... we can ban plastic straws. That one seems like it might work just as well. Who knows. All I know is governments tell corporations how they can make money and how they can’t- so that’s likely where the earth could get saved.