India is not in even in the top 30 countries that can realistically reduce emissions. They have per capita emissions lower than any European country, except maybe Iceland. Lower than the Nordics, much, much lower than France or Germany or Spain. There's no way for them to reduce their emissions without severely impacting lifestyle even more drastically - which is not at all the case for us here in Europe.

china is world factory

stop buying cheap things from china then

Would you say that lowering the climate goals / increasing emissions could meaningfully alleviate pressure on the housing market, migration, groceries, energy, etc.?

You live in netherlands

less emission = less artic ice melt = less sea water rising

how can you say this??? while netherlands is probably need one the most???

You might not see the benefit directly, but the idea is that we must do this for future generations. If everybody keeps looking at the others, nothing happens. The ones that can lead must lead.

> But at what cost?

I can’t help thinking of the satirical cartoon “What if it’s a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing” ;)

Because we stole from the future for the gains and quality of life today, and now we must pay the debt back (global low carbon electric generation transition, EVs, heat pumps, decarbonization, and sequestration of excess CO2 emitted since industrialization began).

If you take a step back, what did the netherlands look like 100 years ago? What was the wealth inequality split? How much capital was owned by the elite vs the commoner?

You will see that the last 70 years have really been an outlier in history due to the great reset of WW2 and the elite losing their wealth. The current trends are actually the return back to historical norms.

The problem here is not green energy sandbagging the economy in NL and making life unaffordable for the commoner, the problem here is that wealth/capital accumulates faster than wages and therefore as the economy slows down an ever growing slice of GDP goes to capital owners.

I would suggest if you want to solve this problem, do not blame the green energy — it is a distraction — instead look to your elected representatives in government to form wealth tax and land tax legislation to curb the positive feedback loop of wealth accumulation, lest you become a serf to the elite again.

Take a look at Thomas Piketty if you are interested in learning more.

You don’t think a livable planet is a good benefit for your money? Especially for later generations?

> But at what cost?

Most of this improvement is driven exactly by cost reductions. In other words: the CO2 emissions are falling BECAUSE solar is cheap.

Lowering CO2 is the thing that SAVES money.

And same time here Finland we have super cheap electricity. It is just that you don’t build enough new capacity and nuclear power is no go.

While energy is expensive, I find it hard to blame on the "green stuff".

The majority of the energy cost increases in the last few years are because fossil fuels got more expensive for europeans, as cheap gas and oil from Russia wasn't cheap nor very available any more. Lower emissions technologies require much less energy: Heat pumps, induction stoves, electric goods and private transport. Renewables are furthermore more resilient to supply shocks, as they aren't as dependent on from despotic states such as Russia, Saudi Arabia or (seemingly) the US for much of the (fossil) energy. The correct response would be to electrify as much as possible (much less energy required) and produce electricity without the need for importing fossil fuels.

The housing situation sucks, but while many rules discourage housing production, only a smaller subset is there to reduce emissions (requirements about amenities such as outlets, room size and layout, parking and local opposition have little to do with emissions). Many countries such as the US which care much less also suffer heavily as well from being unable to build enough housing.

I have little idea about what specifically the netherlands are doing on climate, but it has at least not been my impression that they were the "best boy in class".

One of the pressures causing migration is global warming screwing up agriculture, particularly in poorer regions.

> Housing market is the worst, too little houses are being build because of all the rules.

I find other reasons way more convincing:

Construction can’t keep up with efficiency gains of the rest of the world. This has less to do with regulation and more with failure to automate as much. Basically baumoll’s cost disease.

Centralization means that everyone wants to live in the same places. We hardly can create new land to build on, especially where we need it the most.

Missing or wrong regulation of cars in cities. They take up an enormous amount of space.

Financialisation of the housing market. Housing can either be affordable or a good investment asset. Not both.

Another solution that would work is bombing the places that emit the most. This carries less long-term damage risk.

And not taking care of the source of the problem? It’s like only pumping the water out of your flooded basement but not willing to fix the leak.

Isn't the consensus from climate scientists that emission reductions are totally necessary, and there is no solution which is solely based on capture of greenhouse gases or cooling technologies? Even if reducing emissions is not enough, I thought it was clear that it needs to be done - and the economic impact is a necessary evil, since in reality we are just seeing the reversal of economic benefits obtained at the cost of planetary temperatures.

It is not a coincidence.

Which is what everyone should be doing if we are to survive as a species

The carbon border tax (CBAM) that is coming into effect is a good policy to help with that. Should have been done much earlier.