'Mindless growth': Robust scientific case for degrowth is stronger every day

[ZiprHead]

Vast majority of new income from GDP growth goes straight to the very richest.

Degrowth is a planned reduction of total energy and material use to bring the economy in line with planetary boundaries, while improving people’s lives by distributing income and resources more fairly.

The scientific case for degrowth is robust, and gets stronger every day. We know that high-income nations – including Britain and Ireland – must make dramatic and very rapid reductions to their emissions in order to avert dangerous climate breakdown, cutting carbon at a rate of about 15 per cent per year. This will require a massive mobilisation to roll out all the solar panels, wind turbines and nuclear power stations we need to get to net zero.

But there’s a problem. Because high-income nations consume so much energy, it may not be feasible to generate renewables quickly enough to stay within a fast-shrinking carbon budget. According to climate researchers, the only way to make it work is to reduce total energy use.

This isn’t just a matter of individual behaviour change, like installing energy-efficient light bulbs – although of course we need that. It’s a matter of fundamentally changing how our economies operate.

 

[DBT]

It should never have come to this point. Even now there are economists and political leaders calling for growth.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Material use is dropping in the western world--newer approaches use less than old approaches.

We need to cut fossil fuel use, there's no need to cut energy use per se.

 

[DBT]

Material use is dropping in the western world--newer approaches use less than old approaches.

We need to cut fossil fuel use, there's no need to cut energy use per se.

The call for growth also entails consumerism and built in obsolescence, a new IPhone every year, etc.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Material use is dropping in the western world--newer approaches use less than old approaches.

We need to cut fossil fuel use, there's no need to cut energy use per se.

The call for growth also entails consumerism and built in obsolescence, a new IPhone every year, etc.

That's a social thing, not something you should try to dictate to industry.

Yes, there's a new phone every year or so. Mine's two generations behind, so what?

 

[barbos]

It should never have come to this point. Even now there are economists and political leaders calling for growth.

You sound as if politicians who don't call for growth actually exist. I doubt there are such economists, forget about politicians.

 

[PyramidHead]

Folks, the problem is simple: fossil fuel companies stay profitable not by how many barrels of oil they currently produce, but by their reserve supply of untapped oil. Every quarter, they reassure their investors that nobody in government is going to challenge their ability to maintain control over what oil is left in the ground, so the long-term prospects still look good for them. And so, regardless of the measures they take to invest in green alternatives, the needle will never budge if they still forecast new oil extraction over the next decade or more. They know it's destroying the habitability of the planet; they don't care. Nationalizing all energy production is the only way to truly pull the rug out from under this operation.

 

[starwater]

Exxon alone spent $30 million on climate denier think tanks. It’s greed. They easily could have spent that on improving the efficiencies of renewables, but that would not have made them as much money.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Exxon alone spent $30 million on climate denier think tanks. It’s greed. They easily could have spent that on improving the efficiencies of renewables, but that would not have made them as much money.

Good heavens! A company spending money on actions that help their bottom line!? Just kidding with you. But we are toast if we continue to elect government officials who believe in magic over science. Of course companies are going to look after their own best interest. The real crime here is that we have a government who doesn't understand science.

 

[PyramidHead]

Exxon alone spent $30 million on climate denier think tanks. It’s greed. They easily could have spent that on improving the efficiencies of renewables, but that would not have made them as much money.

Good heavens! A company spending money on actions that help their bottom line!? Just kidding with you. But we are toast if we continue to elect government officials who believe in magic over science. Of course companies are going to look after their own best interest. The real crime here is that we have a government who doesn't understand science.

You're so close... now, what would be the situation if the companies that control humanity's energy usage didn't have a bottom line to protect, other than the stable and sustainable generation of energy?

 

[southernhybrid]

I read an article the other day that said a carbon tax would greatly help decreasing the use of carbon fuels. I don't remember where I read it but if I can find it, I will post it later. Then, you all can use your careful reasoning skills to point out its strength and weaknesses.

A carbon tax certainly would be a good place to start. The plans usually include a way to pay back those on the bottom of the economic scale too. I know some rather poor people who certainly could cut way back on their energy use. One of them is a friend who is also very progressive politically. The thing is that people are often talk, but when it comes to changing their own habits, not using the A/C so much, decreasing the heat in the winter, driving less or car pooling, etc., they are unwilling to change. I know what I do is insignificant, but I do drive a hybrid, never fly, turn off the A/C at night, and very rarely travel. But, my town is full of people who drive huge trucks and SUVs, always use the drive throughs at fast foods or banks etc. A carbon tax might cause them to change some of their habits.

After that, we can work on some other reasonable solutions.

 

[repoman]

I thought talking about less resource consumption and also less population is racist now. I say this non sarcastically.

Which nation, ethnic or religious group will do this in the face of competition? Colonizer white nations should it, but they are rapidly filling up with the prevously colonized people (a mistake IMO, because as humans they hold a grudge).

As a kid seeing Soylent Green and other 70's dystopias on tv reruns and also reading about the "Limits to Growth" project by the Club of Rome and even seeing this part of The Wall (starting at two minutes in)



I have been in a low grade panic about about resource depletion every day of my teen and adult life. Not even kidding.

 

[DBT]

It should never have come to this point. Even now there are economists and political leaders calling for growth.

You sound as if politicians who don't call for growth actually exist. I doubt there are such economists, forget about politicians.

There are both politicians and economists who question our economic model of perpetual growth, but these appear to be few and far between.

 

[DBT]

Material use is dropping in the western world--newer approaches use less than old approaches.

We need to cut fossil fuel use, there's no need to cut energy use per se.

The call for growth also entails consumerism and built in obsolescence, a new IPhone every year, etc.

That's a social thing, not something you should try to dictate to industry.

Yes, there's a new phone every year or so. Mine's two generations behind, so what?

It's also an economic and profit thing. Which is why industry would like us to buy new models of their products regularly...and try to persuade us to buy through relentless advertising.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's a social thing, not something you should try to dictate to industry.

Yes, there's a new phone every year or so. Mine's two generations behind, so what?

It's also an economic and profit thing. Which is why industry would like us to buy new models of their products regularly...and try to persuade us to buy through relentless advertising.

Advertising is far more about buying brand X rather than brand Y rather than buying what you wouldn't have bought otherwise.

I know one of those obsessive upgraders--ads play no role.

 

[DBT]

That's a social thing, not something you should try to dictate to industry.

Yes, there's a new phone every year or so. Mine's two generations behind, so what?

It's also an economic and profit thing. Which is why industry would like us to buy new models of their products regularly...and try to persuade us to buy through relentless advertising.

Advertising is far more about buying brand X rather than brand Y rather than buying what you wouldn't have bought otherwise.

I know one of those obsessive upgraders--ads play no role.

If advertising plays no part in driving consumerism, why does business pay a fortune to advertise their products? Big money for no benefit?

 

[Minnemooseus]

Material use is dropping in the western world--newer approaches use less than old approaches.

We need to cut fossil fuel use, there's no need to cut energy use per se.

The call for growth also entails consumerism and built in obsolescence, a new IPhone every year, etc.

And by "consumerism" you mean buying stuff far beyond our needs?

My impression is that capitalism is (also) a pyramid scheme, requiring an ever increasing supply of consumers. Cap or reduce the world population and the economy crashes.

Moose

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Advertising is far more about buying brand X rather than brand Y rather than buying what you wouldn't have bought otherwise.

I know one of those obsessive upgraders--ads play no role.

If advertising plays no part in driving consumerism, why does business pay a fortune to advertise their products? Big money for no benefit?

I already pointed it out--it's about buy my brand, not the competition.

 

[DBT]

Advertising is far more about buying brand X rather than brand Y rather than buying what you wouldn't have bought otherwise.

I know one of those obsessive upgraders--ads play no role.

If advertising plays no part in driving consumerism, why does business pay a fortune to advertise their products? Big money for no benefit?

I already pointed it out--it's about buy my brand, not the competition.

Yeah, I wasn't talking about competition.

 

[barbos]

It should never have come to this point. Even now there are economists and political leaders calling for growth.

You sound as if politicians who don't call for growth actually exist. I doubt there are such economists, forget about politicians.

There are both politicians and economists who question our economic model of perpetual growth, but these appear to be few and far between.

Name one actual politician, let alone known one.