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

Irish Times ^ | 9/09/19 | Jason Hickel

[Libloather]

Once confined to the small scientific community of climate researchers and ecological economists, the idea of degrowth is now blazing into the mainstream. Not surprisingly, people are trying to figure out what to make of it. Is it an inspiring idea that points the way to a better economy? Or is it a mad notion that’s sure to plunge us all into poverty?

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.

[grey_whiskers]

Go sit on a high-speed rotary porcupine.

AGW is a monstrous f*cking LIE.

Even if it WERE true, China creates more CO₂ than the US and the E.U. put together.

Not to mention India.

[zeestephen]

Thanks for your Comments.

I disagree.

I still think the author is speaking about “common ownership.”

Taxation becomes meaningless if everyone “owns” proportionate shares of the productive economy.

[palmer]

Socialism, communism, wars and pestilence eventually cause a LOT of "degrowth". There is no need to intentionally do it.

Eventually. The problem is that poverty and lower life expectancy raises birth rates. OTOH wealth lowers birh rates. Of course wealth is created by growth.

[justa-hairyape]

It is called Climate Change. All the left brings is death and misery.

[Army Air Corps]

Communism, now in Green!

[Army Air Corps]

Ping.

[Paul R.]

Great analysis. I hereby challenge AOC to come on here and publicly debate you. (Heheheh!)

Your discourse reminds me of the cash for clunkers fiasco. The environmental footprint of owning a new car for, say, 10 years, including both it’s manufacture, distribution, and operating components, is in most cases far greater than the environmental footprint of operating a similar capability “clunker” (including repair parts) for that time. This only reverses when the “clunker” becomes so unreliable or runs so poorly that its repair and operational costs make it uneconomical vs. obtaining a new (or at least newer*) vehicle, even if one does a lot of their own maintenance.

*In only one instance did I ever buy a new car - way back when I went from a ‘68 Oldsmobile Delta 88 to a Honda CRX 1.3. All my other purchases have been used cars, most 3-5 years old & in good shape. But I did all for economics, not so I could say I was “saving the planet”.