5 ms·

Some may be, but others are realizing the opposite.

samhw 5y ago
FWIW, this view is normally referred to as [cornucopianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornucopian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornucopian): this debate has been raging since at least the 1960s, and there are some interesting links from the Wikipedia page.
- alexgmcm 5y ago
  We know that infinite growth is not possible on a finite planet. I also don't think we will be doing asteroid mining etc. on any scale or timeframe relevant to the current climate crisis. Therefore we know there is some limit - and we are just arguing about where that limit is. The Global Footprint Network with their "Overshoot Day" believe we are already beyond that sustainable limit and, to be honest, with increasing populations that (quite rightly) demand Western living standards, I doubt we will ever be sustainable.
  - samhw 5y ago
    I'm not sure why infinite growth wouldn't be possible on a finite planet (even if we assume that "on a finite planet" is indeed a real constraint). Growth doesn't imply greater resource use.
    - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
      Even if the economy were dominated by the creation and consumption of .mp3 files, an exponentially growing economy would eventually run out of server space and electricity on a finite planet.
    - klyrs 5y ago
      Assuming we need nothing but space to exist in, the surface area of the earth is finite. Expand that by a few km up and down, and humans still have a finite amount of space to live within. If we're allowed colonization of space, we can only travel at a finite speed. Humans can overtake a finite radius in a year, resulting in a cubic rate of growth in volume. Exponential growth is ultimately limited by the finite speed of light and dimensionality of our universe.
amcvitty 5y ago
If you’re among those others, I’d be really interested to hear a critique of the article. It seemed pretty convincing to me, as well as constructive by suggesting that green investment is the right path forward
- hannob 5y ago
  I'll give you one example which I find pretty convincing: Take aviation. You can make aviation green by using hydrogen (on medium distances), batteries (on short distances) or efuels (everywhere, it's basically kerosene, but made with renewable electricity). Ok, great. Now there's an EU research project that has run some numbers. Note that this project happened in collaboration with aviation companies, it's unlikely to paint a particularly pessimistic picture. Page 44 here: https://www.cleansky.eu/sites/default/files/inline-files/20200507_Hydrogen-Powered-Aviation-report.pdf https://www.cleansky.eu/sites/default/files/inline-files/202... Their calculation is that you need between 21 and 32 Petawatthours per year to green aviation (depending on how optimistic you are about hydrogen-based aviation). That is around the same as the total amount of electricity the world uses today (all electricity, not just green electricity). They assume a 4 percent growth rate for aviation, which is in line with what aviation organizations expect. I have trouble imagining that this is realistic. Like: I'm pretty optimistic about renewable energy. But I just don't think it's very plausible to say: "We'll make all our electricity green, and then we'll add the same amount in green electricity just for aviation, and oh, we'll probably do the same for a bunch of other industry sectors that will need similar amounts" (there are studies with similar numbers e.g. for the chemical industry). Like I just don't think it's plausible to green all electricity and then grow the electricity sector by something like 500% in a short amount of time. And when you come to the conclusion that this is not realistic you should start to wonder if you should really assume that aviation will just continue to grow and grow. (And the same is pretty much true for a lot of sectors where greening is not impossible, but challenging.)
- dariosalvi78 5y ago
  here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1462901120304342 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S14629...

FWIW, this view is normally referred to as [cornucopianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornucopian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornucopian): this debate has been raging since at least the 1960s, and there are some interesting links from the Wikipedia page.

alexgmcm 5y ago
We know that infinite growth is not possible on a finite planet. I also don't think we will be doing asteroid mining etc. on any scale or timeframe relevant to the current climate crisis. Therefore we know there is some limit - and we are just arguing about where that limit is. The Global Footprint Network with their "Overshoot Day" believe we are already beyond that sustainable limit and, to be honest, with increasing populations that (quite rightly) demand Western living standards, I doubt we will ever be sustainable.
- samhw 5y ago
  I'm not sure why infinite growth wouldn't be possible on a finite planet (even if we assume that "on a finite planet" is indeed a real constraint). Growth doesn't imply greater resource use.
  - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
    Even if the economy were dominated by the creation and consumption of .mp3 files, an exponentially growing economy would eventually run out of server space and electricity on a finite planet.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    Assuming we need nothing but space to exist in, the surface area of the earth is finite. Expand that by a few km up and down, and humans still have a finite amount of space to live within. If we're allowed colonization of space, we can only travel at a finite speed. Humans can overtake a finite radius in a year, resulting in a cubic rate of growth in volume. Exponential growth is ultimately limited by the finite speed of light and dimensionality of our universe.

amcvitty 5y ago

If you’re among those others, I’d be really interested to hear a critique of the article. It seemed pretty convincing to me, as well as constructive by suggesting that green investment is the right path forward

hannob 5y ago
I'll give you one example which I find pretty convincing: Take aviation. You can make aviation green by using hydrogen (on medium distances), batteries (on short distances) or efuels (everywhere, it's basically kerosene, but made with renewable electricity). Ok, great. Now there's an EU research project that has run some numbers. Note that this project happened in collaboration with aviation companies, it's unlikely to paint a particularly pessimistic picture. Page 44 here: https://www.cleansky.eu/sites/default/files/inline-files/20200507_Hydrogen-Powered-Aviation-report.pdf https://www.cleansky.eu/sites/default/files/inline-files/202... Their calculation is that you need between 21 and 32 Petawatthours per year to green aviation (depending on how optimistic you are about hydrogen-based aviation). That is around the same as the total amount of electricity the world uses today (all electricity, not just green electricity). They assume a 4 percent growth rate for aviation, which is in line with what aviation organizations expect. I have trouble imagining that this is realistic. Like: I'm pretty optimistic about renewable energy. But I just don't think it's very plausible to say: "We'll make all our electricity green, and then we'll add the same amount in green electricity just for aviation, and oh, we'll probably do the same for a bunch of other industry sectors that will need similar amounts" (there are studies with similar numbers e.g. for the chemical industry). Like I just don't think it's plausible to green all electricity and then grow the electricity sector by something like 500% in a short amount of time. And when you come to the conclusion that this is not realistic you should start to wonder if you should really assume that aviation will just continue to grow and grow. (And the same is pretty much true for a lot of sectors where greening is not impossible, but challenging.)
dariosalvi78 5y ago
here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1462901120304342 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S14629...