5 ms·

Interesting topic, and timely with some key take-aways from the latest leaked IPCC report, pretty much stating we would need to end economic growth: "Mitigatio

Interesting topic, and timely with some key take-aways from the latest leaked IPCC report, pretty much stating we would need to end economic growth: "Mitigation and development goals cannot be met through incremental change". [0] "Transition pathways entail distributional consequences such as changes in employment and economic structure" [0] [0] - https://scientistrebellion.com/we-leaked-the-upcoming-ipcc-report/ https://scientistrebellion.com/we-leaked-the-upcoming-ipcc-r...

Tarsul 5y ago
if we so care about having larger GDP numbers (as we do), we should simply try growing those parts of GDP that do not necessitate devastating CO2 (equivalent). Simple as that. (however, me personally, I don't think growth is really necessary anymore. The real problem since at least the 80s/90s has been inequality, so the thing people should really look at is redistribution of wealth/income etc.) We have everything we need, we just don't have the political and economic systems to put it in good use.
- aero-glide2 5y ago
  > I don't think growth is really necessary anymore Maybe true for developed nations, but not for the rest of the world. There is still much poverty which economic growth can solve.
  - Tarsul 5y ago
    You're right. Developing nations need a different mindset than developed nations and have every right for it to be so.
marvin 5y ago
Ending economic growth is the last thing we need to do, and even if we did, we would fail. This should be obvious on a forum for entrepeneurs, who work to achieve only one thing - economic growth. What we need to do is to ruthlessly tax externalities that haven’t effectively been considered before, and use the proceeds to transition to an economy with net zero climate gas emissions. Then repay the damage with large-scale CO2 sequestering, multi-gigaton scale. If economic growth is considered everything we value getting cheaper and more abundant over time, anthropogenic climate gas emissions can be considered a horrendous debt that needs to be repaid. This is achievable! It’s expensive, but doesn’t require a 1950s lifestyle for everyone.
- endymi0n 5y ago
  This, a thousand percent. Most of the current and last generations leading the current discussion (aka the developed world) grew up in democratic, capitalistic societies. Captialism at its core is soulless and I hate it — BUT so far I've failed to see any alternatives I would trust to help on this matter. These days I just see romantic descriptions of communism and socialism (actual socialism, not the social democracy Americans often mistake for it) everywhere, from people who clearly haven't ever had to live in it. Just as a reminder, here in Germany we're _still_ cleaning up the economical and ecological disasters of the GDR to this day (Bitterfeld anyone?), and the USSR didn't exactly lead the green revolution either (Chernobyl, Mayak, ....) Whenever I see people advocating "Tackling climate change needs a system change", I'm like: Yeah... nope.
- Analemma_ 5y ago
  Carbon taxes are ludicrously unpopular with voters. Washington state, one of the most liberal in America, rejected one in a nearly 2-1 vote. When it was tried in France there were riots in the streets. Any commentary about “ruthlessly taxing externalities” which doesn’t take this into account is just fantasy.
  - kapuasuite 5y ago
    A carbon tax could easily be coupled with a dividend...
    - timbit42 5y ago
      That's how Canada currently does it.
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    In Canada we have a federal election in a week. All four main stream parties have a carbon tax of one sort or another on their platform. So it's not ridiculously unpopular here.
    - 5y ago
bryanlarsen 5y ago
Sorry, we've got a flood of cheap renewable energy and a flood of stimulus money coming. Together they're going to cause massive growth. We've got three choices: 1. Harness that growth to decarbonize. 2. Let the rich accumulate it all. 3. Give it to the poor who will use it to enjoy a middle class life style. Which may or may not include a middle class carbon foot print. Degrowth really isn't an option. The only way to achieve it is through mass unemployment, and that will just result in riots and election losses. What degrowth advocates usually ask for is a ban on stuff like gas cars. But the past two years have shown that banning one type of economic activity just moves out else where.

Tarsul 5y ago

if we so care about having larger GDP numbers (as we do), we should simply try growing those parts of GDP that do not necessitate devastating CO2 (equivalent). Simple as that. (however, me personally, I don't think growth is really necessary anymore. The real problem since at least the 80s/90s has been inequality, so the thing people should really look at is redistribution of wealth/income etc.) We have everything we need, we just don't have the political and economic systems to put it in good use.

aero-glide2 5y ago
> I don't think growth is really necessary anymore Maybe true for developed nations, but not for the rest of the world. There is still much poverty which economic growth can solve.
- Tarsul 5y ago
  You're right. Developing nations need a different mindset than developed nations and have every right for it to be so.

marvin 5y ago

Ending economic growth is the last thing we need to do, and even if we did, we would fail. This should be obvious on a forum for entrepeneurs, who work to achieve only one thing - economic growth. What we need to do is to ruthlessly tax externalities that haven’t effectively been considered before, and use the proceeds to transition to an economy with net zero climate gas emissions. Then repay the damage with large-scale CO2 sequestering, multi-gigaton scale. If economic growth is considered everything we value getting cheaper and more abundant over time, anthropogenic climate gas emissions can be considered a horrendous debt that needs to be repaid. This is achievable! It’s expensive, but doesn’t require a 1950s lifestyle for everyone.

endymi0n 5y ago
This, a thousand percent. Most of the current and last generations leading the current discussion (aka the developed world) grew up in democratic, capitalistic societies. Captialism at its core is soulless and I hate it — BUT so far I've failed to see any alternatives I would trust to help on this matter. These days I just see romantic descriptions of communism and socialism (actual socialism, not the social democracy Americans often mistake for it) everywhere, from people who clearly haven't ever had to live in it. Just as a reminder, here in Germany we're _still_ cleaning up the economical and ecological disasters of the GDR to this day (Bitterfeld anyone?), and the USSR didn't exactly lead the green revolution either (Chernobyl, Mayak, ....) Whenever I see people advocating "Tackling climate change needs a system change", I'm like: Yeah... nope.
Analemma_ 5y ago
Carbon taxes are ludicrously unpopular with voters. Washington state, one of the most liberal in America, rejected one in a nearly 2-1 vote. When it was tried in France there were riots in the streets. Any commentary about “ruthlessly taxing externalities” which doesn’t take this into account is just fantasy.
- kapuasuite 5y ago
  A carbon tax could easily be coupled with a dividend...
  - timbit42 5y ago
    That's how Canada currently does it.
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  In Canada we have a federal election in a week. All four main stream parties have a carbon tax of one sort or another on their platform. So it's not ridiculously unpopular here.
  - 5y ago

bryanlarsen 5y ago

Sorry, we've got a flood of cheap renewable energy and a flood of stimulus money coming. Together they're going to cause massive growth. We've got three choices: 1. Harness that growth to decarbonize. 2. Let the rich accumulate it all. 3. Give it to the poor who will use it to enjoy a middle class life style. Which may or may not include a middle class carbon foot print. Degrowth really isn't an option. The only way to achieve it is through mass unemployment, and that will just result in riots and election losses. What degrowth advocates usually ask for is a ban on stuff like gas cars. But the past two years have shown that banning one type of economic activity just moves out else where.