3 ms·

I am torn between degrwoth and rejecting it. I am absolutely with you on the techno optimism. I have no doubt that we could exceed our current standard of livin

I am torn between degrwoth and rejecting it. I am absolutely with you on the techno optimism. I have no doubt that we could exceed our current standard of living while cutting down dramatically on carbon emissions. I have two worries thought that keep pushing me towards degrowth: Timeline and incentives. It might already be too late to stop catastrophic climate change, so we need to cut down dramatically right now. Not in 5 years or later. Without things like high carbon tax and credits in place we just don't have the incentive structure to get enough innovation and wide adoption to make a difference with technology in a meaningful timeframe. Instead we still have countries subsidies or give tax cut to fossil fuel companies. It's bonkers. We could solve this with technology in the needed timeframe, but I don't see the political will and ability to create the right incentives and get this done globally in the needed timeframe.

giantg2 5y ago
Do we have the production capacity and technology to eliminate carbon emissions in 5 years? Or will it require lifestyle adjustments? My understanding is that the manufacturing/production sector probably could not handle such a large change so quickly. For example, sourcing materials for vehicle batteries and infrastructure updates to support charging. We could probably cut back dramatically, maybe even to zero, in 5 years. But it would require more than just the technology today. It would require massive political and lifestyle changes.
fighterpilot 5y ago
If it's this hard to get political consensus on carbon neutrality, degrowth will be quite the tall order. The reactive pushback against it could do more harm than good. If the political left starts going against the "jobs" narrative and actively pushes against economic growth, there's just no practical way to win an election like that. Instead of degrowth, what about just taxing high-income conspicuous consumption, for example a tax on luxury cars, boats.
zip1234 5y ago
Any solution requires political will. The simplest, easiest, highest likelihood of success solution is a pollution (carbon) tax. If it started small and ramped up a little each year, people may not even notice too much.

giantg2 5y ago

Do we have the production capacity and technology to eliminate carbon emissions in 5 years? Or will it require lifestyle adjustments? My understanding is that the manufacturing/production sector probably could not handle such a large change so quickly. For example, sourcing materials for vehicle batteries and infrastructure updates to support charging. We could probably cut back dramatically, maybe even to zero, in 5 years. But it would require more than just the technology today. It would require massive political and lifestyle changes.

fighterpilot 5y ago

If it's this hard to get political consensus on carbon neutrality, degrowth will be quite the tall order. The reactive pushback against it could do more harm than good. If the political left starts going against the "jobs" narrative and actively pushes against economic growth, there's just no practical way to win an election like that. Instead of degrowth, what about just taxing high-income conspicuous consumption, for example a tax on luxury cars, boats.

zip1234 5y ago

Any solution requires political will. The simplest, easiest, highest likelihood of success solution is a pollution (carbon) tax. If it started small and ramped up a little each year, people may not even notice too much.