3 ms·

The big problem with degrowth advocates don't say what the new world looks like in detail. They say we should go rid of problems, and we should, but those are t

The big problem with degrowth advocates don't say what the new world looks like in detail. They say we should go rid of problems, and we should, but those are the low-hanging fruit. They will help but won't be enough. How do you propose to use much less energy without starving everyone? Where does the energy come from if not fossil fuels without conscripting people to be peasants? Does it matter if mass death is caused famine or "degrowth"?

palata 3y ago
> How do you propose to use much less energy without starving everyone? That's the whole point: degrowth is about re-organizing society such that we don't starve. There are big efforts of planning for that in many places. Look at the "shift project" in France. It seems to me that the US are very, very, very far behind on that matter. The US seems to still be stuck on the Silicon Valley mindset ("they will save us with new technology"). But that's not representative of the rest of the world. > Where does the energy come from if not fossil fuels without conscripting people to be peasants? Does it matter if mass death is caused famine or "degrowth"? The idea of degrowth is that in order to avoid famines, we have to drastically reduce other stuff and reorganize society. Planes are not even a question there: planes will go away, because everyone agrees that we'd rather eat that fly. There are many decisions that are harder to make, though. Those who don't believe in degrowth and instead think that "there will be a miracle technology that will save us" are just naive. Degrowth advocates are the ones who are actually trying to play with the cards they were dealt.
- ianburrell 3y ago
  The first problem is no details like how much needs to be cut. You suggested it is impossible to build enough solar. Do we have to shrink to 10% (renewable electricity) or 20% (plus nuclear)? A good example or problem with degrowth is proclamation that things like planes won’t be possible. Aviation is 2% of emissions. There are lots of little things that they add up. Like concrete being 3%, but nobody says that have to give up concrete. The big ones are things like heating and cooling and transportation that are hard to give up. The other problem is that we mostly know how to solve aviation. Hydrogen or liquid fuels should work, both produced from green energy. New technology but no miracles. We know how to do green electricity. I agree with you that we need to change the world a lot. But it won’t work if impose suffering on people. Or do things that don’t work or don’t help.
  - palata 3y ago
    > A good example or problem with degrowth is proclamation that things like planes won’t be possible. Aviation is 2% of emissions. Aviation came with oil, it will disappear with oil. It's not a problem of emissions per se, it's a problem of energy. Fossil fuels are not unlimited and we don't know how to completely replace them. > The big ones are things like heating and cooling We need to work hard on building isolation, obviously. And people need to live in smaller habitations. > and transportation We need more trains > Hydrogen or liquid fuels should work, both produced from green energy. Same thing: if you look at the numbers, we won't have enough green energy to produce enough hydrogen for aviation, even if technically we can make planes fly with hydrogen. We will have to choose where we use our hydrogen: for planes, or for steel and agriculture? > But it won’t work if impose suffering on people. Yep, we need to teach people and hope they accept to do what's needed to survive. > Or do things that don’t work or don’t help. Totally agreed here. Hoping for anything short of degrowth doesn't help. We need everything PLUS degrowth. And still, it will be hard because climate is already pretty messed up (with inertia) and biodiversity is looking bad.
    - _hypx 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - palata 3y ago
        And thinking that we will have inexhaustible amounts of green energy is not hyper-optimistic and hyper-arrogant? We don't currently have inexhaustible amounts of green energy, and we don't have any viable solution right now. If you think that because we can make 1 solar panel, we will be able to replace fossil fuels, then you have obviously never done any kind of engineering in your life. Problems come with scale. It's not being hyper-pessimistic to know that.
        _hypx 3y ago
        It's immediately obvious from basic physics that the world is bathed in green energy. It's availability is thousands of times greater than fossil fuel energy: https://www.freeingenergy.com/the-earth-gets-more-solar-energy-in-one-hour-than-the-entire-world-uses-in-a-year/ https://www.freeingenergy.com/the-earth-gets-more-solar-ener... The problem with doomers and degrowthers is that they are pretty ignorant people. They just assume that there's no solution or that green energy is just too weak to solve problems. This is why they are arrogant and not just pessimistic. They believe they already know the answer despite never looking for possible answers in the first place.

palata 3y ago

> How do you propose to use much less energy without starving everyone? That's the whole point: degrowth is about re-organizing society such that we don't starve. There are big efforts of planning for that in many places. Look at the "shift project" in France. It seems to me that the US are very, very, very far behind on that matter. The US seems to still be stuck on the Silicon Valley mindset ("they will save us with new technology"). But that's not representative of the rest of the world. > Where does the energy come from if not fossil fuels without conscripting people to be peasants? Does it matter if mass death is caused famine or "degrowth"? The idea of degrowth is that in order to avoid famines, we have to drastically reduce other stuff and reorganize society. Planes are not even a question there: planes will go away, because everyone agrees that we'd rather eat that fly. There are many decisions that are harder to make, though. Those who don't believe in degrowth and instead think that "there will be a miracle technology that will save us" are just naive. Degrowth advocates are the ones who are actually trying to play with the cards they were dealt.

ianburrell 3y ago
The first problem is no details like how much needs to be cut. You suggested it is impossible to build enough solar. Do we have to shrink to 10% (renewable electricity) or 20% (plus nuclear)? A good example or problem with degrowth is proclamation that things like planes won’t be possible. Aviation is 2% of emissions. There are lots of little things that they add up. Like concrete being 3%, but nobody says that have to give up concrete. The big ones are things like heating and cooling and transportation that are hard to give up. The other problem is that we mostly know how to solve aviation. Hydrogen or liquid fuels should work, both produced from green energy. New technology but no miracles. We know how to do green electricity. I agree with you that we need to change the world a lot. But it won’t work if impose suffering on people. Or do things that don’t work or don’t help.
- palata 3y ago
  > A good example or problem with degrowth is proclamation that things like planes won’t be possible. Aviation is 2% of emissions. Aviation came with oil, it will disappear with oil. It's not a problem of emissions per se, it's a problem of energy. Fossil fuels are not unlimited and we don't know how to completely replace them. > The big ones are things like heating and cooling We need to work hard on building isolation, obviously. And people need to live in smaller habitations. > and transportation We need more trains > Hydrogen or liquid fuels should work, both produced from green energy. Same thing: if you look at the numbers, we won't have enough green energy to produce enough hydrogen for aviation, even if technically we can make planes fly with hydrogen. We will have to choose where we use our hydrogen: for planes, or for steel and agriculture? > But it won’t work if impose suffering on people. Yep, we need to teach people and hope they accept to do what's needed to survive. > Or do things that don’t work or don’t help. Totally agreed here. Hoping for anything short of degrowth doesn't help. We need everything PLUS degrowth. And still, it will be hard because climate is already pretty messed up (with inertia) and biodiversity is looking bad.
  - _hypx 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - palata 3y ago
      And thinking that we will have inexhaustible amounts of green energy is not hyper-optimistic and hyper-arrogant? We don't currently have inexhaustible amounts of green energy, and we don't have any viable solution right now. If you think that because we can make 1 solar panel, we will be able to replace fossil fuels, then you have obviously never done any kind of engineering in your life. Problems come with scale. It's not being hyper-pessimistic to know that.
      - _hypx 3y ago
        It's immediately obvious from basic physics that the world is bathed in green energy. It's availability is thousands of times greater than fossil fuel energy: https://www.freeingenergy.com/the-earth-gets-more-solar-energy-in-one-hour-than-the-entire-world-uses-in-a-year/ https://www.freeingenergy.com/the-earth-gets-more-solar-ener... The problem with doomers and degrowthers is that they are pretty ignorant people. They just assume that there's no solution or that green energy is just too weak to solve problems. This is why they are arrogant and not just pessimistic. They believe they already know the answer despite never looking for possible answers in the first place.