4 ms·

New technologies have not helped yet. Just covered part of increased demand. So it doesn't seem like technology is going to save us. It is all just distraction

by timeon 3y ago

New technologies have not helped yet. Just covered part of increased demand. So it doesn't seem like technology is going to save us. It is all just distraction. Only way is one that will never happen: de-growth.

gorjusborg 3y ago
I agree, except I am pretty sure de-growth will happen, it just will not be under voluntary or controlled conditions.
- vixen99 3y ago
  It's happening bit by bit: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/02/09/green-energies-shattering-german-economyindustrial-production-falls-7th-consecutive-month/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/02/09/green-energies-shatte...
- jowea 3y ago
  Degrowth does seem like a tough sell to general populations, when you say not voluntary or controlled you mean like economic collapse and/or ecoauthoritarianism or something else?
  - gorjusborg 3y ago
    (6 days later...) I meant that the natural outcome will happen, and likely that will negatively affect the planet's carrying capacity, which will have a negative affect on population and economics. Like you, I do not see how the collection of world governments will align on all scaling back their economies together.
wongarsu 3y ago
Per-capita emissions of most developed nations like the US and Germany peaked in the 1970s and 80s. Some of the "improvement" has been the outsourcing of polluting industries, but we are also more efficient today than we were back then. Agriculture evolved a lot, buildings became a lot more energy efficient, waste management improved, etc. Of course for decades this has been offset by population growth even in those nations. And that's not accounting for the parts of the world where populations exploded due to better agriculture, medicine and trade. If we had time to let it play out for another 200 years without climate issues we might be fine. Sadly we don't.
changoplatanero 3y ago
Is degrowth even enough to save the planet from warming? Imagine 95% of people on earth magically disappeared. Have we already emitted enough co2 that the atmosphere will continue to warm for a long time even without those people’s new emissions?
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  CO2's half life is 120 years. So, yes, a long time, in human lifetimes. But not all that long in civilization timelines.
maccard 3y ago
> New technologies have not helped yet. Just covered part of increased demand. So it doesn't seem like technology is going to save us. Those two statements are in direct conflict. Look at these two graphs, one for UK CO2 emissions [0] and the other for England's population [1] (Sorry I couldn't get a UK population graph, but to the best of my understanding they're proportional). Population is up 20%, CO2 emissions are down 50%. If that's not technology helping, I don't know what it is. > It is all just distraction. Only way is one that will never happen: de-growth. Disagree. We have plenty of resources, we're just incredibly, incredibly wasteful with them. Here in the UK, there is a group trying to advocate for insulating houses who are being met with "it's too hard, it's too expensive, insulation doesn't work, causes damp, heat pumps don't work in -24c, it's a ploy from the government to limit our resource usage", but the reality of the situation is that slapping up insulated plasterboard on the inside of half of the UK's homes and putting a trickle vent on the window would save an enormous amout of CO2 and make people more comfortable. There are loans and grants available for those who can't quite afford it, and for those who absolutely can't afford it it's often done for free (yes there's a gap in the middle, but honestly we can deal with them when we've dealt with the other two categories), and yet still people won't do it. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/449503/co2-emissions-united-kingdom-uk/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/449503/co2-emissions-uni... [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/975956/population-of-england/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/975956/population-of-eng...
- lm28469 3y ago
  > If that's not technology helping, I don't know what it is. That's called deindustrialisation and delocalisation
- chefkoch 3y ago
  How much of that reduction is because we outsourced our production to different places on earth?
- sokoloff 3y ago
  > reality of the situation is that slapping up insulated plasterboard on the inside of half of the UK's homes and putting a trickle vent on the window would save an enormous amout of CO2 and make people more comfortable And meanwhile require a complete redoing of all interior finishes, including the finish carpentry, in the home. IMO, that's the real barrier (no pun intended) here. Near Boston, I live in a 1920s structural brick house (I think what the UK would call cavity wall construction). The house was built without any explicit "this material is insulation" and has been retrofitted with attic fiberglass, attic floor cellulose, and I spray foamed one room we renovated. Some of my rooms are painted, which would be manageable cost-wise, but still would have a 20+ year payback period if money had no cost to borrow. Other rooms have intricate wallpaper or decorative wood paneling which would be much more expensive to recreate (pushing the payback period much farther out). With interest rates above 5%, a 20-year-at-0-interest project literally never pays to do. Even grant programs will often cover the direct insulation work but don't (and frankly, probably shouldn't) pay for intricate finish carpentry work or wallcoverings.

by timeon 3y ago

gorjusborg 3y ago

I agree, except I am pretty sure de-growth will happen, it just will not be under voluntary or controlled conditions.

vixen99 3y ago
It's happening bit by bit: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/02/09/green-energies-shattering-german-economyindustrial-production-falls-7th-consecutive-month/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/02/09/green-energies-shatte...
jowea 3y ago
Degrowth does seem like a tough sell to general populations, when you say not voluntary or controlled you mean like economic collapse and/or ecoauthoritarianism or something else?
- gorjusborg 3y ago
  (6 days later...) I meant that the natural outcome will happen, and likely that will negatively affect the planet's carrying capacity, which will have a negative affect on population and economics. Like you, I do not see how the collection of world governments will align on all scaling back their economies together.

wongarsu 3y ago

Per-capita emissions of most developed nations like the US and Germany peaked in the 1970s and 80s. Some of the "improvement" has been the outsourcing of polluting industries, but we are also more efficient today than we were back then. Agriculture evolved a lot, buildings became a lot more energy efficient, waste management improved, etc. Of course for decades this has been offset by population growth even in those nations. And that's not accounting for the parts of the world where populations exploded due to better agriculture, medicine and trade. If we had time to let it play out for another 200 years without climate issues we might be fine. Sadly we don't.

changoplatanero 3y ago

Is degrowth even enough to save the planet from warming? Imagine 95% of people on earth magically disappeared. Have we already emitted enough co2 that the atmosphere will continue to warm for a long time even without those people’s new emissions?

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
CO2's half life is 120 years. So, yes, a long time, in human lifetimes. But not all that long in civilization timelines.

maccard 3y ago

> New technologies have not helped yet. Just covered part of increased demand. So it doesn't seem like technology is going to save us. Those two statements are in direct conflict. Look at these two graphs, one for UK CO2 emissions [0] and the other for England's population [1] (Sorry I couldn't get a UK population graph, but to the best of my understanding they're proportional). Population is up 20%, CO2 emissions are down 50%. If that's not technology helping, I don't know what it is. > It is all just distraction. Only way is one that will never happen: de-growth. Disagree. We have plenty of resources, we're just incredibly, incredibly wasteful with them. Here in the UK, there is a group trying to advocate for insulating houses who are being met with "it's too hard, it's too expensive, insulation doesn't work, causes damp, heat pumps don't work in -24c, it's a ploy from the government to limit our resource usage", but the reality of the situation is that slapping up insulated plasterboard on the inside of half of the UK's homes and putting a trickle vent on the window would save an enormous amout of CO2 and make people more comfortable. There are loans and grants available for those who can't quite afford it, and for those who absolutely can't afford it it's often done for free (yes there's a gap in the middle, but honestly we can deal with them when we've dealt with the other two categories), and yet still people won't do it. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/449503/co2-emissions-united-kingdom-uk/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/449503/co2-emissions-uni... [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/975956/population-of-england/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/975956/population-of-eng...

lm28469 3y ago
> If that's not technology helping, I don't know what it is. That's called deindustrialisation and delocalisation
chefkoch 3y ago
How much of that reduction is because we outsourced our production to different places on earth?
sokoloff 3y ago
> reality of the situation is that slapping up insulated plasterboard on the inside of half of the UK's homes and putting a trickle vent on the window would save an enormous amout of CO2 and make people more comfortable And meanwhile require a complete redoing of all interior finishes, including the finish carpentry, in the home. IMO, that's the real barrier (no pun intended) here. Near Boston, I live in a 1920s structural brick house (I think what the UK would call cavity wall construction). The house was built without any explicit "this material is insulation" and has been retrofitted with attic fiberglass, attic floor cellulose, and I spray foamed one room we renovated. Some of my rooms are painted, which would be manageable cost-wise, but still would have a 20+ year payback period if money had no cost to borrow. Other rooms have intricate wallpaper or decorative wood paneling which would be much more expensive to recreate (pushing the payback period much farther out). With interest rates above 5%, a 20-year-at-0-interest project literally never pays to do. Even grant programs will often cover the direct insulation work but don't (and frankly, probably shouldn't) pay for intricate finish carpentry work or wallcoverings.