• Svante@mastodon.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    @matthewtoad43 @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis

    Sorry, but the term »degrowth« is a red flag for me.

    Sure, we are getting more efficient over time. That’s why even Germany’s emissions fell over the last two decades.

    But cutting power that is actually needed means poverty, and that will immediately end support for long-term thinking as well as severely limit our technical options.

    There are too many people for romantic visions of rural self-sufficiency.

    • MatthewToad43@climatejustice.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      @Ardubal @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis There are aspects of it that I disagree with.

      More to the point there are implications that I disagree with. Clearly there is a need for growth in large parts of the world, and even amongst the poor in my own country.

      On the other hand, there are many areas where demand reduction makes sense to speed up the transition. It is going to be many years before we have clean aviation, for instance. And a world with say 70% fewer cars in would be highly desirable for many good reasons.

      Both the transition and the climate crisis will cause much suffering, requiring redistribution. Much of the work that needs to be done on efficiency can only be practically funded by the state.

      And so you get degrowth: a reframing of politics and economics around a fair transition to sustainability.

      Though perhaps the term isn’t the ideal messaging.

      I posted a relatively popular rant about how primitivism and degrowth are two very different things a while back. Can’t find it right now.

      Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I hope that you’re right on a few things. 😀