I think you’re giving degrowth too much credit. It’s a pretty fringe idea. UK FIRES appears to be a group of academics. Their proposals (if they are actually proposals and not just an academic exercise) are not UK government policy and not likely to become government policy after next month’s election. We do have a commitment to reach net zero by 2050, but net zero is not the same as absolute zero, and commitments are not set in stone. Whether or not we reach net zero by 2050 will be down to the policies of the governments we elect. Any party promising a recession is not likely to be elected.
Speaking to parliamentarians is a long way from degrowth being adopted as government policy. To be adopted as government policy, people would need to vote into office parties that support it.
Interesting take @legjoints. You know what else got too much credit? The herculean effort that governments undertook -- using metrics, models, and guidance from ivory tower academics -- to jab most every citizen in the UK, Canada, US, Australia and New Zealand with the promise of saving lives from a disease that was, to put it mildly, a dud. I believe it was academics like Neil Ferguson, who was schtupping his lover under lockdown, while many others *actually* locked down, and couldn't say goodbye to dying family members. But hey, he's an OBE for his all his tremendous efforts, so there's that... academics and governments aren't linked at all. /s
UK FIRES is about net zero by 2050 -- until it's not because of updates to the "emergency" we are facing. And then it'll be some other excellent academic paper that proposes even more draconian measures that displaces UK FIRES, in the hopes of saving Gaia, sourced from the cloisters of the elite universities, or from the boffins at the UN and their myriad agencies filled with academics and experts. This is called incrementalism; proposals even more radical than UK FIRES makes UK FIRES look measured and reasonable.
Those of us with eyes open will not fall prey a second time. The governments of the West are on notice and it behooves us all to be mindful that government -- and by extension academia -- is not your friend. The forces at play run deep, so regardless of party, party leader or the hot air emanating from the mouths of politicians of any stripe, remain vigilant and be prepared to push back, not concede.
Can I suggest you definitely, without hesitation or reservation, make your way to the front of the line for the next MRNA jab for whatever disease is coming down the pike and for which the fear has been amped up? With your help, we might get to net zero faster.
This is just a slightly more sophisticated redux of what Paul Erlich put out in his discredited 1968 book "The Population Bomb." There was supposed to be hundreds of millions of people dead of starvation by 1975. Erlich's call for dramatic reductions in birth rates have actually come true now, with many countries, including the U.S. now at below replacement rates. I find it amusing that the Japanese philosopher Saito is a true believer in this degrowth ideology when his country is imploding because of the dearth in births connected to the lack of marriages and the explosion of elderly who have no financial or human(children/grandchildren) resources to take care of them. I wonder if they are now resorting to the Canadian/California system of euthanizing them all. Mr. Saito should actually be ashamed of himself!
Valid points for SOME of the items on the list, and yet other items fit well into a picture of democracy, freedom, and human well being. I think this article throws the baby out with the bath water a bit.
You and I agree on some things in the spirit of a meta-crisis with collapse issues! I'm a fiscally conservative, family-focused, and pretty traditional American husband and father. But I think it's important to understand different groups can have overlap of good efforts and initiatives. I'm very anti-big govt, pro small business, pro freedom, and pro local small farms & food.
"A four-day workweek." - This won't ruin the world - might really help, studies show many workers only get 4-5 REAL hours of work done daily. So much waste today to appease an outdated 9-5 factory model.
"Half of the cars on the road than those we have today – replaced by public transport and autonomous vehicle sharing." - Too much Car-centric living in USA is why many Americans visit Europe. Insurance, wrecks, deaths, etc are a huge cost. We do need cars, but better urban planning and alternatives is great.
"Most major cities have been remade to be more walkable, bikeable, and friendly to public transport, with an obnoxious number of parks and greenspaces available to the public." - This is awesome. Whoever said parks are obnoxious? This comment makes the article sound anti-human XD
"Universal basic income." - I agree with you. This is a bad idea. Humans need work, useful work.
"Public job guarantees." - I also agree with you. This is too big from a govt perspective.
"Universal public services." - I also agree with you here. This is too big from a govt perspective.
"Products that last 3 times as long as they do now due to laws against planned obsolescence." - This would be a big win. Planned obsolescence is terrible for consumers and our natural world. Companies are cranking out garbage today.
"One-third of the world is rewilded due to much less meat consumption." - Too drastic. We DO need to restore more wild areas, but not at the expense of living humans.
"The meat that is consumed is largely lab grown." - Agree 100%. I will never eat lab grown meat.
"Wild animals repopulate our rewilded spaces, with cattle, pigs and sheep only 10% of their current numbers." -- CAFOS are not great. We do need more local food prodcution and regenerative ag -- see Joel Salatin. We do need less crappy cheap meat for many people, and some people with no local meat need access. It's complicated. We need to align meat production with older more traditional methods.
"High speed rail replaces short haul flights." We do need more trains, but we can still have planes? Seems drastic.
"Power generation is 90 percent “green.” - Not realistic. Solar and wind are great, but won't power today's economy. Only works if we live more simply. Simple is not always bad. It's complex.
"No power source dominates with solar, wind, hydrogen, geothermal, hydro, and other novel technologies all playing a role." - A good mix is not bad.
"Population growth peaked in the early 2040s – with many job guarantees focused on elder care as the world transitions from a gray one to a population that will dip under 7 billion by 2100." - Population growth is peaking now by many accounts. This is just cause and effect. Western countries and industrialized living ensures many people stop having many kids. Our city-based, car-based, materialistic, expensive lifestyle is killing our repopulation rate in rich countries. Agrarian counties still have kids. We need a balance to maintain 2.1 kid growth rate.
"GDP is no longer the official scorecard of nations, instead human well-being metrics dominate." - GDP is a terrible metric for human thriving. This just makes sense. GDP alone is a metric for the wealthy elite.
A more balanced view would be refreshing. Some of these things would be good, some would be bad. I think some of these efforts are dangerous, and others could be a good change. Humans are a mixed bunch.
I mostly agree, good points, but I would also say that trying to implement such a "net-zero" agenda by forceful, punitive or coercive means may not be the best way. Net-Zero? That gets my back up and reminds me of the net-zero covid policy. An absolutist term with fearful connotations based on sketchy science. If I have to pay my carbon taxes, give up the fossil fuel, stop flying, eat bugs etc., well, how's that going to work for giant corporations, that actually do most of the pollution and disruption of the ecosystem? Somehow big money gets a pass on this whole green agenda, buying carbon credits, to offset pollution and accountability. Oh, and population does seem to be decreasing for various reasons by default, or design perhaps, in western nations with a massive influx of immigration looking for the easy life. It puts a strain on the economy, raising taxes and government welfare and the quality of life is eroded for all but the wealthy.
We're 100% on the same page regarding "punitive or coercive means". We should be FREE to find solutions that work for the long term. That's true sustainability. Humans are always adapting and growing. Top-down control doesn't let that happen properly.
What’s the sketchy science? We need to stop increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 so we need to reach net zero emissions at some point in the coming decades, don’t we? As for the corporations, they should not be getting a pass on their emissions and if they are that’s a flaw in the carbon pricing system that needs to be fixed. It sounds like you’re talking about an emissions trading scheme whereas I think a straight forward carbon tax is simpler and fairer if it covers a wide range of emissions and, fairer still, if it’s revenue neutral.
Please write this message in Chinese and post it on Weibo and other Chinese social media, please. The West has plenty of technology to scrub clean carbon emissions from coal plants and other industrial processes and has been using it. Not to mention strict environmental regulations. The West is not the problem.
If, as it is so commonly touted, China is the workshop of the world, you should take the fight there.
Every single one of the world’s scientific academies agrees and we’ve known for a couple of centuries that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. How could increasing its concentration in our atmosphere by 50% not cause warming? That’s what greenhouse gases do. It’s to mumbo jumbo merchants like SOTT and that dodgy Clintel group that you should direct your skepticism.
"Every single one of the world’s scientific academies agrees"
Who pays them?
"Every single one of the world’s scientific academies agrees"
This is not true. The ones that disagree do not get a voice and they certainly do not get paid by the above.
"we’ve known for a couple of centuries that CO2 is a greenhouse gas"
There is much evidence that global temperatures and C02 throughout earths history do not always correlate very well
"That’s what greenhouse gases do"
Do they? What else do they do? Increase plant growth (which sequesters carbon and absorb energy from the sun? Increase moisture (hence more cloud cover to block the sun) The truth is we do not exactly know do we. The planet and the climate is very complex. Consider that the best minds in the field can not predict the weather with much certainty for the weekend, trusting their models for long term predictions is asinine.
If you are not a little skeptical then you have not thought about the data, evidence and rhetoric on the subject deeply enough. The threat of C02 is a tyrants wet dream. Using this threat of the unseen boogey man as a means to control business, individuals is a far greater threat than a few degrees of warming.
And even if you believe it is a threat, don't worry. In a generation or two there is going to me a massive world wide demographic collapse world wide that this threat will be self correcting.
Totally agree @kemble that some of these outcomes are less horrific than others. I suppose it’s the means that are more of a concern than the ends. And the fact that this degrowth agenda is just a Trojan horse for terrible ideologies.
I agree with your perception here 100%. The "means" and deceit that are used in the name of "Climate" or "Green living" or "Degrowth" are very scary. We humans should be FREE to choose to build walkable cities, small homes, and grow food locally. Nobody should dictate terms. Ironically, we're often NOT FREE in American to make small homes to live debt free, grow local food, or build walkable cities.
I think you’re giving degrowth too much credit. It’s a pretty fringe idea. UK FIRES appears to be a group of academics. Their proposals (if they are actually proposals and not just an academic exercise) are not UK government policy and not likely to become government policy after next month’s election. We do have a commitment to reach net zero by 2050, but net zero is not the same as absolute zero, and commitments are not set in stone. Whether or not we reach net zero by 2050 will be down to the policies of the governments we elect. Any party promising a recession is not likely to be elected.
The thing is, it's not a fringe idea and as we said in the article, it's quickly gaining steam in the mainstream. And the academics that support it, like Jason Hickel, are being invited to speak in front of government legislatures: https://www.commonsnetwork.org/2023/03/14/postgrowth-intergroup-receives-prof-jason-hickel-in-dutch-parliament
Speaking to parliamentarians is a long way from degrowth being adopted as government policy. To be adopted as government policy, people would need to vote into office parties that support it.
Interesting take @legjoints. You know what else got too much credit? The herculean effort that governments undertook -- using metrics, models, and guidance from ivory tower academics -- to jab most every citizen in the UK, Canada, US, Australia and New Zealand with the promise of saving lives from a disease that was, to put it mildly, a dud. I believe it was academics like Neil Ferguson, who was schtupping his lover under lockdown, while many others *actually* locked down, and couldn't say goodbye to dying family members. But hey, he's an OBE for his all his tremendous efforts, so there's that... academics and governments aren't linked at all. /s
UK FIRES is about net zero by 2050 -- until it's not because of updates to the "emergency" we are facing. And then it'll be some other excellent academic paper that proposes even more draconian measures that displaces UK FIRES, in the hopes of saving Gaia, sourced from the cloisters of the elite universities, or from the boffins at the UN and their myriad agencies filled with academics and experts. This is called incrementalism; proposals even more radical than UK FIRES makes UK FIRES look measured and reasonable.
Those of us with eyes open will not fall prey a second time. The governments of the West are on notice and it behooves us all to be mindful that government -- and by extension academia -- is not your friend. The forces at play run deep, so regardless of party, party leader or the hot air emanating from the mouths of politicians of any stripe, remain vigilant and be prepared to push back, not concede.
Covid killed millions. Vaccination hugely reduced death rates. https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination
AH! I get where you're coming from @legjoints.
Can I suggest you definitely, without hesitation or reservation, make your way to the front of the line for the next MRNA jab for whatever disease is coming down the pike and for which the fear has been amped up? With your help, we might get to net zero faster.
Thank you.
“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
Prince Phillip
This is just a slightly more sophisticated redux of what Paul Erlich put out in his discredited 1968 book "The Population Bomb." There was supposed to be hundreds of millions of people dead of starvation by 1975. Erlich's call for dramatic reductions in birth rates have actually come true now, with many countries, including the U.S. now at below replacement rates. I find it amusing that the Japanese philosopher Saito is a true believer in this degrowth ideology when his country is imploding because of the dearth in births connected to the lack of marriages and the explosion of elderly who have no financial or human(children/grandchildren) resources to take care of them. I wonder if they are now resorting to the Canadian/California system of euthanizing them all. Mr. Saito should actually be ashamed of himself!
Valid points for SOME of the items on the list, and yet other items fit well into a picture of democracy, freedom, and human well being. I think this article throws the baby out with the bath water a bit.
You and I agree on some things in the spirit of a meta-crisis with collapse issues! I'm a fiscally conservative, family-focused, and pretty traditional American husband and father. But I think it's important to understand different groups can have overlap of good efforts and initiatives. I'm very anti-big govt, pro small business, pro freedom, and pro local small farms & food.
"A four-day workweek." - This won't ruin the world - might really help, studies show many workers only get 4-5 REAL hours of work done daily. So much waste today to appease an outdated 9-5 factory model.
"Half of the cars on the road than those we have today – replaced by public transport and autonomous vehicle sharing." - Too much Car-centric living in USA is why many Americans visit Europe. Insurance, wrecks, deaths, etc are a huge cost. We do need cars, but better urban planning and alternatives is great.
"Most major cities have been remade to be more walkable, bikeable, and friendly to public transport, with an obnoxious number of parks and greenspaces available to the public." - This is awesome. Whoever said parks are obnoxious? This comment makes the article sound anti-human XD
"Universal basic income." - I agree with you. This is a bad idea. Humans need work, useful work.
"Public job guarantees." - I also agree with you. This is too big from a govt perspective.
"Universal public services." - I also agree with you here. This is too big from a govt perspective.
"Products that last 3 times as long as they do now due to laws against planned obsolescence." - This would be a big win. Planned obsolescence is terrible for consumers and our natural world. Companies are cranking out garbage today.
"One-third of the world is rewilded due to much less meat consumption." - Too drastic. We DO need to restore more wild areas, but not at the expense of living humans.
"The meat that is consumed is largely lab grown." - Agree 100%. I will never eat lab grown meat.
"Wild animals repopulate our rewilded spaces, with cattle, pigs and sheep only 10% of their current numbers." -- CAFOS are not great. We do need more local food prodcution and regenerative ag -- see Joel Salatin. We do need less crappy cheap meat for many people, and some people with no local meat need access. It's complicated. We need to align meat production with older more traditional methods.
"High speed rail replaces short haul flights." We do need more trains, but we can still have planes? Seems drastic.
"Power generation is 90 percent “green.” - Not realistic. Solar and wind are great, but won't power today's economy. Only works if we live more simply. Simple is not always bad. It's complex.
"No power source dominates with solar, wind, hydrogen, geothermal, hydro, and other novel technologies all playing a role." - A good mix is not bad.
"Population growth peaked in the early 2040s – with many job guarantees focused on elder care as the world transitions from a gray one to a population that will dip under 7 billion by 2100." - Population growth is peaking now by many accounts. This is just cause and effect. Western countries and industrialized living ensures many people stop having many kids. Our city-based, car-based, materialistic, expensive lifestyle is killing our repopulation rate in rich countries. Agrarian counties still have kids. We need a balance to maintain 2.1 kid growth rate.
"GDP is no longer the official scorecard of nations, instead human well-being metrics dominate." - GDP is a terrible metric for human thriving. This just makes sense. GDP alone is a metric for the wealthy elite.
A more balanced view would be refreshing. Some of these things would be good, some would be bad. I think some of these efforts are dangerous, and others could be a good change. Humans are a mixed bunch.
I mostly agree, good points, but I would also say that trying to implement such a "net-zero" agenda by forceful, punitive or coercive means may not be the best way. Net-Zero? That gets my back up and reminds me of the net-zero covid policy. An absolutist term with fearful connotations based on sketchy science. If I have to pay my carbon taxes, give up the fossil fuel, stop flying, eat bugs etc., well, how's that going to work for giant corporations, that actually do most of the pollution and disruption of the ecosystem? Somehow big money gets a pass on this whole green agenda, buying carbon credits, to offset pollution and accountability. Oh, and population does seem to be decreasing for various reasons by default, or design perhaps, in western nations with a massive influx of immigration looking for the easy life. It puts a strain on the economy, raising taxes and government welfare and the quality of life is eroded for all but the wealthy.
We're 100% on the same page regarding "punitive or coercive means". We should be FREE to find solutions that work for the long term. That's true sustainability. Humans are always adapting and growing. Top-down control doesn't let that happen properly.
What’s the sketchy science? We need to stop increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 so we need to reach net zero emissions at some point in the coming decades, don’t we? As for the corporations, they should not be getting a pass on their emissions and if they are that’s a flaw in the carbon pricing system that needs to be fixed. It sounds like you’re talking about an emissions trading scheme whereas I think a straight forward carbon tax is simpler and fairer if it covers a wide range of emissions and, fairer still, if it’s revenue neutral.
Please write this message in Chinese and post it on Weibo and other Chinese social media, please. The West has plenty of technology to scrub clean carbon emissions from coal plants and other industrial processes and has been using it. Not to mention strict environmental regulations. The West is not the problem.
If, as it is so commonly touted, China is the workshop of the world, you should take the fight there.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. When I say “we” I’m referring to all of us, not just the West.
Regarding carbon capture, it’s not very efficient but it is very expensive. Nuclear technology looks far more promising at the moment. https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-starts-up-worlds-first-fourth-generation-nuclear-reactor-2023-12-06/
1500 scientists disagree, and I'm skeptical of mainstream news, about the perils of CO2.
https://www.sott.net/article/482226-The-climate-CO2-hoax-mega-banks-corporations-and-the-control-matrix
Every single one of the world’s scientific academies agrees and we’ve known for a couple of centuries that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. How could increasing its concentration in our atmosphere by 50% not cause warming? That’s what greenhouse gases do. It’s to mumbo jumbo merchants like SOTT and that dodgy Clintel group that you should direct your skepticism.
"Every single one of the world’s scientific academies agrees"
Who pays them?
"Every single one of the world’s scientific academies agrees"
This is not true. The ones that disagree do not get a voice and they certainly do not get paid by the above.
"we’ve known for a couple of centuries that CO2 is a greenhouse gas"
There is much evidence that global temperatures and C02 throughout earths history do not always correlate very well
"That’s what greenhouse gases do"
Do they? What else do they do? Increase plant growth (which sequesters carbon and absorb energy from the sun? Increase moisture (hence more cloud cover to block the sun) The truth is we do not exactly know do we. The planet and the climate is very complex. Consider that the best minds in the field can not predict the weather with much certainty for the weekend, trusting their models for long term predictions is asinine.
If you are not a little skeptical then you have not thought about the data, evidence and rhetoric on the subject deeply enough. The threat of C02 is a tyrants wet dream. Using this threat of the unseen boogey man as a means to control business, individuals is a far greater threat than a few degrees of warming.
And even if you believe it is a threat, don't worry. In a generation or two there is going to me a massive world wide demographic collapse world wide that this threat will be self correcting.
Totally agree @kemble that some of these outcomes are less horrific than others. I suppose it’s the means that are more of a concern than the ends. And the fact that this degrowth agenda is just a Trojan horse for terrible ideologies.
I agree with your perception here 100%. The "means" and deceit that are used in the name of "Climate" or "Green living" or "Degrowth" are very scary. We humans should be FREE to choose to build walkable cities, small homes, and grow food locally. Nobody should dictate terms. Ironically, we're often NOT FREE in American to make small homes to live debt free, grow local food, or build walkable cities.
Keep your good work going!