Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 271 posts

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#21

Post by zztop44 »

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #18

Unfortunately, a lot of climate activists’ primary goal is not stopping climate change but rather advocating for degrowth. They are thus vehemently opposed to any solutions that don’t involve massive reductions in consumption. This is not only politically untenable (it is impossible to convince societies to take massive quality-of-life reductions) but also alienates the majority of people from the cause, who might ot…

I’ve got a horrid feeling you’re waiting for this precise question, but any source on degrowth being the aim of a “lot” of climate activists to the extent that it’s vaguely mainstream (as opposed to just being a minor current, which I’m aware exists)

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#22

Post by SQueeeeeL »

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #18

Unfortunately, a lot of climate activists’ primary goal is not stopping climate change but rather advocating for degrowth. They are thus vehemently opposed to any solutions that don’t involve massive reductions in consumption. This is not only politically untenable (it is impossible to convince societies to take massive quality-of-life reductions) but also alienates the majority of people from the cause, who might ot…

If we were serfs owned by a Baron, we would imagine it was politically untenable that the Baron would ever give us freedom, and yet the liberation of the serfs happened.

Never let a narrow view of "human nature" cause you to forget the number of times people have transcended negative situations and created better ones

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#23

Post by leethargo »

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #18

Unfortunately, a lot of climate activists’ primary goal is not stopping climate change but rather advocating for degrowth. They are thus vehemently opposed to any solutions that don’t involve massive reductions in consumption. This is not only politically untenable (it is impossible to convince societies to take massive quality-of-life reductions) but also alienates the majority of people from the cause, who might ot…

So, you're saying, hopefully we will soon have "abundant supplies of cheap GHG emission-free energy" and no other resource scarcity to support that infrastructure?

I count myself as sympathetic (but also skeptical) towards the degrowth movement. I don't interpret it as saying that we should (only) reduce consumption and ignore progress in the form of efficiency/decoupling. Rather, the message seems that doing both, simultaneously, is easier/faster/cheaper overall.

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#24

Post by practice9 »

zztop44 wrote: post #21
MontyCarloHall wrote: post #18

Unfortunately, a lot of climate activists’ primary goal is not stopping climate change but rather advocating for degrowth. They are thus vehemently opposed to any solutions that don’t involve massive reductions in consumption. This is not only politically untenable (it is impossible to convince societies to take massive quality-of-life reductions) but also alienates the majority of people from the cause, who might ot…

I’ve got a horrid feeling you’re waiting for this precise question, but any source on degrowth being the aim of a “lot” of climate activists to the extent that it’s vaguely mainstream (as opposed to just being a minor current, which I’m aware exists)

It doesn’t help that most visible activists don’t have clear and measurable goals

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#25

Post by pfdietz »

nopenopenopeno wrote: post #9
mpweiher wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From TFA: "Strikingly, consumption emissions, which include a measure of the carbon embedded in imports, have fallen by 15% over the same period."

In other words, China increased its nuclear power production

China has been increasing its wind+solar generation even more (in absolute terms):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China#/m...

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#26

Post by leethargo »

zztop44 wrote: post #21
MontyCarloHall wrote: post #18

Unfortunately, a lot of climate activists’ primary goal is not stopping climate change but rather advocating for degrowth. They are thus vehemently opposed to any solutions that don’t involve massive reductions in consumption. This is not only politically untenable (it is impossible to convince societies to take massive quality-of-life reductions) but also alienates the majority of people from the cause, who might ot…

I’ve got a horrid feeling you’re waiting for this precise question, but any source on degrowth being the aim of a “lot” of climate activists to the extent that it’s vaguely mainstream (as opposed to just being a minor current, which I’m aware exists)

At least degrowth is mentioned (a lot) in the latest IPCC report: https://timotheeparrique.com/degrowth-in-the-ipcc-ar6-wgiii/

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#28

Post by pfdietz »

roenxi wrote: post #12

There are some big open questions there though - this may easily be the knell tolling for economic growth as an interesting measure of progress. We don't care about GDP because we really love indexes, but because it used to be a close proxy of energy availability. GDP doubling used to mean 2x as much energy and an almost unbelievable improvement in the median living standard. Doubling energy availability is huge! You…

You seem to be saying that energy growth should be what we're aiming for, not GDP growth? That consuming energy in and of itself is a positive good?

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#29

Post by Retric »

nopenopenopeno wrote: post #9
mpweiher wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From TFA: "Strikingly, consumption emissions, which include a measure of the carbon embedded in imports, have fallen by 15% over the same period."

In other words, China increased its nuclear power production

China gets dramatically more power from Hydro or wind than nuclear, even solar is about to pass nuclear.

2020 ultra low carbon sources GWh: Hydro: 1,355,200, Wind: 466,500, Nuclear: 366,200, Solar: 261,100

That’s an increase from 2019 of Wind: 15.1%, Solar: 16.6%, Hydro: 4.1%, Nuclear: 5% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China

Coal is still king, but it fell from 81% of total electricity in 2007 down to 62% in 2020 mostly due to renewables not nuclear.

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#30

Post by bheadmaster »

leethargo wrote: post #23
MontyCarloHall wrote: post #18

Unfortunately, a lot of climate activists’ primary goal is not stopping climate change but rather advocating for degrowth. They are thus vehemently opposed to any solutions that don’t involve massive reductions in consumption. This is not only politically untenable (it is impossible to convince societies to take massive quality-of-life reductions) but also alienates the majority of people from the cause, who might ot…

So, you're saying, hopefully we will soon have "abundant supplies of cheap GHG emission-free energy" and no other resource scarcity to support that infrastructure? I count myself as sympathetic (but also skeptical) towards the degrowth movement. I don't interpret it as saying that we should (only) reduce consumption and ignore progress in the form of efficiency/decoupling. Rather, the message seems that doing both, s…

Degrowth necessarily implies population control - you can't reduce sum consumption if population keeps growing, as there is a lower bound on the amount of consumption a single person can live off. And population control necessarily implies government control of reproduction, which sets a precedent for controlling other aspects of people's lives.

I am not sympathetic towards the degrowth movement, since the "solutions" they provide create more problems than they solve. Killing all humans would also solve the climate problem, but it doesn't make it a good decision.

Post reply on HN