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

61–70 of 271 posts

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#61

Post by sveme »

bheadmaster wrote: post #30
leethargo wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Aren't all populations worldwide currently dropping in their reproduction rate already, without government intervention? Nearly all western countries are already way below the maintenance rate of 2.1 already.

https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate#the-global-decline...

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#62

Post by pelasaco »

lettergram wrote: post #41
anemoiac wrote: post #35

I'll be casting my vote with the skeptics for this one. That said, even if economic activity was fully decoupled from emissions, Earth's environmental problems would remain overwhelming. Biodiversity loss, deforestation, aquifer depletion, desertification, etc. are just as concerning for most people here as rising global temperatures. My inner cynic sees headlines like the above and assumes that A) the writer/publish…

> That said, even if economic activity was fully decoupled from emissions, Earth's environmental problems would remain overwhelming. Biodiversity loss, deforestation, aquifer depletion, desertification, etc. are just as concerning for most people here as rising global temperatures. The issue I take with the “Global warming” crowd is that there’s a lot inaccurate predictions (nearly all of them thus far) and the evide…

> The issue I take with the “Global warming” crowd is that there’s a lot inaccurate predictions (nearly all of them thus far) and the evidence misrepresented and questionable.

I think that's a problem with general prediction by experts. There is no consequence for anything that media and experts push daily as "the right thing to do". The "Zero covid" strategy is another similar example. A lot of experts and media tried to push to this, but then later one it proved itself as not sustainable[1]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-58406526

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#63

Post by zztop44 »

practice9 wrote: post #24
zztop44 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I mean I feel like the most visible “activists” are in egypt right now clearly calling for the measurable goal of keeping warming under 1.5 degrees?

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#64

Post by brettermeier »

collyw wrote: post #43
lettergram wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That said, even if economic activity was fully decoupled from emissions, Earth's environmental problems would remain overwhelming. Biodiversity loss, deforestation, aquifer depletion, desertification, etc. are just as concerning for most people here as rising global temperatures. The issue I take with the “Global warming” crowd is that there’s a lot inaccurate predictions (nearly all of them thus far) and the evide…

It amazes me that climate activists never seem to push for nuclear, the most obvious solution.

Why is it obvious to pollute the earth with ultra-deadly waste for the next couple million years?

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#65

Post by eunos »

randomsearch wrote: post #58
perfunctory wrote: post #2

> A large and growing group of mostly rich countries has severed the link between economic growth and rising emissions of greenhouse gases so they outsourced production to the poor countries.

> so they outsourced production to the poor countries. You can't outsource domestic transport and, for the moment, most electricity generation.

Industry and Manufacturing, especially those arent high end products contribute a lot to pollution.

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#66

Post by [deleted] »

tonmoy wrote: post #17
127 wrote: post #13

GDP is still very much almost exactly correlated to energy consumed. Current inflation is also almost directly caused by energy loss. At this point people should not read any narratives. Look at direct physical evidence and do the math.

Energy may not equal emissions always and energy to GDP conversion ratio can change. Does a 100W incandescent bulb produce more value to GDP than a 14W LED bulb of same luminosity?

[deleted]

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#67

Post by pyrale »

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…

> abundant supplies of cheap GHG emission-free energy

Feel free to research that in your free time. In the current state of the world we can't really wait for you to find it before we make a change.

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#68

Post by philosopher1234 »

chii wrote: post #50
lm28469 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> degrowth > it is impossible to convince societies to take massive quality-of-life reductions What about sustainable growth focused on actual quality of life and not on perpetuating a system that produce/consume useless cheap low quality gadgets and services for the sole purpose of keeping the population at work 8 hours a day until they hit 65/67 years old (age by the time 25% of the poorest are already dead) The fa…

> for the sole purpose of keeping the population at work 8 hours a day until they hit 65/67 years old it isn't the purpose, but a side effect.

This is extremely arguable. And one might say the main effect, not the side effect.

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#69

Post by bryanlarsen »

Isn't Hacker News the home of "software eats the world"? That's a massive part of the de-correlation of economic growth and emissions. Except for AI training and proof of work, software is a low carbon activity. And it's massively cumulative -- it's not consumed, the software produced 20 years ago still has value.

Some other examples: would anybody deny the iPhone 12 is better than the iPhone 11? It's smaller and presumably has a lower carbon footprint.

How about the F-150 Lightning? Each one of those that replaces a standard pickup eliminates demand for about 50,000 pounds of gasoline. The aluminum frame was likely produced using hydro-power so much fewer emissions than the traditional steel frame. The 100 pounds or so of lithium in the vehicle is highly recyclable.

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#70

Post by refurb »

lm28469 wrote: post #31
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…

> degrowth > it is impossible to convince societies to take massive quality-of-life reductions What about sustainable growth focused on actual quality of life and not on perpetuating a system that produce/consume useless cheap low quality gadgets and services for the sole purpose of keeping the population at work 8 hours a day until they hit 65/67 years old (age by the time 25% of the poorest are already dead) The fa…

What definition of "quality of life"? Last I checked, there isn't widespread agreement on what that means.
Post reply on HN