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

81–90 of 271 posts

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#81

Post by vouaobrasil »

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 am not opposed to any solution that doesn't involve a reduction in consumption. However, I do advocate for degrowth and reduction. Consuming less actually has a lot of net benefits for life. In this regard I think it's good to present some optional ideas and their possible benefits for the average person:

* Buying a more modest apartment or house can mean working less or retiring sooner

* Close social media account, etc -- this means more quality time with friends and family.

* Travelling less and appreciating the nice things near where you live (assuming you have them, not everyone does)

* Use as little technology as possible. If there's some new fancy app, phone, or gadget, don't buy it or use it. This will reduce information overload and stress. And if done en masse, it would also start to dry up the revenue streams of large tech companies

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#82

Post by weberer »

andrepd wrote: post #39
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…

>(it is impossible to convince societies to take massive quality-of-life reductions) Why do you say degrowth = lower quality of life? Let me give you a simple and practical example: an American living in a suburb takes her gas-guzzler 3-ton SUV to go shopping or to the park, stands in traffic in a 4-lane freeway for one hour. A Dutch living in a suburb takes her bike to go shopping or to the park, rides it through a…

A typical American in the suburbs certainly does not go on a highway to go to the supermarket or park. Those are all local amenities. I know some regions have problems with sidewalk coverage like Florida and way out west, but the suburbs are perfectly walkable anywhere in the northeast. Cities less so due to crime. And you definitely wouldn't have highway traffic in the suburbs, that's more of a downtown thing.

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#83

Post by ohiovr »

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…

We are at the peak of civilization. A new perfect energy source that was abundant would probably eliminate the carbon boogyman. But the energy, being abundant would only accelerate the ease of our materialistic society we live in to plunder every last square inch of the Earth to put delicacies in our mouths and rape the earth of all precious things. I used to believe in fusion energy and I am closer to a solution. But no way am I going to reveal it to the people now.

There will be no double peak. This is it.

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#84

Post by mountainb »

lettergram wrote: post #53
collyw wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It’s the tell. Lots of reports pointing out Russia funds environmental groups. China does the same - but more openly - advertising cheap solar and wind (neither function as well as nuclear). https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/596304-invest...

The Gulf countries do, too, such as when the UAE paid Matt Damon for an anti-fracking film https://www.cnbc.com/amp/id/49218229

I don’t blame them for playing the game well.

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#85

Post by themitigating »

fedeb95 wrote: post #59
nathias wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

problems of induction are solved by the scientific method, bit by bit there is nothing better we can do except try to lean more, but on the side of what to do with information we have quite large leaps to go still ...

Solved isn't the exact word. It's something. It's the best we can do. That doesn't justify reckless behaviours in my opinion, just because we don't yet have scientific evidence that they are

But not acting also has consequences, one's we know.

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#86

Post by bheadmaster »

sveme wrote: post #61
bheadmaster wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Is there a fundamental reason for it, or is it just the way it is right now?

Because the world is kind of shit right now, and that could be the reason people don't procreate - I, personally, don't want to bring children into the world the way it is right now and the way it is going. The way I see it, as soon as the quality of life grows, people will continue procreating the way they did so far for decades.

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#87

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

brettermeier wrote: post #64
collyw wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

What people often don't understand about radioactivity, is that if you have short halflife, like weeks, the radiation is dangerous but doesn't last long. And if you have huge half life, like a million years, then radiation is basically non-existent and not dangerous at all.

This lack of understanding is why people spread FUD about radioactive waste that will poison the planet for million years.

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#88

Post by samatman »

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.

They are, as a sibling comment demonstrates, deluded, after decades of being maliciously lied to by 'environmental' movements with ties to the fossil industry.

Anyone against nuclear is a shill for petrochemical power, there are no exceptions. There are the deluded and the liars, that's it.

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#89

Post by sveme »

bheadmaster wrote: post #86
sveme wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Is there a fundamental reason for it, or is it just the way it is right now? Because the world is kind of shit right now, and that could be the reason people don't procreate - I, personally, don't want to bring children into the world the way it is right now and the way it is going. The way I see it, as soon as the quality of life grows, people will continue procreating the way they did so far for decades.

It's dropping since the 1950s, so not a fluke. Major reasons are probably improvements in living conditions (yes, in comparison to the 50s), the invention and widespread use of contraception and social security (which removes the need for kids to support you in old age).

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#90

Post by Jyaif »

brettermeier wrote: post #64
collyw wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's dangerous for around 10 thousand years, not millions of years.

And we know of places that are stable on a geological time scale (which is in fact million of years).

Post reply on HN