Climate Change doesn't have to scare the Emojis out of you. https://twitter.com/_britmonkeySOURCES: https://pastebin.com/whyRb0WDMUSIC: https://pastebin.com/...
Pretending we are all doomed just leads to inaction. Why bother, if we all die anyway.
Pretending all will be great just leads to inaction. Why do something yourself, when it is basicly solved already.
What works is to understand that there is a problem, but we have the solutions. That is actually the case right now. We have a massive problem with climate crisis, but we also have the tools to bring our emissions to basicly zero, if we choose to do it. Some countries are already taking actions on this.
@MrMakabar@XTL The main problem is that we need to end Capitalism, and we need to end it NOW, globally, because every possible solution only works if the economy can stagnate or even shrink without causing economic disasters.
A long term stagnating economy and especially a shrinking one would be considered an economic disaster anyway. The key is to avoid social problems due to shrinking the economy. There are plenty of ways of doing that, but propably the most important one is to limit working hours. That means earlier retirment, less hours worked per week and more vacation. All of that are things mandated by countries before. With a globally stagnant population that might very well happen. In fact you see falling working hours in Europe over decades.
The key is to avoid social problems due to shrinking the economy.
The biggest issue is the rhetoric of degrowth economics faces is the idea that a sinking tide lowers all boats. The entire economic industry will come out against it. Even now, economists oppose sustainability because it restricts growth (though they do so without evidence and in opposition to the idea of competition, but who cares about that).
I’ve sat on a meeting in a big corporation where one of the middle managers straight up said that if you’re not growing as a company, you are stagnating. How that math works in the long run was not covered.
@MrMakabar@XTL we have the tools, but governments wedded to profit and growth won’t use them, and certainly won’t use them quickly enough.
We’ll need a wave of revolutions to improve our democracies; shortening terms, dispersing power to communities and as much as possible moving from electing representatives who can be easily captured and subverted to truly democratic decisions which are harder to manipulate.
Degrowth basicly tries to limit change the size of the economy to one, which stays within planetary boundaries. One of the most important ones of that is certainly greenhouse gas emissions. So something like the emissions trading systems of the EU are inherintly degrowth policies. They cap emissions and lower that cap over the years. Some industries are already in some trouble due to that, namely the coal electricity industry, but a lot of other heavy industry in the EU has problems as well due to that policy right now.
Another big one is increasing wild space, which the EU also has passed a law, forcing its members to rewild a few percent of their land. That is limiting resource use for sure.
There are also a lot of other enviromental regulations doing similar things. The problem is not moving fast enough and still believing in economic growth, but there are policies, which go very much in the right direction and are more then just token policies. Obviously a lot more is needed, but change within the current system is certainly possible. However you are right, the fear of a drop in gdp has to go and be replaced with a the idea of improving quality of life. Obviously having a strong economy helps with that, but still it should be an option, if the econmy shrinks.
@MrMakabar emissions trading schemes don’t reduce emissions, they just change where those emissions take place. Until we calculate emissions based on consumption all we’ll do is outsource emissions to places with looser regulation, and there’s no incentive for those places to change.
The EU re-wilding provisions were neutered, and even if they hadn’t been, it wouldn’t have come close to meeting land use requirements to offset current emissions.
You mean something like CBAM, which adds tariffs as high as emissions would cost in the EU to goods imported by the EU minus emissions pricing within the country of origin. That is imho one of the best policies you can come up with. It pretty much all EU goods to have emission pricing and has a real insentive for other countries to have one to as to not pay tariffs to the EU, but get the money themself.
That bill passed already and will be enforced by 2026.
@MrMakabar I used to be in favour of that system until I realised it only works when there are alternatives, and there aren’t for most goods and services. If you can’t swap to something clean, then all it does is raise the price.
It increases the burden on the worst off in society, without in any way impacting the wealthiest; like all eco-austerity policies.
For a lot of it there are working alternatives. Electricity is pretty obviously renwables and nuclear. For transport there are electric vehicles like trains and battery powered road vehicles, as well as not using them. Shiping is more difficult, but fuel can be saved using sails and electric ships are a thing. Heating and cooling can be done using heat pumps and district heating fairly well. Large heat pumps are also a good solution for quite a few industrial processes. For iron and steel production we do know how to do it using hydrogen for decades and there are a lot of steel plants using this, but the hydrogen is produced using natural gas. That is over half the energy related emissions we do know how to cut. There is even more then that, if you look at some other industrial processes, which emit, but are not huge sources. Basicly we know how to go most of the way.
Also important to say that carbon inequality is massive. The richest 10% of Germans emited 29.6t per capita in 2020. the bottom 50% of Germans emitted 5.5t per capita. That btw is down from 13.9t in 1990. The 40% missing had emission of 11.9t per capita. Average emissions of all Germans was at 10.2t. Same story of every other country as well. So the rich are taxed much more then the poor. The only thing necessary is that the money is used smartly.
@MrMakabar Political capture will prevent meaningful change until it’s far too late, because the money that finances political parties or provides jobs for their constituents has a profit incentive that can never be squared with climate action.
The world will need to change. We either seize the day and change it ourselves or we watch it spiral into resource wars and 100s of millions dead or displaced.
We’re already past the point where capitalism can innovate its way out of the crisis.
@MrMakabar@XTL Why bother? to make the doomedness less shit. Do the things that move the needle from certain death to near-certain death. By teeth and fingernails, hold on until the last.
Being a doomer doesn’t help
Doing nothing didn’t help
Assuming science will somehow solve the problem magically with no input doesn’t help
Assuming nothing you do matters because there’s people in China doesn’t help
It’s don’t as though we’re fucked so why not be a doomer
Dismissing problems using cheap labels like that helps even less. Actually causes harm.
Pretending we are all doomed just leads to inaction. Why bother, if we all die anyway.
Pretending all will be great just leads to inaction. Why do something yourself, when it is basicly solved already.
What works is to understand that there is a problem, but we have the solutions. That is actually the case right now. We have a massive problem with climate crisis, but we also have the tools to bring our emissions to basicly zero, if we choose to do it. Some countries are already taking actions on this.
We are doomed, but 2c is infinitely better than 3c and we should be fighting like hell for every .01c.
@MrMakabar @XTL The main problem is that we need to end Capitalism, and we need to end it NOW, globally, because every possible solution only works if the economy can stagnate or even shrink without causing economic disasters.
A long term stagnating economy and especially a shrinking one would be considered an economic disaster anyway. The key is to avoid social problems due to shrinking the economy. There are plenty of ways of doing that, but propably the most important one is to limit working hours. That means earlier retirment, less hours worked per week and more vacation. All of that are things mandated by countries before. With a globally stagnant population that might very well happen. In fact you see falling working hours in Europe over decades.
The biggest issue is the rhetoric of degrowth economics faces is the idea that a sinking tide lowers all boats. The entire economic industry will come out against it. Even now, economists oppose sustainability because it restricts growth (though they do so without evidence and in opposition to the idea of competition, but who cares about that).
I’ve sat on a meeting in a big corporation where one of the middle managers straight up said that if you’re not growing as a company, you are stagnating. How that math works in the long run was not covered.
That’s what we’re up against.
It comes from experience for a lot of poor voters, that policy changes tend to hurt them and help the rich. Unfortunatly that is not without reason.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
@MrMakabar @XTL we have the tools, but governments wedded to profit and growth won’t use them, and certainly won’t use them quickly enough.
We’ll need a wave of revolutions to improve our democracies; shortening terms, dispersing power to communities and as much as possible moving from electing representatives who can be easily captured and subverted to truly democratic decisions which are harder to manipulate.
Degrowth basicly tries to limit change the size of the economy to one, which stays within planetary boundaries. One of the most important ones of that is certainly greenhouse gas emissions. So something like the emissions trading systems of the EU are inherintly degrowth policies. They cap emissions and lower that cap over the years. Some industries are already in some trouble due to that, namely the coal electricity industry, but a lot of other heavy industry in the EU has problems as well due to that policy right now.
Another big one is increasing wild space, which the EU also has passed a law, forcing its members to rewild a few percent of their land. That is limiting resource use for sure.
There are also a lot of other enviromental regulations doing similar things. The problem is not moving fast enough and still believing in economic growth, but there are policies, which go very much in the right direction and are more then just token policies. Obviously a lot more is needed, but change within the current system is certainly possible. However you are right, the fear of a drop in gdp has to go and be replaced with a the idea of improving quality of life. Obviously having a strong economy helps with that, but still it should be an option, if the econmy shrinks.
@MrMakabar emissions trading schemes don’t reduce emissions, they just change where those emissions take place. Until we calculate emissions based on consumption all we’ll do is outsource emissions to places with looser regulation, and there’s no incentive for those places to change.
The EU re-wilding provisions were neutered, and even if they hadn’t been, it wouldn’t have come close to meeting land use requirements to offset current emissions.
You mean something like CBAM, which adds tariffs as high as emissions would cost in the EU to goods imported by the EU minus emissions pricing within the country of origin. That is imho one of the best policies you can come up with. It pretty much all EU goods to have emission pricing and has a real insentive for other countries to have one to as to not pay tariffs to the EU, but get the money themself.
That bill passed already and will be enforced by 2026.
@MrMakabar I used to be in favour of that system until I realised it only works when there are alternatives, and there aren’t for most goods and services. If you can’t swap to something clean, then all it does is raise the price.
It increases the burden on the worst off in society, without in any way impacting the wealthiest; like all eco-austerity policies.
For a lot of it there are working alternatives. Electricity is pretty obviously renwables and nuclear. For transport there are electric vehicles like trains and battery powered road vehicles, as well as not using them. Shiping is more difficult, but fuel can be saved using sails and electric ships are a thing. Heating and cooling can be done using heat pumps and district heating fairly well. Large heat pumps are also a good solution for quite a few industrial processes. For iron and steel production we do know how to do it using hydrogen for decades and there are a lot of steel plants using this, but the hydrogen is produced using natural gas. That is over half the energy related emissions we do know how to cut. There is even more then that, if you look at some other industrial processes, which emit, but are not huge sources. Basicly we know how to go most of the way.
Also important to say that carbon inequality is massive. The richest 10% of Germans emited 29.6t per capita in 2020. the bottom 50% of Germans emitted 5.5t per capita. That btw is down from 13.9t in 1990. The 40% missing had emission of 11.9t per capita. Average emissions of all Germans was at 10.2t. Same story of every other country as well. So the rich are taxed much more then the poor. The only thing necessary is that the money is used smartly.
@MrMakabar Political capture will prevent meaningful change until it’s far too late, because the money that finances political parties or provides jobs for their constituents has a profit incentive that can never be squared with climate action.
The world will need to change. We either seize the day and change it ourselves or we watch it spiral into resource wars and 100s of millions dead or displaced.
We’re already past the point where capitalism can innovate its way out of the crisis.
@MrMakabar @XTL Why bother? to make the doomedness less shit. Do the things that move the needle from certain death to near-certain death. By teeth and fingernails, hold on until the last.
@MrMakabar @XTL You put something in the words I always struggled to do. Thank you!