“No-one is claiming that degrowth would be easy or non disruptive or linear.” (Jennifer Wilkins, below)
“Questions for the Degrowth proponent: Who decides what is necessary or not–and for whom and when? Isn’t this the very definition of authoritarianism?” (Bradley, below)
The “Degrowth” movement needs some critical attention. I asked some hard queries after reading this on social media from Jennifer Wilkins, who defined degrowth as follows:
…Ever wondered how degrowth differs from conventional sustainability?
The goal of degrowth is universal wellbeing, to be delivered through global and local provisioning systems that are distributive and regenerative. This demands a reprioritisation of social values and behaviours toward sufficiency and sharing; it is driving development of innovative post-growth business models that focus on meeting needs and respect local biosphere boundaries, both scientific and cultural; it is guiding macroeconomic research on a coherent set of policy interventions that would balance green policies with protection of livelihoods; and it is agitating for reform of governance institutions and an increase in community agency through participative democracy.
“Electrifying vehicles adds yet more weight. Combustible, energy-dense petroleum is replaced by bulky batteries. And the rest of the vehicle must get heavier to provide the necessary structural support….. Why does this matter? First and foremost is safety.
“Heavier vehicles also generate more particulate pollution from tyre [tire] wear. They require more materials and energy to build and propel them, adding to emissions and energy use.”
An article in Nature from several years ago, underappreciated in today’s climate/energy debate, was recently emphasized in a social media post by Nick Molden, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Emissions Analytics, and Honorary Research Fellow, Imperial College London.
Molden commented:
…A certain level of CO2 reduction is required just to offset the extra accident death risk from heavier BEV vehicles. Some major countries already reach this level, although the US and Germany do not.
“The IPCC reports have become ‘bumper sticker’ climate science—making a political statement while using the overall reputation of science to give authority to a politically manufactured consensus. With such explicit political advocacy, combined with misleading information, the IPCC risks losing its privileged position in international policy debates.” (- Doug Sheridan)
Doug Sheridan speaks truth to power on energy and climate issues. In a recent social media post, he brings attention to an article by Judith Curry in The Australian, “UN’s Climate Panic Is More Politics than Science,” that emphasized how the IPCC markets a warming extremism that is three times the size of its medium-case scenario. [1]
Sheridan’s summary follows:
Judith Curry writes in the Australian, all but few holdouts now recognize that the IPCC‘s worst-case RCP8.5 climate scenario never really deserved the attention it was given.…