I wasn’t aware just how good the news is on the green energy front until reading this. We still have a tough road in the short/medium term, but we are more or less irreversibly headed in the right direction.
I wasn’t aware just how good the news is on the green energy front until reading this. We still have a tough road in the short/medium term, but we are more or less irreversibly headed in the right direction.
With respect, I think you’re projecting a discussion with a different person onto this article.
You’re right, the climate is going to get worse before it gets better. You’re right, the impacts of climate change will disproportionately affect poor and underdeveloped areas. We can’t make that go away with positive thinking, and it’s not enough for humans as a species to survive, we need to focus on reducing suffering while we’re turning the ship.
What I took away from this article is that the market forces for cheap renewable power and the means to store it are now stronger than the forces for CO2 emitting power. And those forces are moving faster than predicted. That’s good, and it’s ok to talk about something good when it’s true!
People who have been paying attention and care about others have good reason to be wary about the narrative “oh, everything is going to be fine” because that’s what industry and politicians have been saying for a long time instead of taking needed action.
We’re at a point where most people recognize climate change is real, and they can see it’s effects. We’re also at a point where many people don’t have hope for the situation. It’s dangerous to tell people “shit’s fucked and there’s nothing you can do about it” because they might believe you and do nothing.
It’s nice that you’re hopeful, but green energy in capitalism isn’t enough. We need degrowth or a revolution to actually save not just humanity, but the planet as well.
Expecting a revolution to solve your problems is a bad joke.
Degrowth is coming. Birth rate is below replacement in essentially all developed countries and is steeply dropping in less developed ones as well. We’re on track for population to level off and start dropping in only a few decades, as current larger generations die off.
We just need to hope that “natural” depopulation isn’t too late for addressing climate change.
But I’d argue it’s likely to drop too steeply, further destabilizing societies. Think of it like climate change in the 1970’s: we can fix it now with minimal impact, or we could wait until it’s a crisis. We need to take steps now to make having more children a more attractive choice
Degrowth isn’t just about population, or even about it at all. Degrowth is about doing the opposite of what capitalism forces us to do, infinite growth on a finite planet.
But also, the last thing we should do is incentivize birthing more people. We have increasing amounts of automation technologies, we don’t need more people.
Robots are cool and all, but considering our (in a larger sense) children is literally the future of our civilization. The next generation is why it’s important to fix our mistakes, to leave things better than we found them, to open new opportunities and greater potential. Automation can enable that but is not a goal in itself, or is a short term goal for personal gain.
So yes, I’ll agree that we seem to have passed the healthy carrying capacity of the planet and should fix that. However I’ll strongly disagree that it would be a good thing to drop below the sustainability of current society, innovation, science, and I’ll strongly disagree it’s desirable to drop population fast enough to destabilize societies, economies, or to cause human suffering. That’s what we my be headed for. A few tweaks now, might help population level off and gradually decline without causing suffering, and hopefully level off at a healthy total.
Let’s fix our mistakes while still setting the next generation up for success, not give in to misery and root for disaster
Edit: if you read the Wikipedia article on degrowth, there’s surprisingly little focus on reducing population and it really isn’t a goal, although an important tool. Pretty much all of the precepts contradict sudden population declines or the aftereffects of that
Yes I know degrowth isn’t about population, that’s what I said?
But if population naturally declines, I really don’t think it’s a good idea to try to reverse that trend. Less people means less resources consumed, and better quality of life for those children. Prioritize the people already alive over those that aren’t born. We have more than enough people in the world, and a lot of those people’s potential is not fully reached due to inequality.
Which is why I’m not doing that.
I don’t think you disagree with the parts where I say people will suffer.
I don’t think so? My comment is generally aimed at “the situation is grim, but tech just got awesome, so let’s save the planet people!” optimism-filled pieces, much like this one. Forgive me if I come across as affronted when, as temperatures reach new and dangerous heights in certain regions, I am put out seeing someone say market forces are on the cusp of saving us.