As the effervescent and wonderful Jason Hickel said over at Muskville; "Thanks to a lot of tech bros and economists getting Very Upset about degrowth, this article is now the number one trending publication at Nature."
@ExtinctionR bet there is a word for 'sad optimism'? Reading this gives rise to some complex feelings along the lines of 'if only we could and turns out we could but we're probably not going to'.
@kta Didn't the 2008 financial crisis and the 2020 pandemic clearly show us that slowed GDP growth gave us lower emissions? I was under the impression they did.
Decoupling is great! But is it enough? And how much is a country that is supposedly successful at it "cheating" by outsourcing emissions? Are emissions from the whole supply chain included in the Swedish figures?
The no-brainer is that if we want to stop putting carbon in the air, we need to stop digging it up. If we dig it up, we will eventually burn it.
@ExtinctionR ...wealthy economies should abandon growth of gross domestic product (GDP) as a goal ...
Can't. Advocating for degrowth is a non-starter with economists. In the developing world and advanced economies. Also, the assumption that declining GDP growth will lead to declines in emissions is shaky at best. We don't see this play out in the data. It's possible to grow GDP responsibly, while making a concerted effort to lower emissions. Sweden is doing it.
@clacke@ExtinctionR CO2 emissions in the United States have been declining since 2000. This is great, but we need it to accelerate. "Degrowth" has been promoted as a way to speed this up. But that's a dangerous switch to flip. And even if we flip it, the data do not indicate that we'd actually lower emissions. I say all this to urge us to promote real solutions to lowering emissions. Not just philosophically wishing them away.