Valerie Aurora
One way to reduce climate change is to use less energy. Common ideas for doing this are improving energy efficiency, limiting growth, and degrowth.
But efforts to increase efficiency or limit growth by themselves result in using MORE energy at the global scale. This thread explains why and argues for decarbonization of energy instead. (Hint: Jevons Paradox is just the beginning.)
Thanks to the #RIPE #Green #Tech #Hackathon organized by @vesna@v.st for making me write this analysis.
Vesna Manojlović
@vaurora hydrogen - while not my favorite either - and only part of the solution that must include total reduction of energy use - is apparently counted on by the Dutch government: https://mastodon.energy/@Sustainable2050/113635317526629538
Vesna Manojlović
@vaurora “organizations that limit their energy use are at a competitive disadvantage with those that do not.” Only if they are competing within the current values system!! Instruments to change this system are many : on country level : 1) stopping subsidies for fossil fuels ; 2) introducing “true cost” for the damages externalused onto the population & society (pollution, ecocide) ; 3) other national regulations that support “limitation” directly & indirectly
Quixoticgeek
The thing stopping us from having a sustainable future is Capitalism. It's that simple. We can have capitalism, or we can have a sustainable future. We can't have both.
We have nearly all the technologies necessary for a sustainable future (we're missing zero carbon concrete, and ammonia). We just have yet to roll them out and replace the old carbon heavy version.
To quote a certain sci fi author. The future is here, just not evenly distribute
2/n
Quixoticgeek
@UkeleleEric @wmd @vaurora Unfortunately the physics just don't work out there. Low head hydro only works if you have massive flow, and in other locations you need flow and head.
We have passed the small scale stage. We need large scale developments that can only be done on a nation state scale. 5000 15+MW wind turbines in the north sea.
A massive roll out of railways and a complete end to all new road projects.
Personal individual efforts have zero impact.
1/n
UkeleleEric
@wmd @vaurora I 'm not sure - it seems to me that many small-scale water-driven turbines in old mills and on streams is precisely where local differences could be made. Larger-scale hydro schemes need hillier terrain. And wind is still not taken advantage of as much as it could be (I remember a few years back, sceptics saying that wind would never make a significant difference to the UK's power grid, it now often produces 30-45percent)
🌈☔🌦️🍄🌱🍉
@vaurora this bit is a thing I certainly agree on, not so sure about your steps in (2), but don't think it matters much. We don't have societies at large doing these things anyway and the big ones don't even care so any impact is insignificant.
There's other ways of surviving though than energy competition.
But if you want to actually have impact you need to stop the people who don't care, one way or the other.
Sceptical of being able to make non fossil fuels inherently cheaper
Vesna Manojlović
This is, indeed, the problem description — but there are underlying causes that #degrowth is trying to address @vaurora : > efforts to increase efficiency or limit growth by themselves result in using MORE energy at the global scale< = a) so far! ; b) … unless we change the values, the attitudes, the goals of societies -> towards sufficiency, ecology, equality, solidarity… // of course, this is the hard part! So idealistic that verges on fantasy! But we must dream of *it* first!
Quixoticgeek
I just don't know how to get us there. Humanity has shown that we can identify a threat, and take effective action to mitigate it. 197 countries ratified the Montreal Protocol, the use of CFCs virtually stopped. Now the hole in the ozone layer is starting to heal.
Humanity CAN work together on a global scale. It's just right now there is a very small minority of very rich people, trying to stop that happening again.
That is the problem we need to fix
4/4
Quixoticgeek
@UkeleleEric @wmd @vaurora I'm all for communities that work together. I am of the view that community is everything. But my 1000 closest neighbours and I can't convert the IJmuiden steel works to electrolysis. We can't build more railway lines. We can't build large scale wind turbines. We can't roll out bus routes. We can't build cycle paths.
We, as individuals, and at a local community level have zero power here.
It has to be large scale, national level change.
3/n
Vesna Manojlović
@vaurora “breaking the power of fossil fuels” is what I can agree on! The anarchist in me also calls for “breaking the power of nation state governments” ! https://labs.ripe.net/author/becha/ripe-community-resilience-every-society-has-the-internet-they-deserve/ dreaming of : “society with a modest standard of living,conservative of natural resources, with a low constant fertility rate& a political life based upon consent;a society that has made a successful adaptation to its environment& has learned to live without destroying itself or the people next door”
Mark Burton
@becha @vaurora
Our work proposes a radical but feasible, degrowth-based framework for a national political programme.
People frequently say they like the idea of Degrowth' but can't see how it would work.
Here is at least the start of an answer.
https://gettingreal.org.uk/
Vesna Manojlović
@vaurora IMO we have reached hard physical limits 50 years ago, at least . Possibly 500 years ago. Planetary boundaries have been breached in many aspects already. We have to change everything, all at once. But that’s a harsh message & not constructive as such - while also a tautology. My critique of Degrowth is that it’s not radical enough!
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.