[-] jackofalltrades@mas.to 1 points 1 year ago

@jgkoomey @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green

It's also worth noting that currently all nations follow a recipe for development through industrialization based on fossil fuels. There is not a single country on a "green" path. That means fossil inertia in the system is very high.

On top of that, all our "green" technologies currently require input of fossil fuels in their prodution processes. That includes #solar panels, #wind turbines, hydroelectric dams, EVs, etc.

4/5

[-] jackofalltrades@mas.to 1 points 1 year ago

@jgkoomey @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green

As an example, global meat production doubled in the last 30 years. If a new method of factory farming is invented that cuts methane emissions by 10%, for it to actually reduce emissions it would need to be adopted on every farm in the world in less than 3 years.

After which point we'd need another such invention to keep pace with the economic growth.

3/5

[-] jackofalltrades@mas.to 1 points 1 year ago

@jgkoomey @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green

Note that for any given efficiency improvement to have the desired effect of reducing emissions it not only must be invented, but it also must be distributed across the world, again at a pace greater than overall economic growth.

2/5

[-] jackofalltrades@mas.to 1 points 1 year ago

@jgkoomey @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green

Let's make sure we're on the same page here. What we're interested in is for the emissions to start dropping. What #decoupling suggests is that this can be achieved with the economy still growing.

Achieving dropping emissions via relative decoupling could be done by the pace of efficiency improvements continuously outpacing economic growth.

1/5

[-] jackofalltrades@mas.to 1 points 1 year ago

@jgkoomey @urlyman @ajsadauskas @green

New technologies can bring efficiency improvements, but can also bring new uses for resources, and that ultimately translates to more demand. Recent decades are the best proof of that. Even though everything is more efficient now, our material footprint and environmental degradation is at its peak as well.

[-] jackofalltrades@mas.to 2 points 1 year ago

@jgkoomey @urlyman @ajsadauskas @green

Relative decoupling doesn't really matter. The fact that emissions rise at a pace slower than GDP is not good enough. We need emissions to start dropping, like yesterday.

AFAIK there is no evidence whatsoever of absolute decoupling happening globally, whether we're talking about CO2 or material footprint (which has been accelerating, in fact).

Humans are a part of nature. The idea that we can decouple our economy from environmental impacts is absurd.

[-] jackofalltrades@mas.to 1 points 1 year ago

@urlyman @jgkoomey @ajsadauskas @green

The uncomfortable truth is that national accounting like that can make western countries feel good about themselves, but all it does is put colonial relations on display.

The two sobering graphs worth looking at are humanity's material footprint: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/goal-12/ and global emissions: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/total-ghg-emissions?tab=chart&stackMode=relative&time=2000..2021&country=~OWID_WRL

All lines go up.

[-] jackofalltrades@mas.to 2 points 1 year ago

@urlyman @jgkoomey @ajsadauskas @green

Do any of these decoupling claims hold when looking at the global economic system as a whole?

While these statistics claim that they account for trade it is a very theoretical number. Would the emissions be the same if Ireland had to produce everything it imports locally? Just imagine that. Of course they would be much higher.

[-] jackofalltrades@mas.to 1 points 1 year ago

@wav3ydave @benchwhistler @18107 @ajsadauskas

"Many people won't have any other option without huge systemic changes."

Yes. And at the same time many people *have* the option and are picking the wrong one.

It's quite simple really, look at it this way:

Who is responsible for more emissions: the rich or the poor?

Who has more freedom to choose different options in life: the rich or the poor?

[-] jackofalltrades@mas.to 1 points 1 year ago

@18107 @ajsadauskas

How can we hold companies accountable?

[-] jackofalltrades@mas.to 6 points 1 year ago

@ajsadauskas @green

Why not both?

Individuals need to change their expectations and consumption patterns, while the policy and infrastructure need to change in tandem.

You are not going to get radical reforms from the government without popular support from the population. That requires sacrifices and changes in societal norms.

In your toast example, the option that is available to everyone right now is to _not_ make the toast.

Just eat the damn bread.

You don't need a toast.

view more: next ›

jackofalltrades

joined 2 years ago