Prof Julia Steinberger 🌍🌹🌱Jan 8, 2023
Just your regular reminder that those who claim we need new technologies to address the climate crisis are *really* saying that the overconsumption of the richest is more important than the rest of life on earth.
We have the tech we need for decent lives for all. 😘😘😘
Show threadNarvuntienJan 8, 2023
@jks The main issue is that if you tell people they have to give something up they will line up against you politically and we won't be able to solve the climate crisis.
Show threadGerdaJan 8, 2023
@Narvuntien @jks
And even more the other way around: neoliberal governments want people to believe in fake solutions like technosalvation, so they can go on enriching the rich.
Show threadNarvuntienJan 8, 2023

@drsJekyll @jks

We have the necessary technology mostly now or very soon. There are some tricky stuff though (cement, air travel etc.)

We need to avoid anything that doesn't involve us reducing emissions right now.

Geo-engineering is a horror show and the best negative emissions technology is and probably will always be trees but we at limited on land.

Show threadGerdaJan 8, 2023
@Narvuntien @jks
Yes we need technology ánd system change, degrowth, etc.
Show threadNarvuntienJan 8, 2023

@drsJekyll @jks The question is really about how can you convince people of that.

Degrowth will mean a lot of people will be unemployed, and governments will have less-tax in flows to pay for that.

Can you explain to someone who has lived their whole life inside capitalism what your new system will be and how it will provide for everyone?

In order for your ideas to work you need system change first but that will take far longer than swapping high emissions to low emissions technology.

I favour growth caused by more efficient uses of energy and all resources to degrowth.

Show threadGerdaJan 8, 2023

@Narvuntien @jks
In order to convince people I think it's important to leave the loss frame behind and instead show the positive things we win when we stop polluting, like clean air, health, etc.

Degrowth is possible and necessary, and for inspiration and ideas on how degrowth can provide for everyone I recommend following @jasonhickel

Show threadHenry Ngo

@drsJekyll @Narvuntien @jks @jasonhickel for me, I would only go along with degrowth if there is a clear commitment from everyone, especially industry. I think many would be wary of individuals making change only to benefit the capitalist system.

Otherwise, better to show us how we can still meet our consumption and transport needs while making changes to reduce energy use.

Jan 8, 2023 at 7:26pmTusky
Show threadHenry NgoJan 8, 2023
@drsJekyll @Narvuntien @jks @jasonhickel for instance, my transport need is to be able to get to wherever my small children are (school, sporting etc) in a reasonable time (eg not much more than current drive time). If public transport is regular and reliable enough then I won't need a car.
Show threadHenry NgoJan 8, 2023
@drsJekyll @Narvuntien @jks @jasonhickel also would be happy with urban planning so that these things are walkable and close by. But I wouldn't accept a solution that says I can't meet the above need to get to my children within X time, or to not have my children participate in such activities.
Show threadGerdaJan 8, 2023
@astrodino @Narvuntien @jks
Yes you are right and I think that’s what degrowth is all about: the essential sectors (public services, renewable energy, trains, etc.) should grow while unnecessary sectors (SUV’s, private jets) degrow.
Show threadHenry NgoJan 8, 2023
@drsJekyll @Narvuntien @jks ah okay, hearing some conflicting things, glad to know that :) thanks!
Show threadNarvuntienJan 9, 2023
@astrodino @drsJekyll @jks @jasonhickel my main issue is nighttime travel. Day time public transport or even just walking/micromobility works well but the sun goes down and everything is just harder.
Show threadGerdaJan 9, 2023
@Narvuntien @astrodino
I agree, and I think shared electric cars may be a solution.
The options obviously also depend on where you live.