Here's an article explaining "Why Only Degrowth Will Save The World."

From the introduction...
_________________________

Let’s be clear. It isn’t ‘climate change’ that’s the problem. It’s a multitude of crises stemming from the fact that our current capitalist economy, predicated on endless accumulation and extraction, has tipped nature out of balance. And if we don’t change this system, we are screwed.
_________________________

They suggest following these basic principles:

✦ Never extract more than ecosystems can regenerate.
✦ Never waste or pollute more than ecosystems can safely absorb.

And then they propose a plan of action...
_________________________

1. End planned obsolescence — Guzzling materials and energy only for them to be useless in a few years, all in the name of the growth imperative, is madness. Policy options include extended warranties on products and the right to repair products. Take the Fairphone, for example.

2. Cut advertising — Advertising, especially when tied to social media giants like Google and Facebook, is mass manipulation on an unprecedented scale. Hickel calls it an “assault on our consciousness — the colonisation of not only our public spaces but our minds, to make us desire things we don’t need”. Policy options include quotas on ad expenditure, legislation, banning ads in public spaces, and social policies to reduce inequality.

3. Move from ownership to usership — especially for equipment that is necessary but rarely used. Take lawnmowers, for example, or cars. Common Asset trusts, anyone?

4. End food waste — Around 50% of all the food produced in the world, about 2 billion tonnes, is wasted every year. This is an insane ecological cost, in terms of energy, land, water, and emissions. Ending this could cut the scale of damage caused by the agricultural industry in half.

5. Scale down ecologically destructive industries — such as the fossil fuel industry (obviously), the beef industry, the arms industry, the commercial airline industry, etc.
_________________________

I like the sound of this. How about you?

FULL ARTICLE -- https://medium.com/the-new-climate/why-only-degrowth-will-save-the-world-2a4b1bf35011

Note that this is all based on work by Jason Hickel (@jasonhickel), especially as contained in his book, Less is More.

GET THE BOOK -- https://www.jasonhickel.org/less-is-more

#Environment #Climate #ClimateChange #ClimateCrisis #ClimateEmergency #Capitalism #BusinessAsUsual #Degrowth

@breadandcircuses @jasonhickel nobody ever built anything using just an axe and a saw. If you want people on board, you have to explain how their lives will be better, not just how much privation you plan to inflict on them.

@davidfetter @breadandcircuses @jasonhickel

But it won't be better for them, of course. Consuming unlimited amounts of fossil fuels makes our lives better.

In order to not destroy the ecosystem, people will have to give things up now, so their descendants can survive.

No one will do that. We will continue to consume exponentially until we destroy our ecosystem and most of humanity.

We are stealing a future from our grandchildren so we can have disposable plastic crap and junk food.

@TomSwirly @breadandcircuses @jasonhickel How's that whole puritanical hectoring thing been working out for the past 50+ years? Getting a lot of action? Motivating people to make massive societal changes? No? Gee, I wonder why not.

The choice you offer between Capitalist Hellscape and AnPrim/Eugenics/Fascism, and make no mistake, this is the choice you're offering, just makes people not take you seriously because BOTH choices you offer suck.

We can live wonderful lives with clean, ubiquitous, reliable nuclear energy, and that's the message we need to get out there. We don't have to have capitalism. We don't have to have privation.

@davidfetter @breadandcircuses @jasonhickel

I see rudeness; I see anger; and particularly, I see no argument at all and no numbers.

I'm a big proponent of nuclear power but people won't accept it. More, it is far, far to late to fix it by building nuclear power plants as we only have a few years' carbon budget left.

Let's see your numbers. How would it work?

Such rudeness; such anger. You should consider therapy, because the rage isn't good for you or anyone left who might care about you.

@TomSwirly @breadandcircuses @jasonhickel ah, yes, tone policing. Definitely makes me want to engage with you further. I've interacted with you for like five minutes and enjoyed none of it, and I am not in the tiniest bit inclined to produce numbers like the ones you are suddenly demanding.

@davidfetter @breadandcircuses @jasonhickel

You are being personally insulting toward me. Asking you to stop shouting isn't "tone policing" - it's me not wanting to be yelled at.

You could have made exactly the same point in a respectful manner, or simply said nothing, since you hate interaction with me so.

You are unwilling to show any numbers, or really, justify your argument in any way, because you know concrete numbers would show how wildly wrong your argument is.

The climate catastrophe essence: Enjoy now, let our descendens pay later.

The nuclear power essence: Enjoy now, let our descendens pay later. Nuclear waste must be kept out of the biosphere for 1.000.000 years.

Let's build something that could contain it, wait 1.000.000 years, see how it held up, and only then reconsider the nuclear option.

@TomSwirly @davidfetter @breadandcircuses @jasonhickel

Radioactive Wastes - Myths and Realities : World Nuclear Association - World Nuclear Association

News and information on nuclear power, nuclear energy, nuclear energy for sustainable development, uranium mining, uranium enrichment, nuclear generation of electricity, used fuel management, recycling and disposal, nuclear policies, new nuclear plant, nuclear energy development and climate change mitigation from the World Nuclear Association (WNA), the global nuclear energy trade association and World Nuclear News (WNN) the leading nuclear news site.

@bhasic @dj3ei @davidfetter @breadandcircuses @jasonhickel

Now do CO2. Now do soot.

https://seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought

The danger from the climate catastrophe is orders of magnitude greater than the threat from nuclear waste. It's like being frightened of an ant when a lion is about to eat you.

Deaths from fossil fuel emissions higher than previously thought

Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for more than 8 million people worldwide in 2018

Climate kills faster right now. Sure.

That doesn't mean it's inherently the more dangerous of the two, "by orders of magnitude".

We've had glaciers all 100000 years with some regularity in the past. So maybe the climate catastrophe itself (not the bio damage) might be over by then? The dangers from nuclear waste last a factor 10 longer.

But the main point: Preferring nuclear power over renewables does not repair climate.

@TomSwirly @bhasic @davidfetter @breadandcircuses @jasonhickel

@dj3ei @bhasic @davidfetter @breadandcircuses @jasonhickel

Fossil fuels kill eight million people a year already: https://seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought

This is orders of magnitude greater than nuclear.

At this point there is a near-certainty that we will decimate our ecosystem with CO2.

This is orders of magnitude greater than the risks of nuclear.

Deaths from fossil fuel emissions higher than previously thought

Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for more than 8 million people worldwide in 2018

These arguments are from a short-term perspective only. We don't know yet how many people nuclear will kill in the long term. As don't know how we'll eventually solve or not solve the nuclear waste problem, prediction are difficult.

Fortunately, we can put our money into renewables instead of nuclear. Gives more bang for the buck now, and also doesn't increase nuclear waste terror in the future.

@TomSwirly @bhasic @davidfetter @breadandcircuses @jasonhickel

@dj3ei @TomSwirly @davidfetter @breadandcircuses @jasonhickel There is no nuclear waste problem. You may not know how it is managed, but others do. Prediction is very simple.
@dj3ei @TomSwirly @davidfetter @breadandcircuses @jasonhickel There is more than one type of nuclear reactor- Travelling Wave, for example, used spent fuel. No weapon grade product.
@dj3ei @TomSwirly @davidfetter @breadandcircuses @jasonhickel That's a fair point, but nuclear is still a tool we need to consider given how serious the climate emergency is. Renewables are better, yes, but every bit of carbon we keep from being used is a win at this point.
@dj3ei @TomSwirly @davidfetter @breadandcircuses @jasonhickel Wouldn't it be our descendants who pay later? Our ancestors started with #coal and moved on to #fossilfuels, and we, their descendants, are paying for their extravagance...

@dj3ei

Besides the issue with the waste, there's a much simpler reason why it's a folly to go with nuclear power as energy source.

Our world is going to get much hotter, even if we were to make a full stop on fossil burning right now and here (which we obviously won't).

Who's going to cool the power plants in the summers lasting from February to November? Where is the cooling water going to come from when rivers are already drying up now when we "only" have a temperature rise of 1.2° C?

I often ask myself why people don't see the simplest of all solutions: Produce and consume less.

Less consumption = less energy need. Less energy need can be easily covered with renewables. Especially in a world where the sun will be shining a lot, lot, lot more.

@TomSwirly @davidfetter @breadandcircuses @jasonhickel

@TobiWanKenobi @dj3ei @davidfetter @breadandcircuses @jasonhickel

> Who's going to cool the power plants in the summers lasting from February to November?

The energy from the power plants.

> Less consumption = less energy need.

We are losing this war. We need both less consumption, and more non-carbon emitting energy sources, and we will still probably completely flame out.

Had we moved to nuclear two generations ago, we might have had a change. We blew it.

This Month in Physics History

April 25, 1954: Bell Labs demonstrates the first practical silicon solar cell

@dj3ei @davidfetter @breadandcircuses @jasonhickel

Can you make a rational explanation as to why you believe that nuclear waste is a comparable threat to the climate catastrophe?

I'm sorry, but it isn't. It isn't within *orders of magnitude* of the same size.

Every year eight million die from fossil fuels:

https://seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought

But we are on track to destroy *our whole ecosystem* with CO2.

It's like being worried about a mosquito when there's a gun to your head.

Deaths from fossil fuel emissions higher than previously thought

Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for more than 8 million people worldwide in 2018

I thought I already made that argument.

We have no experience with isolating stuff from the biosphere for 10^6 years.

If, during that time span, a major amount of nuclear waste escapes into the biosphere, this will directly threaten many life forms.

How much radiation can humanity stand for 10^x of years, before it no longer can reproduce and goes extinct? Honestly, I don't know the answer. But raising the question is clearly rational.

@TomSwirly @davidfetter @breadandcircuses @jasonhickel

@dj3ei @davidfetter @breadandcircuses @jasonhickel

The health hazards of fossil fuels are incomparably greater, and are happening right now.

Building up nuclear power is more expensive (per GW capacity) than building up wind or solar power.

Building up nuclear power is considerably slower than building up wind or solar power. By the time such a dinosaur is built, you can tile whole citys' worth of roofs. (Not even taking long-term waste storage into account, which doesn't yet exist.)

Also, as France learned, drying rivers take down power plants at their banks.

@TomSwirly @davidfetter @breadandcircuses @jasonhickel

@dj3ei @davidfetter @breadandcircuses @jasonhickel

We will not hit our targets. We will not come close to hitting our targets at the current projected growth rate of renewables.

We will burst right through +2º and keep going.

All forms of non-carbon emitting power are needed. Non-intermittent sources are needed.

We will still need that power in decades from now. France has had reliable, non-polluting power for almost 70 years, with an almost perfect uptime.

"All forms of non-carbon emitting power are needed."

I contradict and say we are not in a situation where we can invest money and resources indiscriminately and, by implication, inefficiently.

Nuclear is more expensive than renewables, even if only taking the short-term costs into account.

@TomSwirly @davidfetter @breadandcircuses @jasonhickel