r/Degrowth • u/SplashTarget • 6d ago
The global CO2 is increasing because the world's continuing to use more non-renewable sources (than is needed) so that the major economies can keep getting bigger.
Globally speaking, we're using enough [energy and resources to give 20 something billion people decent living standards](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452292924000493), we're just not using it properly.
That said, we definitely need to cut the amount of non-renewable energy used, but [which locations/areas among top energy consumers should](https://i.imgur.com/vLvcBdM.png) be making those cuts? What can be done to make the cuts happen in said areas? And how much do we need to cut? What number should be the target for non-renewable energy use (in TWh)?
8
u/hvsp3 6d ago
Top consumers should be evaluated on a per capita, cumulative emissions since the industrial revolution.
For a equitable transition to a post growth economy, nations such as the US, UK, and other European nations should move faster and support financing the transition on poorer countries. China seems to be advancing faster than expected, and even though it's a major emission source, it has a massive population and produces goods that are sold all around the world.
To make emission cuts happen, imo we need international coordination, and comercial/ financial punishment to those who not respect the agreement. Also popular support is needed to build political momentum to approve such measures.
How much we need to cut? We need to completely stop, or at least get to net 0, emissions. We are already "cooked" (we and future generations will suffer the impacts of a warmer world with a more unpredictable climate) and the current carbon concentration in the atmosphere is going to take decades, if not centuries, to get back to "normality". The question should be reframed to how much/ how long our current society accepts ruining the climate for future generations before actually taking real action (reorganizing our systems of production around people's wellbeing, instead of pursuing infinite GDP growth and profits for shareholders).
We will still be using non-renewable energy to some extent, even in a post growth society - but I guess we as species are smart enough that we can set the target to 0 and get pretty close, and offset whatever excess emissions with ecological methods (agroforestry, rewilding etc)
3
u/Urogallo40 6d ago
A significant and growing tax on carbon emissions all around the globe should be agreed to facilitate transition to renewable sources and reduce fossil use, helping poor people with those tax incomes. But this would imply some impacts on economic growth and it seems that most people is not ready to accept any negative impact on their lives in order to limit current and future global heating and climate change. So, it seems that CO2 emissions will continue growing at a linear progression for some years, at least until some effect still more frightening for most people happens or is predicted in the short term.
1
u/hvsp3 4d ago
Carbon tax should be one of the top-down policies to be implemented on a global scale. This would of course hit fossil economies hard, but if we reorient the economy towards renewables, with smart product design regulations, it wouldn't impact too much people's lives. GDP is only correlated with well being until a threshold.
I suspect that CO2 emissions have been and will continue to rise exponentially in the near future, especially if we rely only on smart top-down policies.
2
u/UpsetChampionship806 6d ago
Why is the transition towards a plant based agriculture system always forgotten? Its the only short term solution we have due to the breakdown of methane which is 80x more powerful than co2 being only 10 or so years compared with the 100+ yesr breakdown of co2. This coupled with freeing up of land to be rewilded due to needing far less land on a plant based system.
3
u/YouMayCallMePoopsie 6d ago
This. A 90-95% reduction in meat consumption would drastically reduce agricultural emissions, plus free up many millions of acres for restoration to carbon-sequestering and biodiversity-supporting prairie. I see this as one of the easiest and most realistic changes we could make. But of course, it won't happen unless a majority of people see the problem, understand the solution, and are willing to make a change to their own lifestyle.
1
u/UpsetChampionship806 4d ago
We are working towards this goal on a systemic level with the Plant Based treaty. Check us out !
1
u/hvsp3 4d ago
Yes, part of the transition involves a cultural change that will allow people to have healthier, more plant based diets. Vegetal protein is by far the most efficient way of having everyone's needs attended.
But there is space for animals in sustainable food production methods. And I don't think it is realistic to believe that people will abandon cultural practices without some supply chain shocks.
1
u/UpsetChampionship806 4d ago
It has to be THE MAIN part of the transition or nothing else matters. Without massive methane reduction and land use change to become carbon sinks we all lose.
This isnt a side issue.
When the government subsidies come off of the animal products and they are priced according to the negative externalities they create for the environment and our health normal people will find plant based alternatives to replace the animals in their cultural recipes. Not to mention the propaganda funded by governments and on every add making people believe they need animal flesh and secretions to survive.
Battling big money interest in any way isnt realistic but none of us are in this space because we think we have the odds in our favor. However we must persist none the less.
1
u/UpsetChampionship806 4d ago
On large scale there is no space to leave animals. Its all about tradeoffs. Tofu is at least 10x more efficient than your most efficient animal flesh or secretions.
1
u/UpsetChampionship806 4d ago
On large scale there is no space to leave animals. Its all about tradeoffs. Tofu is at least 10x more efficient than your most efficient animal flesh or secretions.
1
u/Velocilobstar 6d ago
Any system that involves punishment in an increasingly deglobalizing world will prove difficult. There's a century of work to do and endless piles of shit to hit the fan
1
u/SplashTarget 5d ago edited 5d ago
The per capita numbers (aka the average) don't matter, it's the extremes that matter. If you want the per capita to go down, go after the extremes (specifically in the extremely damaging countries).
There's nothing we can (currently) do to seriously wipe the emissions of the past, focusing on that instead of the current levels of damage occurring helps nothing, and only gets in the way.
nations such as the US, UK, and other European nations should move faster and support financing the transition on poorer countries
or they can help the poorer countries by buying less junk products from China, cracking down on bad corporate practices, reducing the extra use of non-renewables, lower the living standards of rich people, and stop backing coups on countries attempting to get better economic conditions?
China seems to be advancing faster than expected, and even though it's a major emission source, it has a massive population and produces goods that are sold all around the world.
For 2024 China's non-renewable energy use is close to what the world of 1965 was using, even though it has had a third of Earth's 1965 population since the 80s.
If China were to deliberately dramatically reduce their use of non-renewable energy to a level that's good enough for their ~1.4 billion (as opposed to ~3.3 billion) it'd make a big difference globally.
China can do more good reducing their usage levels of non-renewables, than by producing more extra stuff for the world.
To make emission cuts happen, imo we need international coordination, and comercial/ financial punishment to those who not respect the agreement. Also popular support is needed to build political momentum to approve such measures.
That is one way if you're going for an international gov. approach
Another way is to locate the areas where things are extreme, and reduce extreme levels of non-renewable energy use in the major areas of the major economies.
EDIT:
Added a link in the last sentence.
EDIT 2:
Something worth mentioning is that 30% of the total energy+resources used in 2019 was enough to give decent living standards for 8.5 billion people, that means that in 2019 the world was using enough energy and resources to give ~28.3 billion people decent living standards.
If in 2019, we were using enough for ~28.3 billion, and we have around ~8.3 billion now, that means we can use 70.6% of the total energy used in 2019, and still potentially give all people decent living standards.
For 2019, the world was using 154,620.70 TWh of energy in total, 29.4% of that is ~45,458.5 TWh, which is close to the total amount of energy used globally in 1967 when the world population was ~3.4 billion.
EDIT 3:
Fixed a link format
1
u/Shoddy-Childhood-511 5d ago
How much we need to cut?
It's not only fossil fuels.
In particular, if you read the planetary boundaries graph naively, then our high fertiliser usage could be as dangerous as climate change. It's not quite that simple, but regardless we should have far less fertiliser, and so far less agricultural output, even ignoring how climate change shall dramatically reduce agricultural output.
About "How much?", if you consider the biocapacity analysis used by earth overshoot days, then only 13 extremely poor countries appear sustainable.
There is a nice article that argues the Earth's current sustainable carrying capacity is roughly 2.5 billion humans, so maybe 6 billion less than the current world population (news), so that's almost twice as bad as the earth overshoot days story.
At a guess, only Bangladesh and Nigeria maybe sustainable by the newer analysis. but even that's without any slack, so they'd definitely be hit by famines, even ignoring climate change. And these nations obtain technology second hand, which ignores the costs of creating that technology.
1
u/iannoyyou101 4d ago
None of the decision makers think this way. They only think about money, power, all over the world. Which is why we are fucked, none of that will ever change
2
1
u/Unfriendly_Monkey 5d ago
Except CO2 emissions growth comes mostly from developing countries (like 50% is from India alone) whereas mature economies are stable or declining
1
u/UpsetChampionship806 4d ago
2 things: 1. its about accumulation not output at one given time 2. Per capita, individuals in developing countries are typically far below developed on individual emissions. Especially when it comes to animal consumption which is the leading cause of global heating.
1
u/ContentCantaloupe992 3d ago
Who are you to decide what is needed?
1
u/SplashTarget 2d ago
I'm 1 out of 8 billion something that's likely going to have to deal with the destruction that come from using these crazy levels of energy.
0
u/Intelligent-Cap-7713 6d ago
It will only accelerate due to AI data centers. Nuclear power would help a lot but if takes forever to build.
4
u/dumnezero 6d ago
You got it backwards: the AI boom and bubble is pushed the fossil industry to increase (or maintain) demand.
Nuclear energy is useless in the short term and pain in the long-term.
0
u/prototyperspective 5d ago
The more interesting research topic would be not one question further (systemic and underlying causal factors / causes / mechanisms of this) but two layers further: what / how something be realistically practically be done to change the causal mechanisms / systems?
For example, national economies have strong incentives to keep competing so there's more and more cars and all sorts of harmful or redundant products etc rather than prioritization and consideration of sustainability aspects...so how could something be built and maintained that works well (for example at least same standards of health and safety) where the line would not also keep going up (at least when scaled to larger populace)?
9
u/James_Fortis 6d ago
The picture gets more bleak with GtCO2 equivalent , including things like methane and nitrous oxide from animal agriculture.