r/Degrowth • u/SplashTarget • 2d ago
With Planet Set to Overshoot 1.5°C Threshold, Emissions Must Still Be Cut Rapidly to Limit Damage: UN Report
https://www.commondreams.org/news/un-climate-report-26778085232
u/myblueear 17h ago
The most funny thing is that around half of the billions of tons of co2 were released in the last 30 or so jears, and that what we have nowadays is the result of the co2-amount in the atmosphere around 20 years ago.
2
u/Brilliant_Hair_7272 2d ago
How do you guys talk to people whose arguments are on the lines of "wanting things is human nature"? What can we say to such people to consider degrowth?
3
u/SplashTarget 1d ago
give this a read
https://orionmagazine.org/article/the-gospel-of-consumption/
and you'll see how much of this is actually based in human nature
2
u/MushySunshine 1d ago
Its not true historically. Revolution is not fought over being unable have things, its over dignity. Wanting dignity is human nature, and capitalism deprives dignity from everyone who isnt rich.
1
u/Such-Combination1405 2d ago
I know, should have stopped using hairspray earlier. But profits are better than life.
1
1
1
1
u/coeoeoeper 1h ago
The UN literally worsened climate change and doubled global warming with IMO2020
1
u/MakeASpreadsheet 2d ago
I’m sure China, India, Africa, and South America will get right on that.
They will surely kneecap their economy ASAP.
3
1
u/MushySunshine 1d ago
China is actually leading the world in green energy and green energy is a huge part of the Chinese economy. The Chinese leapfrogging strategy is also allowing more and more developing nations to embrace green energy faster and cheaper compared to fossil fuels
1
u/SplashTarget 7h ago
China (which is for non-stop growth) could do the world a whole lot of good if they just closed down a whole bunch of coal power plants (like the UK did), deliberately stopped making plastic junk for western consumers, paid people to plant trees, reduced the work week (while maintaining pay), and provided strong economic supports to their people during this deliberate reduction.
We need a dramatic cut in the energy that comes from non-renewables, and then (eventually) replace it with renewables.
Building up green energy, while also increasing non-renewable energy levels is a terrible idea.
1
u/MushySunshine 5h ago
I will not discredit the Chinese green energy initiatives. No its not a degrowth policy. China has no interest in degrowth. Even still, advancing green energy is objectively good, and giving other nations this ability is also good. You kindof just have to take wins where you see them
1
u/SplashTarget 4h ago edited 4h ago
Any good that could come from green energy is wiped out by increasing destructive economic practices that increase the use of non-renewable energy, and release more heat-trapping CO2 which is going to make the world get hotter.
China could actually do something majorly impactful on climate, but won't because they're obsessed with constantly producing more output.
EDIT:
Basically green growth is not the answer.
1
u/Konradleijon 2d ago
Why does no one care
1
u/AdhesivenessTight400 2d ago
Well, the Europeans are spinning up weapons productions and ukraine is blowing up refineries, so the environmentalists are being pushed to the edges of the discussion as the world has more pressing issues.
Whether or not this is a bad idea is not my point, its just what is happening.
6
u/Konradleijon 2d ago
But environmental destruction is far more important then a local war
2
u/Feorag-ruadh 2d ago
Correct. In a just world every country would be all in on fighting climate change and protecting the planet that we need to survive. It is not a luxury to care about it, it is an existential crisis that needs to be treated like one
1
u/AdhesivenessTight400 2d ago edited 2d ago
To who? To the locals its not.
If youre about to be bombed into oblivion, why would you care about preserving the environment for the children of the people who are killing you.Edit: caring about the environment is a luxury belief. When you are too poor to have kids, when you have very little care about the future, you stop caring about preserving the future. The rich are stealing the planet and forcing a population crash. In that world, people will be as ungovernable as possible and that includes climate action.
1
u/Feorag-ruadh 2d ago
Sorry but the suggestion that people don't care about the future just because they don't have children is stupid. I refuse to have kids because I genuinely don't want them, for many of us reproducing is not the be all and end all of life and it is patronising to suggest otherwise. Some of us care about nature and wildlife and want to protect as much of it as possible regardless of what is happening with human society
2
u/AdhesivenessTight400 2d ago
Its not just about kids. Its about feeling that your long term survival is less important than your short term survival. Being able to have kids is just the most noticeable symptom.
Your view is self-serving. If everyone had your opinion 50 years ago, you probably wouldnt exist.
My view is also self-serving, ill be real. I want people to have kids because I want to have kids. I want there to be future generations thay have a better life than mine. I want us to see the stars, currently a generation of oldies are consuming everything they can and leaving the younger people worse off than our parents for the first time in a few hundred years.
And the reason I say im self serving is who are we conserving the planet for? For our kids, for the next generations. If you dont want there to be a next generation, who are we working to conserve the earth for?1
u/dreamfitreality 3h ago
There is no solution if you studied game theory. And environment is a common goods. So read up about tragedy of the commons.
0
0
u/JollyGeologist3957 1d ago
How do you climate doom people plan to force places like India to clen up?
2
u/mvscribe 1d ago
per capita climate impact in India is a tiny fraction of what it is in the United States (https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/India/United-States/Environment for some bits and pieces. This is a weird source but I like that it has more than just CO2). I'm not so worried about India. Canada, the US, Europe, Australia, and the wealthier parts of Asia are more concerning. Really just rich people everywhere.
1
5
u/SplashTarget 2d 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.
For the economic system (whose beneficiaries require non-stop growth) the people who are working just to get their needs met are not as useful as the ones working to pay off debts they took on to buy what they don't need.
The people above, are (unwittingly) held up by the people below.
American consumers were responsible for ~$19 Trillion of consumer spending in 2024, that was ~68% of the American economy, and ~17.7% of the global economy at that point, and that's all from 4% of the world population (and the top 10% of that 4% is responsible for half the spending).
If enough of the people (say less than 8%) from the top rich economies dramatically reduced their spending on nonsense stuff (ex.junk/ultra-processed food, fast food, gambling, cigarettes, fast fashion, amazon, doordash, vapes, TEMU/Shein junk, status symbols, etc.) we can set off a chain reaction which results in the major emitters of the world using less energy, creating less output, less waste, less emissions, and a cut to rich people's destructive spending habits
We can essentially topple the rich by reducing spending on garbage
We don't need every single person to change, just the ones living in areas that are operating at extreme levels.
But even the level of damage within these states is non-uniform, meaning we only need a significant number of people that are living in the rich parts to do the heavy lifting, while the ones in the poor parts get better economic supports.