Giving Up on Economic Growth Could Make Us Cooler and Happier

[PETRUS]

Limitless GDP growth, even in rich countries, is baked into climate modeling. It shouldn’t be.

Depending on which climate advocate you talk to, economic growth can either be the force that will deliver us from planetary destruction or the source of it. Most climate models assume growth is a given, projecting its bounties will eventually spur on decarbonization. But this risky gamble isn’t our only option, a new paper argues.

The International Panel on Climate Change serves as a clearinghouse for existing climate research. Its Special Report outlining ways to cap warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) includes 222 scenarios for the world to meet that target and avoid disaster. All of those, researchers Lorenz Keyßer and Manfred Lenzen note in a paper published in Nature Communications this week, involve steadily expanding economic growth. But “degrowth” options—where economic output declines—hold “a potential to avoid some of the key risks established in the normal scenarios,” Keyßer told me over Zoom....

(snip)

Simply meeting ballooning energy demand entirely with solar and wind would create its own set of problems. “Large-scale renewable energy deployment is unlikely to contribute to material use reduction, as renewables have a considerably higher material footprint than fossil fuels,” Keyßer and Lenzen write. Green energy is already helping fuel a global commodity boom and could in short order lead to shortages of minerals like lithium and cobalt. These are essential to electric vehicle production and currently mined in less than ideal circumstances. Besides investing inordinate faith in new technologies, a narrow focus on decarbonizing while maintaining consumption (and growth) as usual doesn’t address the broader ecological crises, such as biodiversity loss being fueled by ramped-up material usage....

Read more: https://newrepublic.com/article/162377/giving-up-economic-growth-green-climate

[Hugh_Lebowski]

1. Put me down as someone who thinks we won't put a dent in our carbon output

without getting away from an economy predicated on endless population and economic growth.

At this point we need some sort of technological miracle to avert a massive catastrophe, because I don't believe existing technologies can solve this without reducing the earth population by about 1/2, in relatively short order.

If we don't reduce our population through lower birth rates worldwide, immediately, physics and chemistry are going to do it for us, and they'll be a lot more unpleasant about it.

You might call me the Thanos of climate change.

[-misanthroptimist]

2. I largely agree

I think we've waited too long and the die is cast. I think that in 15-20 years the words "global catastrophe" are going to become a lot less abstract.

[CrispyQ]

3. Love your screen name!

[-misanthroptimist]

5. Thanks!

[CrispyQ]

4. Don't worry, our big brain will save us.

I've read that sentiment frequently here on DU. It's hard not to feel grim about humanity's future.

[jimfields33]

6. United States has the lowest birth rate since 1970 or in the 70's

How we stop other countries? Huge dilemma!