This is surely one of the most important climate facts we've learned this year: high-income countries use a staggering 20x more energy than is actually required to ensure flourishing lives for all.
Put another way, high-income countries could reduce their energy use by *95%* while still providing good living standards for everyone. Source: sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
What's so powerful - and hopeful - about this fact is that high-income countries generate on average 10% of their final energy from renewables. In other words, we already have sufficient renewable capacity for a flourishing clean energy economy...
...if we organise it around human needs rather than around capital accumulation.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The IPCC is clear that if we want to stay under 1.5C, without relying on speculative negative emissions technologies, we need to reduce global energy use by 40%. For some reason this is not yet part of the public discussion about climate change, and it needs to be.
If you are a climate journalist, this is a story worth writing about.
Such dramatic reductions in energy use require scaling down unnecessary industrial production. The good news is that we can do this while at the same time ensuring good lives for all: sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
This is one of the most important climate facts of our time:
if we cut excess energy use (i.e., by scaling down unnecessary industrial production), we can accomplish a *much* faster transition to renewables—in a matter of years, not decades.
Here we review empirical literature indicating that reducing excess energy/resource use is necessary to stay under 1.5/2C: tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…
And this recent paper shows that we can deliver flourishing lives for all, with universal healthcare and education etc, for 10 billion people, with 40% less energy than we presently use. sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
These two books will forever change how you think about trees and other more-than-human beings. They're precipitating a quiet revolution in our culture and I can't recommend them enough.
Both are inspired by the pathbreaking work of Dr Suzanne Simard, whose research taught us how trees communicate and interact with one another, even sharing food and medicine among kin and friends through mycelial networks.
Note that Simard herself is always careful to point out that none of this is new. It has long been known and understood by Indigenous Americans. "Western science shut that down for a while and now we’re getting back to it." nautil.us/issue/77/under…
This week, 33 years ago, Thomas Sankara, the revolutionary leader of Burkina Faso, was assassinated in a French-backed coup. He aspired to an egalitarian, feminist society, and an economy built on self-sufficiency, ecological regeneration, and independence from Western powers.
As debt crises mount across Africa, his ideas are more vital now than ever. I wrote about Sankara's legacy in these two pages from The Divide:
Today, Sankara's legacy is inspiring a new generation of revolutionary thinkers and activists across the continent and beyond. As Sankara himself put it, with uncanny prescience, “You can assassinate revolutionaries, but you cannot kill ideas”.
This is the most powerful, captivating text I have read in some time. Don't miss it. "The white man knows too little for the power that he wields, and the damage that he causes." theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
"My name is Nemonte Nenquimo. I am a Waorani woman, a mother, and a leader of my people. We are fighting to protect what we love – our way of life, our rivers, the animals, our forests, life on Earth – and it’s time that you listened to us."
"You are probably not used to an Indigenous woman calling you ignorant. But it is clear: the less you know about something, the less value it has to you, and the easier it is to destroy. And this is exactly what you are doing to our planet."
The term "degrowth" is an asset, not a liability. "Trying to avoid provocation, or trying to be agnostic about growth, creates a milieu where problematic assumptions remain unidentified and unexamined in favour of polite conversation and agreement." ...
... "This is not an effective way to advance knowledge, especially when the stakes are so high." I make this argument here: tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…
It's easy to agree that we need to reduce resource use and bring the economy back into balance with the living world. The next step is to grapple with the fact that the underlying problem is the structural growth imperative of capitalism.