"We cannot reverse ecological breakdown while at the same time pursuing growth; but we *can* reverse ecological breakdown while at the same time ensuring flourishing lives for all. That’s the story we need to be telling. That is where hope lies." jasonhickel.org/blog/2020/10/1…
"We need a Green New Deal, yes. But if we want our GND to be technologically feasible, ecologically coherent, and socially just, it needs to be a GND without growth. It needs to be a GND that actively scales down excess resource and energy use, in a safe, just and equitable way."
"Progressives have been pulled into a debate about whether a GND will be good or bad for growth. This is exactly the wrong question to ask. The real question is: do we need growth in the first place? And the answer to that is no."
"We cannot let ourselves be dragged into framing our aspirations for a better world in the language of growth, for it immediately traps us within the logic of capital; and on that terrain we will lose. We need to be smarter than that."
I have tremendous respect for Pollin and Chomsky. Both have influenced my thinking a great deal. But on this specific point they are incorrect. We need to be building bridges between GND and degrowth scholarship, not creating islands.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The UN has published a new report on "Harmony with Nature", which outlines the remarkable steps that some countries and cities have been taking away from growth-based economics. It's an inspiring list, starting on page 4. undocs.org/en/A/75/266
The report also mentions degrowth, postgrowth and @KateRaworth's doughnut economics. Plus an interesting fact I didn't know: "The origin of the term degrowth, found in décroissance in French, refers to a river going back to its normal flow after a disastrous flood."
Section 5 documents recent gains in Earth jurisprudence. "A first step to recognizing the rights of Nature is the recognition that non-human beings are sentient, not mere property, and must be afforded respect and legal recognition."
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...
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”.