Some of my favourite threads and articles from the last week-ish, roughly in order of (1) problem -> (2) way forward -> (3) momentum:
(1) Problem: our growth-based economies are at the heart of our ecological crises
🧵 (1/16)
"The fact is that we cannot keep growing the same cancerous way ‘except solar’. It’s like saying I’m going to switch lung cancer for eye cancer. I mean, still cancer…. we’re getting a brutal lesson this century whether we want it or not."
“…we must rapidly reduce consumption/destruction of natural resources and associated fossil fuel use. This is only achievable by reversing economic ‘growth’ …. This is not unrealistic or anti-capitalist — it’s counting.”
“the idea of green growth has sustained a don’t worry, everything is going to be okay narrative, becoming a form of macroeconomic greenwashing mobilised to discredit more radical proposals.”
(2) Way forward: we must recognise that this isn’t a simple problem we face, our opponents are big, and many:
(5/16)
“in this struggle we are contesting not only fossil capital and the governments that support it. We are fighting against all capital and, perhaps, most of the people it employs.”
If the environmental movement is to have a chance at succeeding, it must unite with the labour movement globally and foreground policies that release labour from the grip of capital:
We also need to change the political framing from living in an “economy” to living in a society. Currency issuing governments are not households that have a budget to manage. Money is simply a medium of exchange, not a rare resource:
(3) Momentum: thankfully we are starting to see some growth-critical discourse by world leaders, Irish President Michael D Higgins spoke on the topic last week
There is also a 3 day ‘Beyond Growth’ conference in Brussels beginning on the 15th May. It is “an initiative of 20 MEPs from five different political groups … with the support of the President of the European Parliament”
Let’s hope with all of this momentum we get to that 25% social tipping point that we need for these topics to go mainstream (this is an older article, but still good!):
“Social convention, which has for so long worked against us, can if flipped become our greatest …
(13/16)
… source of power, normalising what now seems radical and weird. If we can simultaneously trigger a cascading regime shift in both technology and politics, we might stand a chance.”
Because things have changed quickly in the past, and they can do so again (another oldie but goldie):
“From 1942 until 1945, the manufacture of cars was banned. So were new household appliances and even the construction of new homes. Tyres and gasoline were strictly …
(15/16)
… rationed; meat, butter, sugar, clothes and shoes were also limited. Rationing was considered fairer than taxing scarce goods: it ensured everyone received an equal share.”
When it comes to choosing between achieving sustainability goals or pursuing growth, 99% (maybe more?) of the time companies will choose growth and expansion.
In this example Crocs can't achieve its initial sustainability goals because it acquired a brand and because of its "ongoing global expansion", even though they admit that their initial net-zero by 2030 goal was "neither vast nor fast enough".
(2/9)
To be clear, Crocs Inc had committed to a net-zero target and has a global head of sustainability, which is a "a newly created position at Crocs to help hit the ambitious goal of being net zero".
Over the course of history, all new energy sources have been *incremental* to existing energy sources. This includes renewables - thus far they have not replaced fossil fuels, which continue to grow in usage. (1/7)
Our growth-based economic system means that we turn that new energy into more consumption rather than displace existing sources of energy. GDP and energy use are virtually correlated on a 1:1 ratio (2/7)
Thankfully we can live happy, healthy lives with less energy, this study shows that “decent standards of living could be provided to a growing global population for less than 40 per cent of the energy used around the world today.” (3/7)
Yesterday I was asked: “what are the 5 things you think everyone needs to know?”
So, I thought I’d share them here too:
1. This chart from the IPCC 6th Assessment Synthesis report, released this week, shows just how far away we are from limiting warming to below 2C: (1/11)
We need to be doing much more. Wealthy nations - like Australia - should be aiming to reduce emissions by 75% by 2030 (the current Labor government has a target of 43% reduction and are relying on controversial carbon offsets for much of it). (2/11)
2. Global Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are now 60% higher than they were in 1990, and we have now put more GHG emissions into the atmosphere since the first IPCC report was released in 1990 (i.e., knowing about the problem) than in all of human history prior… (3/11)
Not to get to inadequate targets (43%). To compensate for our historic emissions and help other countries achieve their targets.
Not to allow environmentally harmful sectors to continue indefinitely.
Perhaps @auspol needs to be briefed on #degrowth? The only mathematically feasible way to limit warming to less than 2 degrees & avoid tipping points in the Earth’s system that will lead to Hothouse Earth.
Here is the recording of @jasonhickel speaking to the Dutch parliament on the topic of #degrowth earlier today.
It’s been described as a “masterclass in cutting through mainstream myths about the economy”.
Perhaps @StephanieKelton can be invited to speak to the Dutch parliament soon, to help clear up the myth of “the government is a household and needs tax revenue to spend”.
And perhaps @adribuller can talk to the Dutch parliament about how putting a price on everything is absurd.