Jonathan Schofield
@urlyman@mastodon.social  ·  activity timestamp 2 weeks ago

We can’t grand plan steps down the energy ladder but could agree some basic principles out of which a way down might emerge. Here are some suggestions:

Does the product or service centre well-being while having a substantially lower materials footprint than the current norm? If not, disincentivise it.

Can its materials footprint be metabolised? If not, disincentivise it.

If we don’t do these kinds of things we get thrown off the ladder anyway, from a height of about 600 exajoules

Global Energy Production and Use In 2024 global energy consumption rose 2% from its 2023 level to 592 exajoules.1 Oil had the largest share (199 exajoules, or 33.6 %), followed by coal (165 exajoules, or 27.9%), and natural gas (149 exajoules, or 25.2 %). Hydrocarbon energy thus provided 86.7% of the world’s energy needs. Nuclear energy provided 31 exajoules (5.2%), hydro-electricity 16 exajoules (2.7%) and “other renewables 33 exajoules (5.6%). Carbon Dioxide Emissions Global carbon dioxide equivalent emissions from energy consumption alone totaled 35,491.8 million tonnes. OECD emissions were 11,072 million tonnes CO2eq and Non-OECD emissions were 24,420 million tonnes CO2eq. So, the non-OECD countries produced 68.8% of total emissions, an all-time-high share. China alone produced 11,173 million tonnes CO2eq, or 31.5% of the world’s total. The US produced 13.0%, Europe 9.9%, and Canada 1.5%.
Global Energy Production and Use In 2024 global energy consumption rose 2% from its 2023 level to 592 exajoules.1 Oil had the largest share (199 exajoules, or 33.6 %), followed by coal (165 exajoules, or 27.9%), and natural gas (149 exajoules, or 25.2 %). Hydrocarbon energy thus provided 86.7% of the world’s energy needs. Nuclear energy provided 31 exajoules (5.2%), hydro-electricity 16 exajoules (2.7%) and “other renewables 33 exajoules (5.6%). Carbon Dioxide Emissions Global carbon dioxide equivalent emissions from energy consumption alone totaled 35,491.8 million tonnes. OECD emissions were 11,072 million tonnes CO2eq and Non-OECD emissions were 24,420 million tonnes CO2eq. So, the non-OECD countries produced 68.8% of total emissions, an all-time-high share. China alone produced 11,173 million tonnes CO2eq, or 31.5% of the world’s total. The US produced 13.0%, Europe 9.9%, and Canada 1.5%.
Global Energy Production and Use In 2024 global energy consumption rose 2% from its 2023 level to 592 exajoules.1 Oil had the largest share (199 exajoules, or 33.6 %), followed by coal (165 exajoules, or 27.9%), and natural gas (149 exajoules, or 25.2 %). Hydrocarbon energy thus provided 86.7% of the world’s energy needs. Nuclear energy provided 31 exajoules (5.2%), hydro-electricity 16 exajoules (2.7%) and “other renewables 33 exajoules (5.6%). Carbon Dioxide Emissions Global carbon dioxide equivalent emissions from energy consumption alone totaled 35,491.8 million tonnes. OECD emissions were 11,072 million tonnes CO2eq and Non-OECD emissions were 24,420 million tonnes CO2eq. So, the non-OECD countries produced 68.8% of total emissions, an all-time-high share. China alone produced 11,173 million tonnes CO2eq, or 31.5% of the world’s total. The US produced 13.0%, Europe 9.9%, and Canada 1.5%.
las semillas
@movements_social@movimientos.social  ·  activity timestamp 2 weeks ago

The researchers were surprised to find that the loss of #water on the continents has grown so dramatically that it has become one of the largest causes of global #SeaLevel rise.

Moisture lost to evaporation and drought, plus runoff from pumped groundwater, now outpaces the melting of glaciers and the ice sheets of either Antarctica or Greenland as the largest contributor of water to the oceans.

#extractivismo #capitalism #degrowth #commons

https://www.propublica.org/article/water-aquifers-groundwater-rising-ocean-levels
Donald Power
@Basalisco@mastodon.social  ·  activity timestamp 2 weeks ago

The first six chapters of 'An Economy of Want' are now on the web, here: http://openengineering.scienceontheweb.net/EconOfWant.html There's an overview, or just dive in!

Economics primer based firmly in the natural world ... for those familiar with mainstream economics also interested in alternative analyses, or anyone new to economics who wants an approachable introduction.

Details & eBook https://sites.google.com/view/economyofwant

#Economics#Environment#Sustainability#EcologicalEconomics#GreenEconomics #EnvironmentalEconomics#Degrowth
Emil Jacobs - Collectifission
@collectifission@greennuclear.online  ·  activity timestamp 4 weeks ago

Just a subtoot: If you don't 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 nuclear, you'll find reasons to be against it - facts, climate change and human flourishing be damned.

It is therefore the wrong approach to respond against anti-nuclear arguments with facts. Believe me, I've tried. You can reply to worries about nuclear waste (spent fuel) for example with facts - like it being manageable just fine, or it only needing safe storage for 300 years before it becomes radiologically harmless, or it being able to be recycled perfectly fine, or its volume being negligible... If you get a denial of these facts, just stop bothering as people are just being dishonest with you.

I'm also not arguing with people who deny climate change, vaccines, the Earth being a globe (ffs), or whatever crazy batshit stuff people come up with these days. It's just not worth my time. I'll just smile and move along. Being against nuclear is likewise a denial of the science.

What does tend to work (better) is setting an optimistic narrative: industrialised society cannot run on solar and wind alone (this isn't hard arithmetic, it's just not enough, even ignoring other problems inherent with them) and nuclear is a 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 to this problem.

The third world, primarily Africa, is going to explode in energy consumption as they economically develop themselves (at long last) this century and, if we don't want them to burn coal for decades, nuclear energy is a 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 to this problem.

All energy sources have toxic waste streams. Nuclear has the fewest and best managed. It is a 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 to the problem of how to minimise our impact on the environment.

That spent fuel I was talking about earlier? It's full of energy still. So much so that it can power 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺 for 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴. No more mining needed if we wanted to. Nuclear 'waste' isn't waste at all, it is a 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦.

The degrowth movement has a view that we need to use radically less energy, up to 95% less for the West and 60% less globally. These are numbers degrowthers share. The underlying view, explicit or implicit, is that there are just too many people on this planet. A malthusian view of sinful people. Sometimes this is wrapped up in an anti-capitalist rhetoric that 'infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible'. Catchy slogan, but it doesn't actually align with (capitalist) reality.

Yes, as a communist I strive for the end of capitalism and class society in general. And yes, we'll need to rearrange society by quite a bit. 'Degrow' some sectors, grow others. But for humans to flourish we need loads of clean energy. We need to in fact 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘥𝘦 our energy production as a species, up it by a factor 2 or 3 compared to the 200,000 TWh we consume now. Nuclear can deliver that, for billions of years, for the smallest footprint.

TL;DR, the two takeaways are:

Set the narrative, don't be reactive. The latter will cost you time and energy to combat. With the former people will have to engage with you.

If humanity is to have a future, the future will have to be nuclear.

#Nuclear#NuclearEnergy#Degrowth#ClimateChange#EnergyTransition
Lyla Mehta
@Lylamehta@mas.to  ·  activity timestamp last month

Welcome to post-growth Europe – can anyone accept this new political reality?

Apart from the reasons outlined here, a postgrowth Europe would be less colonialist, extractive, more equitable, caring, sustainable, & socially just.

#Post-Growth #Degrowth#Growth #Europe

https://theconversation.com/welcome-to-post-growth-europe-can-anyone-accept-this-new-political-reality-257420?utm_source=clipboard&utm_medium=bylinecopy_url_button
Mike Buckley
@interdependent@mastodonapp.uk replied  ·  activity timestamp last month
@urlyman You advocate doing far fewer things for #degrowth
Would doing more repairs to what we already have be a good idea?
Jonathan Schofield
@urlyman@mastodon.social  ·  activity timestamp last month


One of the things Kate Raworth talks about is how she sketched a picture that represented her idea of doughnut economics and then put it in a drawer for a few years before finally revisiting it when she felt ready to put it out into the world, and that the world might be ready for it.

It is such a simple drawing. But for me, and many others, compelling…