I like the ideology that degrowth represents, I just always found myself turned off by the name “degrowth” I think, although superfluous, the term sounds negative and maybe we should say “post-growth” and more people would be inclined to adopt the idea?
That video was excellent Matt! I've shared it with our local environmental group here in Sonoma County, California. I'm trying to arrange to have one of our members, Christopher Peck, speak to us about ecological investing and degrowth. Again, thanks for sharing!
I live in a highly insulated, 90 square foot cabin. Yet, I'm kept comfortable with electric heat and cooling powered by a small solar system (400w). I cook with an Instant Pot, an air fryer, and an electric frying pan, and I have an ice maker. Of course, I also have internet, various devices, and electric lighting. In other words, I'm hardly roughing it and hardly a Luddite.
Will most people in the USA and elsewhere live in such a small space? Probably not, and especially not if there are multiple people in the household.
Yet, consider this: In 1945, the average US house size was ~800–1,000 sq. ft. Today it's ~2,400–2,500 sq. ft. And family's are smaller! What if we could get back to the same size houses we had in 1945?
I got Chat GPT to run me some numbers (at least as good as any estimates I could do manually). It concluded: "Downsizing new homes to ~900 sq. ft. could slash construction emissions by ~64% and operating emissions by ~60% or more—with even greater savings when coupled with energy efficiency, passive solar design, and low-carbon materials." And "One-time savings: ~80 metric tons CO₂e (embodied), Annual savings: ~2.2 metric tons CO₂e (energy)."
Even if we got the average home size down to 1500 sq ft, each home could save about 50 tons of CO2 compared to the current average.
To me, all that means we could do a lot of good by living a little smaller while still enjoying the benefits of modern technology. Easier said than done, I realize!
I like the ideology that degrowth represents, I just always found myself turned off by the name “degrowth” I think, although superfluous, the term sounds negative and maybe we should say “post-growth” and more people would be inclined to adopt the idea?
Check this out then:
https://degrowthistheanswer.substack.com/p/degrowth-is-a-terrible-word?utm_source=publication-search
Not sure "post growth" would work, either. Still sounds like scarcity. But you're right: it needs better marketing.
Language is a critical instrument in this time where critical thinking is scarce.
That video was excellent Matt! I've shared it with our local environmental group here in Sonoma County, California. I'm trying to arrange to have one of our members, Christopher Peck, speak to us about ecological investing and degrowth. Again, thanks for sharing!
Thanks for sharing our work Matt!
Yeah, fuck the BBC, why would you even link to that genoxidal propaganda bollocks?
whatever it said it's unwatchable for me due to the crashing exasperating music in the 'background'.
I live in a highly insulated, 90 square foot cabin. Yet, I'm kept comfortable with electric heat and cooling powered by a small solar system (400w). I cook with an Instant Pot, an air fryer, and an electric frying pan, and I have an ice maker. Of course, I also have internet, various devices, and electric lighting. In other words, I'm hardly roughing it and hardly a Luddite.
Will most people in the USA and elsewhere live in such a small space? Probably not, and especially not if there are multiple people in the household.
Yet, consider this: In 1945, the average US house size was ~800–1,000 sq. ft. Today it's ~2,400–2,500 sq. ft. And family's are smaller! What if we could get back to the same size houses we had in 1945?
I got Chat GPT to run me some numbers (at least as good as any estimates I could do manually). It concluded: "Downsizing new homes to ~900 sq. ft. could slash construction emissions by ~64% and operating emissions by ~60% or more—with even greater savings when coupled with energy efficiency, passive solar design, and low-carbon materials." And "One-time savings: ~80 metric tons CO₂e (embodied), Annual savings: ~2.2 metric tons CO₂e (energy)."
Even if we got the average home size down to 1500 sq ft, each home could save about 50 tons of CO2 compared to the current average.
To me, all that means we could do a lot of good by living a little smaller while still enjoying the benefits of modern technology. Easier said than done, I realize!
(Here's the chat for details: https://chatgpt.com/share/686ee470-d1cc-8011-8125-4d5d1dac6b46)