Agree Jack. I recommend everyone read Peter Victor's "Overshoot" and have a better understanding of ecological economics. I'll be writing more about that 40%. Let me know if there is anything I haven't touched on that you want me to discuss.
Great. The points you make about the costs of CC not being factored in to pricing also applies to all the other negative throughputs in the economy. By keeping the focus on ecological overshoot we can simultaneously address CC, biodiversity loss and extensive pollution. Degrowth is about reducing throughput overall to a sustainable steady state. The biosphere is an integrated unit. It is only our reductionist conceptualization of nature as separate climate, biodiversity and pollution systems, that forces us to think in terms of what we see as discreet risks. They are all part of the same basic dynamic - overshoot. The overshoot perspective seems so fundamental to me that it deserves considerably more attention. Such a perspective will determine how we respond to what we see as discreet threats. No point in "solving" CC and making biodiversity loss and pollution worse ( the course we are currently on)
While in agreement with what you've written, it seems worth noting that CC accounts for only about 60% of ecological overshoot. There's another 40% of biosphere disruption that is also an existential threat. It's particularly important to keep this in mind as we think about "solutions" to CC. Building up large "renewable energy" systems to replace fossil fuels is currently a major mainstream solution. But this approach ignores the 40% of biosphere disruption that involves mining, manufacturing, recycling and other processes that involve material throughput (i.e. taking resources from nature, processing them thru the economy, and eventually extruding them as waste). Ecological overshoot is the key dynamic that needs attention. So let's keep out eye on overshoot, while considering CC, biodiversity loss and pollution. Overshoot is the root of them all.
The real cost of doing business is never factored in, the destruction to the planet or the disposal of the product at the end of its life cycle, artificially boosting profits. That's a failure of governance. In college in the 80s, I researched nuclear energy in one of my electives and one book I read pointed out decommissioning a nuclear plant was going to be wildly expensive, many more times the cost of building it. Of course, taxpayers get left holding the bag. This is typical of industry in general. Our economic theories are all wrong and the premise of acquiring great wealth is wrong. We have a core motivation problem resulting in destructive behavior. Now we're going to pay the price big time.
Agree Jack. I recommend everyone read Peter Victor's "Overshoot" and have a better understanding of ecological economics. I'll be writing more about that 40%. Let me know if there is anything I haven't touched on that you want me to discuss.
Great. The points you make about the costs of CC not being factored in to pricing also applies to all the other negative throughputs in the economy. By keeping the focus on ecological overshoot we can simultaneously address CC, biodiversity loss and extensive pollution. Degrowth is about reducing throughput overall to a sustainable steady state. The biosphere is an integrated unit. It is only our reductionist conceptualization of nature as separate climate, biodiversity and pollution systems, that forces us to think in terms of what we see as discreet risks. They are all part of the same basic dynamic - overshoot. The overshoot perspective seems so fundamental to me that it deserves considerably more attention. Such a perspective will determine how we respond to what we see as discreet threats. No point in "solving" CC and making biodiversity loss and pollution worse ( the course we are currently on)
While in agreement with what you've written, it seems worth noting that CC accounts for only about 60% of ecological overshoot. There's another 40% of biosphere disruption that is also an existential threat. It's particularly important to keep this in mind as we think about "solutions" to CC. Building up large "renewable energy" systems to replace fossil fuels is currently a major mainstream solution. But this approach ignores the 40% of biosphere disruption that involves mining, manufacturing, recycling and other processes that involve material throughput (i.e. taking resources from nature, processing them thru the economy, and eventually extruding them as waste). Ecological overshoot is the key dynamic that needs attention. So let's keep out eye on overshoot, while considering CC, biodiversity loss and pollution. Overshoot is the root of them all.
The real cost of doing business is never factored in, the destruction to the planet or the disposal of the product at the end of its life cycle, artificially boosting profits. That's a failure of governance. In college in the 80s, I researched nuclear energy in one of my electives and one book I read pointed out decommissioning a nuclear plant was going to be wildly expensive, many more times the cost of building it. Of course, taxpayers get left holding the bag. This is typical of industry in general. Our economic theories are all wrong and the premise of acquiring great wealth is wrong. We have a core motivation problem resulting in destructive behavior. Now we're going to pay the price big time.