Well said and I agree Jack. I just saw the chart in Peter’s book and thought it was ripe for a blog showing the math about how Degrowth can help with climate.
While these are helpful mental exercises to give us a picture of the challenges we face, it is important to keep in mind that GHG emissions account for approx 60% of overshoot. Reducing GHGs is not the only challenge we have. The other 40% involves other demands we place on natural sources and sinks. Degrowth is about not only reducing GHGs, but all forms of energy. The more energy we use (regardless of source) the more ecosystem disruption we create. And if we reduce energy use, then we automatically reduce our demands on nature. What we have to learn is how to extract the most wellbeing per joule - make every expenditure of energy contribute directly to meeting basic needs for everyone. It is possible to live well with considerably less energy. We are both wasteful of energy, and we use energy for things that do not contribute to basic needs, yet basic needs (both material and non-material) are the basis of wellbeing and general life satisfaction.
The map of the projected income changes does not show the impacts of sea level rise. The shipping ports world wide will disappear.
The economic impact of that alone will be staggering.
Agricultural land will be moving northwards as the climate changes, so will the machinery from the US migrate with the climate into Canada? The US is going to lose virtually all of its arable land. Alaska is mostly tundra and permafrost and likely not farmable.
Has the collapse of the oceans food chain been factored in? Has the chaos which will ensure when the food chain collapses?
Basing the predictions on a meaningless number like the GDP will result in meaningless predictions. What percentage of the GDP in the US is based on military spending?
If the map is viewed as survivability rather than economic change it will give a closer approximation of what is in store for us.
Well said and I agree Jack. I just saw the chart in Peter’s book and thought it was ripe for a blog showing the math about how Degrowth can help with climate.
While these are helpful mental exercises to give us a picture of the challenges we face, it is important to keep in mind that GHG emissions account for approx 60% of overshoot. Reducing GHGs is not the only challenge we have. The other 40% involves other demands we place on natural sources and sinks. Degrowth is about not only reducing GHGs, but all forms of energy. The more energy we use (regardless of source) the more ecosystem disruption we create. And if we reduce energy use, then we automatically reduce our demands on nature. What we have to learn is how to extract the most wellbeing per joule - make every expenditure of energy contribute directly to meeting basic needs for everyone. It is possible to live well with considerably less energy. We are both wasteful of energy, and we use energy for things that do not contribute to basic needs, yet basic needs (both material and non-material) are the basis of wellbeing and general life satisfaction.
The map of the projected income changes does not show the impacts of sea level rise. The shipping ports world wide will disappear.
The economic impact of that alone will be staggering.
Agricultural land will be moving northwards as the climate changes, so will the machinery from the US migrate with the climate into Canada? The US is going to lose virtually all of its arable land. Alaska is mostly tundra and permafrost and likely not farmable.
Has the collapse of the oceans food chain been factored in? Has the chaos which will ensure when the food chain collapses?
Basing the predictions on a meaningless number like the GDP will result in meaningless predictions. What percentage of the GDP in the US is based on military spending?
If the map is viewed as survivability rather than economic change it will give a closer approximation of what is in store for us.