Video

The constant referement to Malthusianism indicates the level of knowledge he has on the topic. Unfortunately, his position is so biased.

Best climate dialogue ever.

Had a course with Paul Robbins at University of Arizona. Great to see your continuing to think on political ecology, climate change, degrowth etc

Paul Robbins is wrong. He is clearly pro-growth. We cannot get rid of capitalism if we do not get rid of growth.

In my policy practice, degrowth or tech must be case by case. For example, once the technology of using bio-enery from food waste is successful, keeping certain number of vehicles is OK. So only after we have scientific results that certain technology is OK to certain level of consumption and/or production then it is OK to only that area/sector. GMO food does not mean all modified genes are the same. Adding a toxin to a plant is different from adding carotene-generated gene. Organic food with certain conditions may not have to degrow if the technology used pay back 100% the waste and waste water to the soil in quickly-enough biodegrable form while clothing industry may now need to degrow as the chemicals in textile has not achieved environmentally friendly technology.

If all the mining and pollution from creating renewable energy was accepted and disregarded the problem would still be that renewable energy from wind, solar and hydropower could never come close to replacing fossil fuel energy worldwide.

The decrease in population growth rates happened because energy production inflected in the 1970s to slower rate. Most energy comes from fossil fuels being energy dense. We are now at #PeakOil and from that will come less fertiliser, and therefore fewer people. This is why we need degrowth, because nature forces it on us.

I agree with Paul about the need to have constructive dialog between the degrowth and eco-modernist camps, and to focus the discussion on pragmatic over utopian ideas. His dismissal of both planetary boundaries and tipping points seemed rather flippant and it kind of annoyed me. These aren’t just some mental abstractions that environmentalists made up to push action; they are deeply studied aspects of the complex nonlinear systems that constitute and support the biosphere. That’s why the +2C LIMIT is actually important. I did appreciate his emphasis on achieving the goal or meeting everyone’s needs without “breaking the climate,” and the recognition that it absolutely will take deploying technology at scale. The devil is always in the details though. How do we convince Americans that: no, actually every household doesn’t need to own multiple personal vehicles and that we can’t just swap in electrification 1:1 with modern energy usage habits and expect everything to just work out?

Nuclear power is a good thing to see going away. This is a great discussion, but over dependence on problematic technologies without acknowledging our need to embrace Degrowth to a degree most first worlders aren’t going to like.

we had a PE reading group today in Melbourne and discussed chapter 1. Participants included Simon Batterbury, Wolf Dressler, Priya Rangan, Christian Kull, Matthias Kowasch and Vanessa Lamb.

Tipping points are completely scientifically valid. They’re not just some overreaction to the complexity of the system by environmentalists. Tipping points go way beyond just human influences on the environment. They are a fundamental part of any complex system and they predict that all sorts of internal or external forces could lead to a dramatically different climate that may be inhospitable to humans as has happened throughout earth’s history. People don’t need to just manage resources properly they also need to have a deep grasp of nature. Because the fundamental truth is that nature doesn’t care about us at all and will do nothing to prevent our destruction by external forces.