arjun on Nostr: Johan Norberg: The worst environmental problem is really a lack of technological ...
Johan Norberg: The worst environmental problem is really a lack of technological capacity because, in that case, we're going to have to use everything, every resource, just to stay alive.
To me, one perfect illustration—an unfortunate illustration of this—was the pandemic. If you think that degrowth is the solution to global warming, then the pandemic was your perfect example. You should be able to point to the pandemic and say, "That's what we're going to do." Because suddenly people were forced to stay at home. They weren't allowed to go to work. We blocked. Not a single airplane took off. So we really had reverted back to degrowth. And that was obviously a disaster for mankind.
Over a single year, 70 million people were thrown into poverty. But more than that, it didn't help the planet one bit. On the contrary. It only reduced carbon dioxide emission during the first pandemic year by 6%, no more than 6%, which means that if it were to just reach the Paris climate accords by doing less, we would need something like a pandemic every year until 2030, without any rebound in between, which would obviously be a nightmare for humanity in terms of life and health. But it won't help us with the environment.
It will help us with one particular bit of it: no carbon dioxide. But what should we do then, to grow our food and create the kind of things that we need? Well, we would need to use the resources that are there. We won't be able to create new and better and smarter ways of creating resources in an environmentally friendly way.
To me, one perfect illustration—an unfortunate illustration of this—was the pandemic. If you think that degrowth is the solution to global warming, then the pandemic was your perfect example. You should be able to point to the pandemic and say, "That's what we're going to do." Because suddenly people were forced to stay at home. They weren't allowed to go to work. We blocked. Not a single airplane took off. So we really had reverted back to degrowth. And that was obviously a disaster for mankind.
Over a single year, 70 million people were thrown into poverty. But more than that, it didn't help the planet one bit. On the contrary. It only reduced carbon dioxide emission during the first pandemic year by 6%, no more than 6%, which means that if it were to just reach the Paris climate accords by doing less, we would need something like a pandemic every year until 2030, without any rebound in between, which would obviously be a nightmare for humanity in terms of life and health. But it won't help us with the environment.
It will help us with one particular bit of it: no carbon dioxide. But what should we do then, to grow our food and create the kind of things that we need? Well, we would need to use the resources that are there. We won't be able to create new and better and smarter ways of creating resources in an environmentally friendly way.