| > Degrowth would simply delay that outcome. And growth accelerates it... Just look into cement, steel, mining, medicine &c. we're not even remotely close to replace fossil fuel, not even a tiny bit, no one even pretends that it's around the corner. > would not avoid eventual massive global warming Well nothing will because in a couple of hundred millions years the sun will be too warm anyways Meanwhile 70% of the wildlife disappeared since 1970, 50% of insects, and we're debating about some shitty tech that would sequester 0.1% of the co2 we emit each day. CO2 isn't even our biggest problem, rain water isn't even safe to drink anywhere on the planet anymore, PFAS, microplastics, chemicals in rivers/lake/aquifers People who think co2 capture and that replacing 1.4b of ICE by 1.4B of 3000kg EVs are the future are delusional or straight up cognitively impaired |
Underlying all this is the moral approach being taken. It is not enough that environmental problems (perceived or otherwise) be solved; humanity must be punished. Solutions that do not also punish are rejected on that basis alone.