The scale of change being contemplated for energy use simply will not allow for the lifestyles people enjoy today. Period. That is the whole point of the post immediately below: "Green economic growth is an article of ‘faith’ devoid of scientific evidence" and anyone telling you different is either a liar or a fool.
And if they deceitfully don't mention the scale of change individuals will face, they are possibly a varlet. And a scoundrel. More than likely a charlatan as well.
The most concise statement of the reality is the abstract of one of the papers cited in the below essay:
Decoupling environmental ‘bads’ from economic ‘goods’ is a key part of policies such as green growth and circular economy that see economic growth as desirable or necessary, and also see that current use of natural resources and its environmental impacts is unsustainable. We estimate what a ‘successful decoupling’ (2% annual GDP growth and a decline in resource use by 2050 to a level that could be sustainable and compatible with a maximum 2°C global warming) would mean in terms of its type, timeline and size. Compared to 2017, ‘successful’ decoupling has to result in 2.6 times more GDP out of every ton of material use, including in-use material stocks. There are no realistic scenarios for such an increase in resource productivity.
Can't cut back and maintain current ways of being. Not going to happen. The math doesn't work. And it doesn't matter if you understand the math, or not.
To paraphrase an old Russian line: In reality, you don't do math, math do you.
And the energy transition will affect everything. If you think there are a lot of people without skills the market will pay for now, just wait.
From Resilience, Episode 38 of Crazy Town, April 22:
Society has become so complex that all the complexity begets more complexity. And if that’s not complex enough for you, jobs have become so specialized that hardly anyone knows how anything is made or works. Join Jason, Rob, and Asher as they contemplate how to make a microphone from scratch, break down the tertiary jobs in a pirate economy (parrot tenders and eyepatch makers), and explain the Lloyd Dobler hypothesis. They also explore a conundrum: even though the industrialized economy is bumping into the limits to growth and risking environmental meltdown, most people remain locked into their specialized jobs and continue to propagate the unsustainable economy. The Do-the-Opposite segment features a healthy dose of simplification and a fascinating interview with Marcin Jakubowski, the founder of Open Source Ecology and the Global Village Construction Set. For episode notes and more information, please visit our website.
Transcript
Rob Dietz
Hi, I’m Rob Dietz.
Asher Miller
I’m Asher Miller.
Jason Bradford
And I’m Jason Bradford. Welcome to Crazy Town, where human waste is our favorite renewable fuel.
Rob Dietz
The topic of today’s episode is complexity and specialization. And stay tuned for an interview with Marcin Jakubowski.
Rob Dietz
Hey, Asher, Jason, don’t you guys like it when we have a guest in the studio who can riff with us? Somebody who’s actually smarter projects that maybe there’s some intelligence to this conversation.
Jason Bradford
And talk about something new. We talk about the same stuff all the time.
Asher Miller
Yeah, can can that person actually just take my place? And then I can take a break from this?
Rob Dietz
Our audience is going, “Yes, yes. How ’bout all three of you just take a break, and we’ll hear from someone decent, who actually knows what they’re talking about. That would be great.” No, look, the reason I bring it up is it would be nice to have someone else in studio but if we do that, we’re gonna have to get a fourth microphone and I’ve been having this moral dilemma about that. Cuz, you know, we talked about consumerism and so kind of the last thing I want to do is buy some specialized piece of electronic equipment from an Amazon store that’s sourcing parts out of China or something like that. So I have a proposal for the two of you.
Asher Miller
Okay, what’s that?
Rob Dietz
Let’s make our own microphone.
Jason Bradford
When the three of us do this, not just the two of us. We send a proposal for the two of you.
Rob Dietz
Oh, well, it would be better –
Jason Bradford
That’s how I interpret –
Rob Dietz
Don’t you need someone to to coordinate this process?
Jason Bradford
You could be the manager.
Asher Miller
Yeah, like that. I like that. Okay.
Rob Dietz
No, okay, I’ll tell you what, I’ll roll up the sleeves, too. Let’s all three of us go out and make a microphone. You think we can do this?
Jason Bradford
From scratch here? Yeah.
Rob Dietz
Yeah. What would the final product look like?
Asher Miller
I could draw one.
Rob Dietz
It’s a microphone made out of dirt.
Jason Bradford
I could grow you know some like fiber crop or something like that.
Asher Miller
So wait. Just so I understand you’re saying not just build it with like parts of we’re able to order. You mean like actually all the parts manufactured.
Rob Dietz
Yeah. Let’s mine and manufacturer everything we need for growing. Like you’re saying Jason we can make a hemp microphone,
Jason Bradford
Sure. I actually have no idea how to do that. I do know how to grow plants but beyond growing the stuff, I just kind of like I let it go from there . . .
Asher Miller
Well, honestly it would have to be tin cans and string that we just found laying around.
Rob Dietz
Yeah, I mean we would have to find it because I’d like to see us try to make a tin can.....
