Energy - "Degrowth is impossible" (Bertrand Piccard)

[sen-no-sen]

I am not aware of the exact content, only of what is indicated on the back cover, that this book is a relative optimism by proposing five tracks which would allow, if they were followed (everything is in the "if "!), to avoid the worst ...

I would obviously not fail to make a review of it as soon as I read it ...

Okay, keep me posted! I am quite picky about my reading choices.

[Ahmed]

It is sure that we must practice a strict sorting, otherwise we end up reading an uninteresting jumble ...

[J-Pierre]

Degrowth is a necessity but it must be politically implemented to be effective. This decrease should allow other populations to have a little more than they have.
https://consoterre.wordpress.com/
If this decrease is not imposed on the economy and finance, it will not take place.
By giving up the agitation which makes growth, one will have more time for a growth of knowledge and personal culture.

[Ahmed]

Talking about degrowth * is a particularly inadequate way of approaching things: it suggests moving the growth slider downwards (with the debates that we imagine on the optimal positioning of said slider!), Whereas the problem is to radically change the model. If we accept this diagnosis, the concepts of "growth" or "decrease" no longer have any meaning.
In addition, the decline suffered through austerity policies torpedo the concept ...

* This term had the value of a provocative slogan at the start, this is no longer the case today.

[Petrus]

If this decrease is not imposed on the economy and finance, it will not take place.
By giving up the agitation which makes growth, one will have more time for a growth of knowledge and personal culture

If, it will take place, but in the form of a crisis causing a lot of suffering among the population as in the case of the Greek laboratory.

Talking about degrowth * is a particularly inadequate way of approaching things: it suggests moving the growth slider downwards (with the debates that we imagine on the optimal positioning of said slider!), Whereas the problem is to radically change the model. If we accept this diagnosis, the concepts of "growth" or "decrease" no longer have any meaning.
In addition, the decline suffered through austerity policies torpedo the concept ...

* This term had the value of a provocative slogan at the start, this is no longer the case today.

I find the term "degrowth" very correct. The decrease in GDP, therefore the slowdown in the economy, implies a reduction in its impact on the environment.
Austerity policies, which are in fact a means of maintaining the aim of the economic system (the accumulation of wealth) in times of crisis, by making the population pay, make decay seem like something to be avoided at all costs. To have a decrease without making the population suffer, it would indeed be necessary to completely change the system.
For that it would be necessary to start by offering another way out than the current dogma "work, credit, consumption". Universal income seems like a good way to get there.

[Ahmed]

Pétrus, you write:

I find the term "degrowth" very correct.

then:

Austerity policies ... make decay seem like something to be avoided at all costs.

This clearly shows how the concept of degrowth is unsuitable, both by its negativism and by its reference to a logic which implies growth, whatever its social consequences. Indeed, to get out of this contradiction, we must also get out of the system that shelters it.
The UK is, from this point of view, completely counterproductive, since it constitutes a camouflage of the contradictions of the system, with a view to its pursuit.

[sen-no-sen]

It would be fairer to speak of "efficient sobriety"*, on the one hand because the term degrowth is systematically overused, on the other because the media use it as a reference back to the Stone Age and other caricatures ...

[Ahmed]

The danger of the decreasing thesis is its tactical recovery by the proponents of austerity and it is not certain that the concept of "effective sobriety", however more constructive, can be sufficient to remove the danger.
However, we are not there yet, since we are going to hear a lot about growth, employment and purchasing power this spring!

[Ahmed]

[sen-no-sen]

The danger of the decreasing thesis is its tactical recovery by the proponents of austerity and it is not certain that the concept of "effective sobriety", however more constructive, can be sufficient to remove the danger.
However, we are not there yet, since we are going to hear a lot about growth, employment and purchasing power this spring!

To the extent that none of the candidates speak of economic decline, I do not think that there is a possible recovery.
The term has become so coarse in political jargon that its latter prefer to use oxymorons such as "negative growth" (Lagarde) or "soft growth" (B. Hamon).
All the current mystification is based on the belief that growth and purchasing power will continue to grow, while all the physical indicators show us the opposite.
Even admitting that decreasing (in the sense of our physical footprint) is a solution, would already be a big step.
The race for growth only leads to an increase in inequalities, on the contrary, a policy focused on efficient sobriety would paradoxically increase the standard of living of citizens and a reduction in social injustices.