Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[smjjames]

So, the UK's Green party has released its manifesto for the upcoming general election. It makes for... interesting reading.

The url I found this at is http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/green-party/11356354/Drugs-brothels-al-Qaeda-and-the-Beyonce-tax-the-Green-Party-plan-for-Britain.html

I don't want to shorten it, as it kind of tells its own story.

The heck is? Stahp, you Green Party guys in the UK are making the overall Green Party movement look horrible.

lol

[Owlbread]

Well that's basically all my domestic-political views in one manifesto. It's nice to know I could vote for it if I was English.

[ChairmanPoo]

EDIT:


I have to ask: is there a less biased source for this matter? Because I was reading through it and finding it altogether too crazy to believe. "Alternative medicine?" "Degrowth?" "Al Quaeda recruitment"? "Vegetarianism for all"?

Maybe we are taking a tabloid at face value.

[Sheb]

Qell, the thing is that there is a limit to economic growth. We cannot double our wealth every generation forever.  So zero-growth is not a choice, it's a certainty. The question become "how do we adapt to it".

[ChairmanPoo]

It is one thing to adjust or plan ahead for resource scarcity, and a very different one to hatchet development in the name of the evils of globalization and economic growth. I can't fathom how they can seriously say that they're happy with today's level of scientific, industrial and social development. It would suck bad for us, and suck worse for those in the gutter. In my mind these guys** want to implement a rehasal of the Middle Ages, with cultural and scientific stagnation.

**by which I mean degrowth proponents. Not necessarily the UK's Green party as I've decided that until further info is added I'll regard the items commented at the telegraph as yellow press.

[Sergarr]

Qell, the thing is that there is a limit to economic growth. We cannot double our wealth every generation forever.  So zero-growth is not a choice, it's a certainty. The question become "how do we adapt to it".

Say it with me: Planned economy!

It's the only way to be sure.

[mainiac]

Qell, the thing is that there is a limit to economic growth. We cannot double our wealth every generation forever.  So zero-growth is not a choice, it's a certainty. The question become "how do we adapt to it".

Forever?  That's a long time.  I challenge you to find an economist alive today suggesting that.

However another couple centuries of steady growth are feasible even under pessimistic assumptions and deeply desirable.  And they can be obtained while exhausting natural resources less then today.  Technology and skills improve over time.  We get more efficient.  New potential is opened up.  People will shift their consumption into the more efficient things.  When was the last time you went to a video rental store?  When was the last time you watched a streaming video?  Guess which one has far, far less environmental cost?

[Sheb]

Well, you're conveniently ignoring the fact that a) We are already beyond what's sustainable for a number or parameters, like CO2 production or phosphorus use, and b) We need to free up resources for the poor of the worlds to reach a decent standard of living.

[Helgoland]

Well, you're conveniently ignoring the fact that a) We are already beyond what's sustainable for a number or parameters, like CO2 production or phosphorus use, and b) We need to free up resources for the poor of the worlds to reach a decent standard of living.

a) You're ignoring the possibility of increased efficiency and reduced environmental impact by developing technologies such as fusion.
b) See a).

[Sheb]

True, but wanting more growth increase the amount of efficiency gains we need to stay within our ecological limit. I's all fine and dandy to believe technology will save us, but the historical record shows little to support this: we've been getting more and more efficient for the last decades, yet the only year that showed a dip in carbon emissions was 2009, when the world economy tanked.

[ChairmanPoo]

Technology might not save us but it's our best bet. . I repeat, most of the things that we need to live depend on huge industrial complexes. So going with this degrowth plan is basically telling anyone with heart disease, or cancer, or organ failure or, heavens forbid, one of those orphan diseases that need a terribly expensive treatment, to go fuck themselves. Or, if that pamphlet from before is for serious, send them to some "alternative practitioner". And that's just one aspect. There's also food production, and last but not least, lifestyle; odds are this de-escalation would mean going back to the pre-industrial standard of being stuck in the city of your birth.
Going luddite is not going to lead us anywhere we want to be

[Helgoland]

but the historical record shows little to support this: we've been getting more and more efficient for the last decades, yet the only year that showed a dip in carbon emissions was 2009, when the world economy tanked.

And during this time we've witnessed the ascension of at least one and a half billion people from crushing poverty to liveable conditions. We aren't doing too bad.

[Fniff]

The plan seems like something the Liberal Crime Squad would write up.

[mainiac]

True, but wanting more growth increase the amount of efficiency gains we need to stay within our ecological limit. I's all fine and dandy to believe technology will save us, but the historical record shows little to support this: we've been getting more and more efficient for the last decades, yet the only year that showed a dip in carbon emissions was 2009, when the world economy tanked.

Yes reductions dont just happen on their own.  If major economies aren't even trying to reduce, we wont reduce.  But plenty of parts of the world have achieved reductions without stopping growth.

[Sheb]

Yeah, pumping carbon to generate economic growth works great for the "generating economic growth", I am in total agreement with you there. The whole point of the "zero growth" idea is to stop growing in the West so developing countries have enough room to grow by pumping carbon.

ChairmanPoo, zero growth just mean we keep going with the current living standards. I'm not sure why you keep arguing against some kind of primitivist straw man.