@skyfaller It won't be tied to degrowth because Trump stupidly thinks this is a good way to grow our economy. I am not advocating this as a policy but it is ironic that it will actually result in less growth. I also don't believe anything will be done to explicitly encourage #degrowth.
waist deep in "lowww-impact", "green web", low-tech, "low-code", humane tech, and solarpunk design philosophy and praxis lately and it's got me kinda optimistic—excited even—about the future of the web
Forbes: Climate inaction is costing us $38 trillion annually.
"Even if CO2 emissions were to be drastically cut down starting today, the world economy is already committed to an income reduction of 19 % until 2050 due to climate change, according to a new study published in Nature. These damages are six times larger than the mitigation costs needed to limit global warming to two degrees."
#Degrowth is coming whether people want it to or not.
The word "#Degrowth" seems to scare people so that they don't even stop to see what it's about -- AND it still leaves you in that framing of "growth at all costs".
We need to change the frame.
Think about children: they need to grow when they're little. Then, at some point, you want your child to stop growing: they grow UP. They need to start living according to a paradigm which is not all about growth.
Instead of the scary "degrowth", how about talking about growing up?
Did you know?
ALL of the climate models assume endless economic growth.
but what if we question that assumption?
"The results of the study suggest that fast #emissions reductions in countries like Australia could be enabled in scenarios characterized by reduced or zero #growth. Possibly even faster than in virtually all of the most ambitious mitigation scenarios described in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report Scenario Database."