Global consumption of raw materials is set to rise 60% by 2060.
Already, the technosphere, the totality of human-made products, is heavier than the biosphere. From the 2020s onward, the weight of humanity’s extended body — the concrete shells that keep us sheltered, the metal wings that fly us around — has exceeded that of all life on Earth.
Producing this volume of stuff is a major contributor to global heating and ocean acidification, and to the rapidly accelerating extinction of plants and animals.
The extractive activities that lie behind the concrete, metal, and other materials we use are disrupting the balance of the planet’s ecosystems. The mining industry requires the annexation of large tracts of land for extraction and transportation; its energy consumption has more than tripled since the 1970s.
Is degrowth the answer? The insufficiency of engineering and green growth programs has informed the waxing interest in “degrowth” strategies. This term is not intended to suggest that all economic sectors should shrink, but that for society-nature relations to regain some balance, the unsustainable global use of materials and energy must radically reduce, and in an egalitarian manner.
As the scale of the environmental crisis grows more daunting, even moderate voices — not degrowthers — have recognised that certain sectors, such as shipping and aviation, will have to be cut to virtually zero over the next 20 or 30 years. What does this mean for critical minerals? According to degrowth advocate Jason Hickel, political means should be forged through which to plan priority sectors.
Reducing luxury and wasteful sectors such as SUVs, aviation, and fast fashion would free up critical materials for the green transition. “Factories that produce SUVs could produce solar panels instead,” suggests Hickel. “Engineers who are presently developing private jets could work on innovating more efficient trains and wind turbines instead.”
@breadandcircuses
I'm a big "fan" of @jasonhickel but the more I read, the less I'm convinced any of this is even doable. We don't ever seem to ask the question if it's sustainable? It's all very well saying make solar panels instead of SUVs and instinctively I'd nod sagely but the real question is, should we even be doing that ?
I'd like to think we could, I've spent the last 20 years insisting so but better minds then mine think not. Professor Duncan Brown for example in "Feed or Feedback" suggested any time a civilisation develops a city it is the beginning of the end and will eventually collapse (history showing that) as by necessity they become linear and not cyclic. i.e if you import anything, you're doing it wrong, even solar panels fit that bill
@breadandcircuses It is interesting to note that the more advanced the society, the faster the birth rate is dropping. Not fast enough to maintain a 1st world lifestyle for those that want it but it will probably hold together well enough for a couple decades or so. Which seems to be longer than anyone plans ahead these days. Of course the longer we wait to the turn around, the more painful it will be. One of the few perks of being old is knowing I probably lived at the peak of this civilization.