Degrowth

694 readers

8 users here now

Discussions about degrowth and all sorts of related topics. This includes UBI, economic democracy, the economics of green technologies, enviromental legislation and many more intressting economic topics.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

MrMakabar@slrpnk.net

252

#Degrowth does not require the end of all production, but a change in what is being produced... (files.mastodon.social)

submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by MrMakabar@slrpnk.net to c/degrowth@slrpnk.net

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Found here: https://mastodon.social/@breadandcircuses@climatejustice.social/112966284280235637

top 16 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 13 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

thing with cruise ships is they basically can duck out taxes. Its like when casinos had to be boats and then you had them built on artificial lakes and they would go no where but detach from the dock for a period to meet the legal requirement. You could have docked cruise ships acting as all service condos if they would just let them have the same rules. Or better yet have special residential districts that just allow apartments like that to be built.

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 7 points 3 weeks ago

The idea is to not built new cruise ships. The old ones should be used and using them as apartment buildings is a good idea.

[–] dillekant@slrpnk.net 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

They need diesel to run. Tax the diesel. Right now fossil fuels get subsidies. Just change that.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

thats the thing. since they operate mostly in international waters it gives them some sort of tax advantage and they supply from the lowest cost area and such.

[–] dillekant@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Sure. But they still have to dock. If you tax it in half the countries, they will still have to pay half the time.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 1 points 3 weeks ago

Well if you tax what they already have on them. They can go for days. Not sure how many but I know at one point there were ones that went across the oceans. Not sure if they still do as its unpopular to have ones where you can't disembark on see places regularly thats not the ship itself. Also not sure how far the monstroseties they have now can go with the waterparks on board. I suppose it could be farther with the size allowing for more fuel but maybe less given all the space used for crazy things like zip lines or whatever.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

and they burn the worst fuel, and often burn fuel while docked when they could be hooked up to shore power.

then they take boatloads of tourists to areas that are ecologically critical - the arctic and antarctic - while their boats burn bunker oil and spew their accumulated feces into the ocean. it's supposed to be treated but... that's just business.

[–] j4k3@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Do it without feudalism though.

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 12 points 3 weeks ago

You can not do it with feudalism. The problem is that we need to take from the rich and allow every single human being a decent material lifestyle. We can not do that with feudalism, as that would mean the poor get poorer and the rich stay rich.

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 10 points 3 weeks ago

That's like... The entire point

[–] theparadox@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

We are kind of not doing it now, and with feudalism.

[–] kwomp2@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago

Development of history toward equity is blocked

"So you wanna change it back to even worse times!!??"

[–] Sotuanduso@lemm.ee 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

SUVs, commercial airlines, and industrial beef? I wouldn't lump those in as industries that only exist to grow capital, because they are producing useful products and services for consumers beyond the super rich. I get the feeling that these were included solely for environmental reasons.

Not defending the environmental impact of SUVs and beef here, but commercial airlines can be better for the environment than cars. On average, it seems an airline emits about a quarter of a pound of CO2 per passenger per mile, which is about a third of what a passenger vehicle gives off (not per person, but not everyone vacations in groups.) Plus, they're conveniently fast.

[–] soloner@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

I'm confused... Aren't there EV SUVs now? Why is he calling out SUV and not, say, pickup trucks? Even so, why say any specific car type vs. just saying ICE vehicles?

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 weeks ago

I could be wrong, but I think there are other possible reasons SUVs were mentioned. I think having more walkable cities would part of (or at least adjacent to) the degrowth movement. As such, SUVs are kinda the poster child for the vehicle size arms race which makes roads less safe for pedestrians and cyclists.

I wouldn't be surprised to see pickup trucks on that list too, however they do have a somewhat more plausible use case.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

SUV

calling out SUV's specifically for multiple reasons - ICE SUV's are the worst, having the low fuel efficiency of work trucks, while being less safe than trucks or cars for passengers or pedestrians. EV SUV's are just taking the same problems - truck frames, lots of weight, poor visibility - and adding an EV powertrain to ameliorate the fuel inefficiency. But since they have to haul around all the extra SUV weight, they're at best a poor compromise instead of a large improvement.