Ben's Blog

30/9/24

Unfortunately, governments around the world refuse to cut back on fossil fuel consumption because that would mean a cut in consumption of consumer items. There would be an economic slump, and that government would be replaced by someone even worse, heaven forbid! Some governments are doing their best to produce more green energy, but it does not lead to a commensurate drop in fossil fuels, it just means we use more green energy AND more fossil fuels, because the economy must never stop growing.

As the climate crisis accelerates, ever more ‘natural disasters’ will destroy lives and infrastructure. It will become less and less possible to maintain economic growth. All our energy, resources and wealth will be consumed just restoring society to how it functioned before the latest calamity, if that.

Maybe it is time to start thinking about a post-growth scenario.

Growth is dependent on ever more discretionary spending.

To reign in our emissions and give the planet a chance, we must reduce our energy use to the point where it can be satisfied by renewable energy alone. Obviously we are really struggling to do that whilst wasting so much energy on non-essential spending.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian households spend around 60% of their income on basic items considered essential to living: housing, food, fuel and power, medical and health care, and transport. Then we spend another 40% on ‘God knows what.’ Bare-in-mind that we are living in lean times. Our discretionary spending is usually even higher.

Obviously the biggest No-No is flying all over the world in aeroplanes. Something we just love. It takes ours minds off the worry of the climate crisis, ironically enough.*

Plus there is an awful lot of room for discretion within the areas labelled ‘essential.’ We could use our discretion to live in smaller houses, drive efficient cars and eat less food, especially meat, just to name the worst offenders.

Now let’s try to imagine if we used our discretion to redirect some of our abundant  excess wealth to more needy causes, such as the victims of our wasteful ways all around the world, or renewable energy, or adaptation to climate change, or rescuing endangered species from extinction or a thousand other vital projects, or all of them.

Our total annual GDP here in the Lucky Country was 1.8 trillion last year. So assuming 40% of that is discretionary spending, (yes I know that is a bit simplistic, but you get the idea) that means we have a spare $700 billion to spread around every year, if we so choose.

If we restricted the use of our precious energy to maintaining the basic well-being of all who share this earth, surely we could make enough renewable energy to do that. If we ever do achieve that Herculean task, we can give ourselves a well-earned pat on the back. Maybe then we can start thinking about indulging in a little discretionary spending, maybe even a chocolate biscuit with our cup of tea in the morning.

___________________________________________________________________________

* Here in Australia, one of the most profligate nations on earth, frugality is so uncommon it is almost unheard of. We burn through our limitless supply of fossil fuels with gay abandon! We mange to go through a staggering 15tons each, each year, admittedly, this is down from a high of 20 tons pppa in 2006 – well done team, but still a long way from world parity –  a mere 4 tons!

A trip from Melbourne to London generates about 6 or 7 tons of CO². So we could reduce our personal emissions by almost half in one fell swoop, just by putting off that trip for another year.

(but there is a risk our next of kin might be gone by then)

Aviation emissions have more than tripled since we first learnt about climate change in the late 1980s. Made up almost entirely of discretionary traveling. Travel that we could have avoided for the sake of our climate, but we did not!

10% of the world catches planes, raising total CO² by 2.5 % and global heating by 4% when all factors are included.¹

So, extrapolating from that, if everyone in the world flew as much as we, the jet-set do, aviation would cause about 30% of global warming. (If emissions were 100, then they would increase to 136. 40 is about 30% of 136) By all estimates, that is exactly the direction we are heading. After 30 years of trying to put a lid on it, fossil fuel use is still rising faster than we can replace it. Wind, solar, hydro or nuclear powered aeroplanes are not even on the drawing board.

¹ https://ourworldindata.org/global-aviation-emissions

Ben Boyang 30/9/24

Further reading…

Don’t Drink the Kool-Aid!