12
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by kudra@sh.itjust.works to c/degrowth@slrpnk.net

what bothers me most is that the concept of degrowth isn't even possible to contemplate to these numpties. This economic model is failing, yes, but the article does not actually propose to consider the deeper reasons. "Economic growth" must be pursued at all costs according to these fucking twats... oh? Really? Why? When we have energy constraints, how the fuck can this even be possible, yanno? They don't even consider the reality of energy descent being inevitable, and that we are now staring it in the face.

I'm so tired of not being allowed to talk about this to 99% of people, too.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] kudra@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago

yes, and what we should be seeing is more support for the less wealthy to be able to join the switch, free power for 3 hours in the afternoon is a step in the right direction, but we should be seeing more subsidies for EVs for lower income households, more street level chargers for renters, and solar for rentals.

[-] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 2 points 5 months ago

we should be seeing build outs of better electrified rail transport and way better electrified freight rail rollout, (and ffs gauge standisaton) etrucks and evans for the last mile, many people then won't need a ecar if they don't want one.

I agree that money to rich folks to buy more ecars is a shitty way of doing it.

this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2026
12 points (100.0% liked)

Degrowth

2487 readers
12 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS