I fail to see why it is a bad thing. We need to curb CO2 emissions which, in some wya or another, implies consuming less energy. Limiting the growth would certainly beneficial and would allow us to transition to world where growth is less central.
First page of the foreword:
> If Europe cannot become more productive, we will be forced to choose. We will not be able to become, at once, a leader in new technologies, a beacon of climate responsibility and an independent player on the world stage. We will not be able to finance our social model. We will have to scale back some, if not all, of our ambitions. This is an existential challenge. Europe’s fundamental values are prosperity, equity, freedom, peace and democracy in a sustainable environment. The EU exists to ensure that Europeans can always benefit from these fundamental rights. If Europe can no longer provide them to its people – or has to trade off one against the other – it will have lost its reason for being. The only way to meet this challenge is to grow and become more productive, preserving our values of equity and social inclusion. And the only way to become more productive is for Europe to radically change.
The report also discusses how to do this while limiting CO2 emissions.
> We will not be able to become, at once, a leader in new technologies, a beacon of climate responsibility and an independent player on the world stage.
Important words here are "at once" == simultaneously. We'll have to choose. So I choose: "beacon of climate responsibility". In particular, I don't care being a leader in new technologies. Being and independent player is something where I can understand the need to compromise on carbon emission...
De-growth will most likely lead to more CO2 emitted per person. Only high technology can change this.
I'd be happy (honestly) to hear an example.
You're basically saying "I don't want to consider other ways to produce energy so you should stop doing all the fun stuff you do". Nobody is ever going to agree with that, and you're going to antagonize people from even trying to be environmentally conscious.
I certainly agree with that sentence. I know I'm on a pretty radical side of the question.
AI generates a 10 images in 10 minutes. You pick one. A human would take hours to create one of them.
While I’ve always counted water drop by drop, washed my hands with a tiny strip of water, I’m traveling through the Russian/Middle East and there is no such water shortage visible. Pipes leak everywhere on the street, and there is still tap water everywhere, unlike Europe where I lack pressure to wash in the mornings.
Petrol is 1.10€ a liter here, far from the 2.00€ in France. Going 500km is easy, in France it’s unaffordable for students.
I feel like I’ve been lied to. In fact, on every topic restraining growth, I’ve been lied to. The over sensitization that EU does for feel-good reasons, satisfying the soul of young adults, is leading us into a green soviet situation.
If it solved problems, I’d be all in. But it’s only reinforcing green sovietism, aka poverty for the glory of a green ideal that is never reached.
Sorry but the garbage patch in the Pacific is bigger than ever, and the rest of the world is still using air conditioning. It’s only the Europeans who are deprived.