Here is the fundamental dilemma: Why do we love what should not be? Canoo looks like a great vehicle. It hits all the right buttons for environmentally sensitive people, and people sensitive people, save two. 1. It is loaded with embodied energy. 2. It does not solve the problem of too many cars, which includes impervious surfaces. We cannot have our cake and eat it too. If the way to solve the environmental crisis is degrowth, which I believe, and some of your readers absolutely do not, why do we still love a design like the Canoo? We've been trained that way from birth in the US, Canada and other developed nations. Yet this is what we must let go, though it will take a gradual process because the change needed requires the recovery of system parts that have gone missing. The primary missing part is a localized economy. We do not live within easy walking or biking distance of our stores, banks, relatives, friends, churches (or equivalent) anymore. This is the real goal; re-localization that makes degrowth possible. Dreaming of a Canoo, or any other electric vehicle, is a mistake unless it comes as a piece of the slow degrowth economy - it is the only vehicle for perhaps multiple families because you would not need it most of the time. Don't get me wrong, I love electric cars, but I also understand Jevons Paradox, and we cannot grow ourselves out of the planetary, fossil fuel driven crisis that we face simply by changing the power source. We have to think "Small is beautiful" again. It ain't easy folks.
So do I. Especially the pick-up option. It could prove useful for a number of families to share. I live on a farm, five miles from the nearest store, by choice, and with that choice comes compromise within the present system.
"This is the real goal; re-localization that makes degrowth possible."
Germany is REALLY loving its "degrowth" after its leaders (Merkel, Olaf, the Greens) forced "green energy" on their citizens. Heavy industry is moving out as energy prices are untenable, the economy is starting to tank (two-quarters of worsening GDP), layoffs are happening in a number of its important industries, and there is talk of it entering an economic death spiral.
Oh, and it is having to import large amounts of energy from neighboring countries just to keep the lights on (barely) as the weather has been quite cloudy and the winds died down ("Dunkelflaute"). So prices skyrocket within the country and its neighbors are getting upset because then their DOMESTIC customers also get hit with higher rates. And they still refuse to relight their nukes.
They're acting just like California (except its governor finally realized that taking its last nuke off line was a big mistake).
Ask those laid off how they're enjoying their patriotic duty to help put degrowth into place.
"Wind power has collapsed to less than 1pc of Britain’s electricity supply as some of the stillest weather in years hits the UK and Europe.
***
Near-zero wind speeds and low temperatures have left the UK dependent on France, Norway, Belgium and Denmark to keep the lights on through much of today, with the countries collectively supplying more than 10pc of the UK’s electricity through undersea cables.
Britain is also firing up natural gas plants to avert a disaster. This chart shows the current total collapse of wind energy:..."
There is no way to make degrowth easy. It is easier if you do it together and understand where you are heading. Rejecting it because it is hard solves nothing. But hard can be accompanied by good, like more spaces for gardens and forests, more space for people (like those who are laid off) rather than things, more time for beauty rather than stuff. I did not think we would all agree. Keep well.
"It is easier if you do it together and understand where you are heading."
You make it sound like the "heading" has already been established. But when I confronted that answer with "...1) the end point is known", you deflected with (to bring it up again):
"Expecting an end point of a journey through time before you even start is asking a lot."
In essence, you wanted it both ways. You are saying "Let's all take a trip together (but I have have no idea where we'll end up nor how)".
Yeah, if I'm reading that right, it's now a hard pass for me. Provide answers first and then I'll take it under consideration again.
Agreed - hard. Lack of concrete planning, milestones, costing, migitation projects will make it a disaster. So what is your plan to have the graceful degrowth?
"...more space for people (like those who are laid off)..."
So what will they do with more space if they have no money in their pockets? Again, what are your proposed concrete ideas to mitigate that issue?
And how will you mitigate the issue of some of those laid off people when they learn that folks like you have made it mandatory for them to feel pain and destruction that they otherwise would not be facing? They will be mad and they will be ugly about it - platitudes of "more time for beauty" isn't going to put food into their kids bellies or keep them warm in the winter time.
I am afraid I cannot answer you with specifics, just like you cannot answer with anything other than more of the same. It is because there is not an easy, pain free answer. Wind alone cannot solve the problem. Solar and batteries combined with wind comes closer, but cannot solve the problem. Continuous growth cannot solve the problem because it is the problem. So we need to work toward "a prosperous way down" as David Holmgren describes it. This will mean a lot more farmers, mostly small farmers, perhaps some on land that is now the "paved paradise" as Joanie Mitchell famously phrased it. That would provide space for some of the unemployed. Have you ever read Peter Kropotkin, the Russian mutualist/anarchist? His ideas centered on the community mutualism modeled on natural systems, and cooperatives for production systems. I think a piece of the answer can be found in thinking like that. Providing helpful critiques is part of the process. Perhaps your role is something like that? If laid off people have a community system in which to land, perhaps the transition will not be so hard. Like I said, there is no easy answer to a system so dependent on an energy input that is killing the planet. Change is mandatory, the type of change needs more good ideas on top of the ones already available. (One thing I am pretty certain of - AI won't find it, people will.)
Am I to correctly infer that you suggest we revert to a more agrarian society of small farms whilst eschewing modern conveniences?
That was tried by the Soviet Union. It didn't end well for them, did it?
>>"I think a piece of the answer can be found in thinking like [Peter Kropotkin, the Russian mutualist/anarchist, and his … community mutualism modeled on natural systems, and cooperatives for production systems.]"
Socialism doesn't work. Communism doesn't work, only spectacularly so.
Actually Stalin killed successful peasant farmers in mass to develop collective farms that failed. Kropotkin thought the "communism" of Lenin was deeply mistaken even before the Russian revolution, and told him so. He was not a communist, and you can debate whether socialism is the right term. The debate about the Soviet Union is over. It did not work because it really was a government controlled production system and that is far from the decentralized, locally controlled system that I advocate for. The function of government is to prevent centralized control, not create it. Any government that centralizes production and control to itself will inevitably collapse.
>> So we need to work toward "a prosperous way down"
Impossible unless 1) the end point is known - what is the "degrowth" mission goal? NO one has formulated a cogent answer other than "less people". Sure, some have said 1-2 billion people but have studiously avoided the hard stuff of "how to get theah from heah".
As far as food production is concerned, I have no intention of working a field with a hoe when the level of automation allows a mere few people do the work that used to take 60% of a population (or more).
>> Change is mandatory
Over and over again, I hear that. Over and over and over again, I ask - WHO or WHAT is going to make it mandatory? And what happens when people start to rebel against it.
Once again, the gauzy future you propose (and Lloyd) is going to run into the HARD problems of sociology and politics - and that WILL demand your attention (e.g., "you may not be interested in politics but be sure that politics IS interested in you". One way or another).
For instance, what is your proposal to degrowth the world population to that 1-2 billion mark (or any other you wish)? Who is to be told "no babies for you"? Who is to be told "sorry, but for the greater good, you're about to become Soylent Green"? And what will that age be, or health status?
And when people rebel, how is it to be handled? Those are just three simple questions. But, they are HARD questions. Sure, you may propose differing ways or other questions, but EACH question has its own pitfalls.
And be sure, there will be pushback at the idea of losing one's sovereignty , or one's country. The truckers in Canada, the farmers in France, Netherlands, and now England. In the US, a stoppage has been accomplished of aggregating power to Washington DC and the process of "re-Federalization" (where the Feds MUST stick to only the Powers granted by the Constitution and the States regain the responsibilities/Powers that were taken from them) has already started.
ALL of what goes on here, except for specifics on buildings, codes, and the like depends on politics (e.g., zoning for instance). You cannot escape that back and forth that so many find so icky but must be dealt with.
>>"As far as food production is concerned, I have no intention of working a field with a hoe"
Astute, and prescient. If a displaced worker doesn't have those skills, what kind of de-growth job are they to do? And at what point do they become an untenable liability to the system because they're producing nothing and are of no value beyond being just a 'taker'? I should be asking Wayne those questions, but this is more for the general reading audience to understand there's more to "de-growth" than a simple platitude of "it'll be gooder, trust me."
>>"For instance, what is your proposal to degrowth the world population"
That's ultimately what de-growth means: the reduction of the human population by BILLIONS to "save the planet." It is the sole means by which to accomplish the desired goals of rapid decarbonization and halt to resource utilization.
So even mentioning the idea of a prosperous way down is invalid if you do not have a map for how we are going to do it? That is a red herring. Of course we don't know how. We are working together to try and figure that out. Expecting an end point of a journey through time before you even start is asking a lot. But we do know that we have to start using less, burning less, and perhaps even reproducing less. The last is already happening and it was not mandated. We don't have to mandate solutions, we just have to develop just, fair, local and by extension global means to move toward a better, more inclusive, and ecologically healthy way to be. I don't have answers in any detail, just ideas that I think have potential. The politics of change will always be messy and hard, but should be participatory and not coercive. Are you willing to participate constructively, or just cast ridicule?
>>"But hard can be accompanied by good, like more spaces for gardens and forests, more space for people (like those who are laid off) rather than things"
I think you're confusing the idea that "having more space for gardens and forests and people who are laid off" can necessarily result in simultaneously maintaining current standards of living, acceptable levels of taxation, and economic growth. I'm interested in knowing specifics of what de-growth means beyond "buy less stuff."
Do we *want* more open space/green space in our cities? Sure. But even if you add those elements in (along with others, like more localized food production and distribution) what's the economic driver behind implementing those things and maintaining them? And do we as Americans even have the cultural maturity to appreciate them and maintain their integrity? We are not Europe, after all.
>>"Ask those laid off how they're enjoying their patriotic duty to help put degrowth into place."
The fallacy that no one wants to mention is that de-growth in one country (Germany, for example) isn't transferred to growth in another country (China, India, or Vietnam, for example.) Offshoring jobs to another location doesn't accomplish anything except harm the people whose standard of living is negatively affected.
>>"If the way to solve the environmental crisis is de-growth, which I believe ..."
What, in your mind outside of "more forests and gardens and re-localization", does de-growth look like?
We're currently $35+ trillion in debt here in the U.S. Inflation is moving higher yet again. How does the hard need for fiscal solvency square with your desire for de-growth? And what would de-growth mean to the average person?
I hesitate to respond after your comment in another track called another statement I made "puerile bullshit lies." That was, if nothing else, a bit harsh. If I say something in a response to the above are you going to treat it the same way?
We presently have an economic system that greatly favors the rich and relies on the idea of continuous growth. We also have a finite planet and no feasible, viable way to escape its boundaries. There are limits to growth. Yes, this is a deliberate reference to the 1972 book by Donella Meadows and company that expressed our global need to recognize ecological reality. De-growth means moving the opposite way, away from continuous consumption to a recognition of ecological limits, toward ecological health and redesign of our system with those limits in mind. In short, it means less stuff. On the flip side, it means deliberately, intentionally making our house (the Greek meaning of Oikos from which we get ecology and ecosystems) a better place. This implies species diversity, increased species richness, better water management, better soil management, decentralized and re-localized production of basic goods and services.
This will not be an easy transition, especially in the so-called developed world that is highly dependent on fossil fuels. Right now the average food calorie eaten in the US depends on the input of 12 mostly fossil fuel calories to grow, process and package it. This ratio has to shrink massively if things are to become sustainable, let alone regenerate. For the average person it will require a shrinking of expectations, a change in transport system, smaller housing footprint, and eating a diet of mostly plants. For Elon Musk it would mean the loss of 399.9 billion of his 400 billion fortune, and he would still be too rich. A lot more degrowth would happen among the wealthy than the poor.
I do not pretend to have answered your question. That would take books, and still not be complete. Much of the result will have to be discovered as the degrowth process goes on. Debt will not be fully repaid because it is a product of a system that can't be fixed. If this sounds stark, it likely is. I do not see a way for the systems to change without some chaos in the process, but this does not negate the absolute need for the present system to change. It is killing us, whether you admit to it or not.
>>"We presently have an economic system that greatly favors the rich and relies on the idea of continuous growth."
Yes, for two reasons: (1) rewards follow the risk takers who succeed, and (2) growth assumes both opportunity and innovation exists within the system. Remove opportunity, or an incentive to innovate, and you remove pretty much any reason for laisse-faire liberalism or capitalism.
… but in the process, you reduce said environment to a shit hole of misery.
>>"De-growth means moving the opposite way, away from continuous consumption to a recognition of ecological limits"
That doesn't suggest anything about how, or which ecological limits have priority over others. To me, it sounds an awful lot like South Park's "underpants gnomes": https://youtu.be/a5ih_TQWqCA?feature=shared
The skit could be rewritten as thus: "Step one, current situ bad … step two … <awkward pause> … step three, de-growth and ecological nirvana."
>>"This implies species diversity, increased species richness, better water management, better soil management, decentralized and re-localized production of basic goods and services."
But much of that is already in place because it serves either state good (conservation) or reduction in input costs/production degradation. Capitalism handles that well; better farming practices allowed us in the U.S. to claw our way out of the Dust Bowl, and in more modern times, no-till and rotational grazing farming practices. Lower input costs directly translate to higher profit margins for the farmer (not that they really get all that much compensation to begin with, but I digress.) If changes in soil management and water conservation practices allows us to make more judicious use of those resources that lower expenditures **while still maintaining the same output as before** then yes, they're easily adoptable and practiced. But as someone who has had to pick potato beetles off his cabbage, broccoli, potatoes, and swiss chard in the garden lest they devour everything down to the stem, no one has the time to manage large-scale operations beyond what a small (think upwards of 7:1 consumer-to-farmer) scale farmer can accomplish given the number of hours in a day to labor. This is why we use pesticides and mechanized equipment, because more work can be done per unit of time than single humans can do on their own. And that's why "decentralized and re-localized production of basic goods and services" is inherently unrealistic as a throwback to an earlier time clouded by nostalgia and idealism—the world has changed. Our cities are much larger, our farming practices more industrialized, and our labor supply much smaller in raw numbers as well as knowledge gained over decades of experience.
>>"This will not be an easy transition, especially in the so-called developed world that is highly dependent on fossil fuels."
Then it simply won't happen. Humans are inherently concerned with, if not consciously aware of, self-preservation. No one will willingly starve themselves when bread is available so that their neighbor (or worse, someone else in a distant land) can eat.
This. is. human. nature.
>>"A lot more degrowth would happen among the wealthy than the poor."
Do lions pass up the sick and weak to tackle the strongest Cape buffalo? No? Hmm, wonder why not?
De-growth needs to be voluntary, right? And if not voluntary, then compulsory, yes? Who in their right mind is going to give up 99% of their wealth to be given out randomly to other people on the other side of the planet? And even if they did, WHAT WOULD THOSE PEOPLE THEN DO WITH THE NEW MONEY THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN???
Vehicle design is one of the few Art/Industrial professions that loves the concepts but never deviates far from the legacy designs. That's an industry requirement for marketing, supply chain and also to limit progress. Even though Canoo was in many regards, a typical car (size, weight, performance), it was too radical to get a 2nd look from those controlling the automotive budgets. In western society we've seen Tesla and Rivian as new contenders, and that's about it. Now look at the dozens of Canoo type companies that never made it to market. The same is mostly true for motorcycles. Our financial ecosystem does not allow for new challengers, they're quickly pushed out of the nest.
That is why, in part, I've chosen to develop products that are non-cars. Vehicle that break the barrier of efficiency and cost, but simply are not a car and not going up against a legacy behemoth industry. But fill a significant role: trips under 30 miles, powered by the sun and making the pilots and the community healthier. The ELF is such a vehicle. After 15MM safely traveled miles, is it the safest bicycle ever produced? Is it the most efficient vehicle available?
For a large scale vehicle, it's a significant leap to go from, "We got these orders to", actual delivery. Like Arrival, Nikola, Dyson, Wheelhorse (?), Lordstown, and on... it's a difficult road to hoe. Just look at the Ford F-150 Lightening. All the assets Ford has and even that's up in the air.
>> "Just look at the Ford F-150 Lightening. All the assets Ford has and even that's up in the air."
Consumers, either business or individuals, didn't like Ford's value proposition. That's who, ultimately are "those [that are] controlling the automotive budgets"
"People eat what they're served. If it's not on the menu, you ain't eating it."
That last part about "the menu". That's the great thing about Capitalism - when there is a vacuum in the Marketplace, someone will figure out how to fill it and make it worthwhile in doing so. It's always about serving a customer and what his/her needs are.
When someone figures out a better solution, there is nothing in capitalism that prevents behemoth corporations from squashing early competition. This happens daily in virtually every industry. Often they're bought up and never heard from again. EVs have been available for over 100 years and even though the technology was low hanging fruit, it took an independent outsider to grab it up and turn it into one of the most successful car companies on the planet. That opportunity was/is available but to every car company but they were too married to business as usual and their supply chain and are now suffering because of it.
>>"When someone figures out a better solution, there is nothing in capitalism that prevents behemoth corporations from squashing early competition."
No, that IS capitalism and I don't have a problem with that.
Yes, EV tech has been around but it wasn't low hanging fruit because it couldn't compete well because the battery tech et al couldn't match up with even the early ICE tech at the time.
And yes, Elon saw a fault line in the marketplace and exploited it - and that is part and parcel of capitalism as well and found willing early adopters to consume his product.
>> "That opportunity was/is available but to every car company but they were too married to business as usual"
And that's nothing new either. I was in the computer industry for 40 years and watched it happen in real time as new thinking exploited the mainframes (IBM and the Seven Dwarfs), the minicomputers (next step down like DEC and Data General), the workstations (like Apollo), and then the PCs impacted the last two.
Now, we see exotic supercomputers being supplanted by AI data centers at the top end. Innovation never stops and even as it impacted me negatively over the years, I'm glad to see it.
But in each and every case, it was CONSUMERS that made the choice of a company thriving or dying.
I will note, however, that the rate of EV adoption is decreasing at a higher rates than anticipated except in China.
This is the first place I heard about this and it’s so sad. This was going to be the perfect vehicle. Now, where the hell am I gonna get an electric minivan. They’re the most practical vehicle on the road. And yet for some reason all the American car companies can do is build big dumb electric pickups that nobody really needs. (and apparently not enough even want)
Thanks for the shout-out, Lloyd. The first picture you use I had never seen before and it makes me realize Canoo really was the rightful successor to the VW Transporter/MicroBus. I have to believe someon will bid on the rights to Canoo's IP, much as VW did when it acquired the rights to Scout Motors after it bought what was left of International Harvester. It would be a shame if Canoo became another EV1 -- a curiosity that only a few have heard of and even fewer have ever seen.
Here is the fundamental dilemma: Why do we love what should not be? Canoo looks like a great vehicle. It hits all the right buttons for environmentally sensitive people, and people sensitive people, save two. 1. It is loaded with embodied energy. 2. It does not solve the problem of too many cars, which includes impervious surfaces. We cannot have our cake and eat it too. If the way to solve the environmental crisis is degrowth, which I believe, and some of your readers absolutely do not, why do we still love a design like the Canoo? We've been trained that way from birth in the US, Canada and other developed nations. Yet this is what we must let go, though it will take a gradual process because the change needed requires the recovery of system parts that have gone missing. The primary missing part is a localized economy. We do not live within easy walking or biking distance of our stores, banks, relatives, friends, churches (or equivalent) anymore. This is the real goal; re-localization that makes degrowth possible. Dreaming of a Canoo, or any other electric vehicle, is a mistake unless it comes as a piece of the slow degrowth economy - it is the only vehicle for perhaps multiple families because you would not need it most of the time. Don't get me wrong, I love electric cars, but I also understand Jevons Paradox, and we cannot grow ourselves out of the planetary, fossil fuel driven crisis that we face simply by changing the power source. We have to think "Small is beautiful" again. It ain't easy folks.
You are absolutely correct but I still admire the design.
So do I. Especially the pick-up option. It could prove useful for a number of families to share. I live on a farm, five miles from the nearest store, by choice, and with that choice comes compromise within the present system.
"This is the real goal; re-localization that makes degrowth possible."
Germany is REALLY loving its "degrowth" after its leaders (Merkel, Olaf, the Greens) forced "green energy" on their citizens. Heavy industry is moving out as energy prices are untenable, the economy is starting to tank (two-quarters of worsening GDP), layoffs are happening in a number of its important industries, and there is talk of it entering an economic death spiral.
Oh, and it is having to import large amounts of energy from neighboring countries just to keep the lights on (barely) as the weather has been quite cloudy and the winds died down ("Dunkelflaute"). So prices skyrocket within the country and its neighbors are getting upset because then their DOMESTIC customers also get hit with higher rates. And they still refuse to relight their nukes.
They're acting just like California (except its governor finally realized that taking its last nuke off line was a big mistake).
Ask those laid off how they're enjoying their patriotic duty to help put degrowth into place.
And in the UK as well: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/01/you-dont-need-a-weatherman.php
"Wind power has collapsed to less than 1pc of Britain’s electricity supply as some of the stillest weather in years hits the UK and Europe.
***
Near-zero wind speeds and low temperatures have left the UK dependent on France, Norway, Belgium and Denmark to keep the lights on through much of today, with the countries collectively supplying more than 10pc of the UK’s electricity through undersea cables.
Britain is also firing up natural gas plants to avert a disaster. This chart shows the current total collapse of wind energy:..."
There is no way to make degrowth easy. It is easier if you do it together and understand where you are heading. Rejecting it because it is hard solves nothing. But hard can be accompanied by good, like more spaces for gardens and forests, more space for people (like those who are laid off) rather than things, more time for beauty rather than stuff. I did not think we would all agree. Keep well.
I decided to reread your comment as you held:
"It is easier if you do it together and understand where you are heading."
You make it sound like the "heading" has already been established. But when I confronted that answer with "...1) the end point is known", you deflected with (to bring it up again):
"Expecting an end point of a journey through time before you even start is asking a lot."
In essence, you wanted it both ways. You are saying "Let's all take a trip together (but I have have no idea where we'll end up nor how)".
Yeah, if I'm reading that right, it's now a hard pass for me. Provide answers first and then I'll take it under consideration again.
>>"In essence, you wanted it both ways. You are saying "Let's all take a trip together (but I have have no idea where we'll end up nor how)"."
Very well said. Any good plan of action requires details of not only HOW to get there but clearly defining WHERE it is you want to go.
"Rejecting it because it is hard solves nothing"
Agreed - hard. Lack of concrete planning, milestones, costing, migitation projects will make it a disaster. So what is your plan to have the graceful degrowth?
"...more space for people (like those who are laid off)..."
So what will they do with more space if they have no money in their pockets? Again, what are your proposed concrete ideas to mitigate that issue?
And how will you mitigate the issue of some of those laid off people when they learn that folks like you have made it mandatory for them to feel pain and destruction that they otherwise would not be facing? They will be mad and they will be ugly about it - platitudes of "more time for beauty" isn't going to put food into their kids bellies or keep them warm in the winter time.
I am afraid I cannot answer you with specifics, just like you cannot answer with anything other than more of the same. It is because there is not an easy, pain free answer. Wind alone cannot solve the problem. Solar and batteries combined with wind comes closer, but cannot solve the problem. Continuous growth cannot solve the problem because it is the problem. So we need to work toward "a prosperous way down" as David Holmgren describes it. This will mean a lot more farmers, mostly small farmers, perhaps some on land that is now the "paved paradise" as Joanie Mitchell famously phrased it. That would provide space for some of the unemployed. Have you ever read Peter Kropotkin, the Russian mutualist/anarchist? His ideas centered on the community mutualism modeled on natural systems, and cooperatives for production systems. I think a piece of the answer can be found in thinking like that. Providing helpful critiques is part of the process. Perhaps your role is something like that? If laid off people have a community system in which to land, perhaps the transition will not be so hard. Like I said, there is no easy answer to a system so dependent on an energy input that is killing the planet. Change is mandatory, the type of change needs more good ideas on top of the ones already available. (One thing I am pretty certain of - AI won't find it, people will.)
Am I to correctly infer that you suggest we revert to a more agrarian society of small farms whilst eschewing modern conveniences?
That was tried by the Soviet Union. It didn't end well for them, did it?
>>"I think a piece of the answer can be found in thinking like [Peter Kropotkin, the Russian mutualist/anarchist, and his … community mutualism modeled on natural systems, and cooperatives for production systems.]"
Socialism doesn't work. Communism doesn't work, only spectacularly so.
Actually Stalin killed successful peasant farmers in mass to develop collective farms that failed. Kropotkin thought the "communism" of Lenin was deeply mistaken even before the Russian revolution, and told him so. He was not a communist, and you can debate whether socialism is the right term. The debate about the Soviet Union is over. It did not work because it really was a government controlled production system and that is far from the decentralized, locally controlled system that I advocate for. The function of government is to prevent centralized control, not create it. Any government that centralizes production and control to itself will inevitably collapse.
>> So we need to work toward "a prosperous way down"
Impossible unless 1) the end point is known - what is the "degrowth" mission goal? NO one has formulated a cogent answer other than "less people". Sure, some have said 1-2 billion people but have studiously avoided the hard stuff of "how to get theah from heah".
As far as food production is concerned, I have no intention of working a field with a hoe when the level of automation allows a mere few people do the work that used to take 60% of a population (or more).
>> Change is mandatory
Over and over again, I hear that. Over and over and over again, I ask - WHO or WHAT is going to make it mandatory? And what happens when people start to rebel against it.
Once again, the gauzy future you propose (and Lloyd) is going to run into the HARD problems of sociology and politics - and that WILL demand your attention (e.g., "you may not be interested in politics but be sure that politics IS interested in you". One way or another).
For instance, what is your proposal to degrowth the world population to that 1-2 billion mark (or any other you wish)? Who is to be told "no babies for you"? Who is to be told "sorry, but for the greater good, you're about to become Soylent Green"? And what will that age be, or health status?
And when people rebel, how is it to be handled? Those are just three simple questions. But, they are HARD questions. Sure, you may propose differing ways or other questions, but EACH question has its own pitfalls.
And be sure, there will be pushback at the idea of losing one's sovereignty , or one's country. The truckers in Canada, the farmers in France, Netherlands, and now England. In the US, a stoppage has been accomplished of aggregating power to Washington DC and the process of "re-Federalization" (where the Feds MUST stick to only the Powers granted by the Constitution and the States regain the responsibilities/Powers that were taken from them) has already started.
ALL of what goes on here, except for specifics on buildings, codes, and the like depends on politics (e.g., zoning for instance). You cannot escape that back and forth that so many find so icky but must be dealt with.
>>"As far as food production is concerned, I have no intention of working a field with a hoe"
Astute, and prescient. If a displaced worker doesn't have those skills, what kind of de-growth job are they to do? And at what point do they become an untenable liability to the system because they're producing nothing and are of no value beyond being just a 'taker'? I should be asking Wayne those questions, but this is more for the general reading audience to understand there's more to "de-growth" than a simple platitude of "it'll be gooder, trust me."
>>"For instance, what is your proposal to degrowth the world population"
That's ultimately what de-growth means: the reduction of the human population by BILLIONS to "save the planet." It is the sole means by which to accomplish the desired goals of rapid decarbonization and halt to resource utilization.
So even mentioning the idea of a prosperous way down is invalid if you do not have a map for how we are going to do it? That is a red herring. Of course we don't know how. We are working together to try and figure that out. Expecting an end point of a journey through time before you even start is asking a lot. But we do know that we have to start using less, burning less, and perhaps even reproducing less. The last is already happening and it was not mandated. We don't have to mandate solutions, we just have to develop just, fair, local and by extension global means to move toward a better, more inclusive, and ecologically healthy way to be. I don't have answers in any detail, just ideas that I think have potential. The politics of change will always be messy and hard, but should be participatory and not coercive. Are you willing to participate constructively, or just cast ridicule?
>>"But hard can be accompanied by good, like more spaces for gardens and forests, more space for people (like those who are laid off) rather than things"
I think you're confusing the idea that "having more space for gardens and forests and people who are laid off" can necessarily result in simultaneously maintaining current standards of living, acceptable levels of taxation, and economic growth. I'm interested in knowing specifics of what de-growth means beyond "buy less stuff."
Do we *want* more open space/green space in our cities? Sure. But even if you add those elements in (along with others, like more localized food production and distribution) what's the economic driver behind implementing those things and maintaining them? And do we as Americans even have the cultural maturity to appreciate them and maintain their integrity? We are not Europe, after all.
>>"Ask those laid off how they're enjoying their patriotic duty to help put degrowth into place."
The fallacy that no one wants to mention is that de-growth in one country (Germany, for example) isn't transferred to growth in another country (China, India, or Vietnam, for example.) Offshoring jobs to another location doesn't accomplish anything except harm the people whose standard of living is negatively affected.
>>"If the way to solve the environmental crisis is de-growth, which I believe ..."
What, in your mind outside of "more forests and gardens and re-localization", does de-growth look like?
We're currently $35+ trillion in debt here in the U.S. Inflation is moving higher yet again. How does the hard need for fiscal solvency square with your desire for de-growth? And what would de-growth mean to the average person?
I hesitate to respond after your comment in another track called another statement I made "puerile bullshit lies." That was, if nothing else, a bit harsh. If I say something in a response to the above are you going to treat it the same way?
We presently have an economic system that greatly favors the rich and relies on the idea of continuous growth. We also have a finite planet and no feasible, viable way to escape its boundaries. There are limits to growth. Yes, this is a deliberate reference to the 1972 book by Donella Meadows and company that expressed our global need to recognize ecological reality. De-growth means moving the opposite way, away from continuous consumption to a recognition of ecological limits, toward ecological health and redesign of our system with those limits in mind. In short, it means less stuff. On the flip side, it means deliberately, intentionally making our house (the Greek meaning of Oikos from which we get ecology and ecosystems) a better place. This implies species diversity, increased species richness, better water management, better soil management, decentralized and re-localized production of basic goods and services.
This will not be an easy transition, especially in the so-called developed world that is highly dependent on fossil fuels. Right now the average food calorie eaten in the US depends on the input of 12 mostly fossil fuel calories to grow, process and package it. This ratio has to shrink massively if things are to become sustainable, let alone regenerate. For the average person it will require a shrinking of expectations, a change in transport system, smaller housing footprint, and eating a diet of mostly plants. For Elon Musk it would mean the loss of 399.9 billion of his 400 billion fortune, and he would still be too rich. A lot more degrowth would happen among the wealthy than the poor.
I do not pretend to have answered your question. That would take books, and still not be complete. Much of the result will have to be discovered as the degrowth process goes on. Debt will not be fully repaid because it is a product of a system that can't be fixed. If this sounds stark, it likely is. I do not see a way for the systems to change without some chaos in the process, but this does not negate the absolute need for the present system to change. It is killing us, whether you admit to it or not.
>>"We presently have an economic system that greatly favors the rich and relies on the idea of continuous growth."
Yes, for two reasons: (1) rewards follow the risk takers who succeed, and (2) growth assumes both opportunity and innovation exists within the system. Remove opportunity, or an incentive to innovate, and you remove pretty much any reason for laisse-faire liberalism or capitalism.
… but in the process, you reduce said environment to a shit hole of misery.
>>"De-growth means moving the opposite way, away from continuous consumption to a recognition of ecological limits"
That doesn't suggest anything about how, or which ecological limits have priority over others. To me, it sounds an awful lot like South Park's "underpants gnomes": https://youtu.be/a5ih_TQWqCA?feature=shared
The skit could be rewritten as thus: "Step one, current situ bad … step two … <awkward pause> … step three, de-growth and ecological nirvana."
>>"This implies species diversity, increased species richness, better water management, better soil management, decentralized and re-localized production of basic goods and services."
But much of that is already in place because it serves either state good (conservation) or reduction in input costs/production degradation. Capitalism handles that well; better farming practices allowed us in the U.S. to claw our way out of the Dust Bowl, and in more modern times, no-till and rotational grazing farming practices. Lower input costs directly translate to higher profit margins for the farmer (not that they really get all that much compensation to begin with, but I digress.) If changes in soil management and water conservation practices allows us to make more judicious use of those resources that lower expenditures **while still maintaining the same output as before** then yes, they're easily adoptable and practiced. But as someone who has had to pick potato beetles off his cabbage, broccoli, potatoes, and swiss chard in the garden lest they devour everything down to the stem, no one has the time to manage large-scale operations beyond what a small (think upwards of 7:1 consumer-to-farmer) scale farmer can accomplish given the number of hours in a day to labor. This is why we use pesticides and mechanized equipment, because more work can be done per unit of time than single humans can do on their own. And that's why "decentralized and re-localized production of basic goods and services" is inherently unrealistic as a throwback to an earlier time clouded by nostalgia and idealism—the world has changed. Our cities are much larger, our farming practices more industrialized, and our labor supply much smaller in raw numbers as well as knowledge gained over decades of experience.
>>"This will not be an easy transition, especially in the so-called developed world that is highly dependent on fossil fuels."
Then it simply won't happen. Humans are inherently concerned with, if not consciously aware of, self-preservation. No one will willingly starve themselves when bread is available so that their neighbor (or worse, someone else in a distant land) can eat.
This. is. human. nature.
>>"A lot more degrowth would happen among the wealthy than the poor."
Do lions pass up the sick and weak to tackle the strongest Cape buffalo? No? Hmm, wonder why not?
De-growth needs to be voluntary, right? And if not voluntary, then compulsory, yes? Who in their right mind is going to give up 99% of their wealth to be given out randomly to other people on the other side of the planet? And even if they did, WHAT WOULD THOSE PEOPLE THEN DO WITH THE NEW MONEY THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN???
See why this argument makes no sense?
Vehicle design is one of the few Art/Industrial professions that loves the concepts but never deviates far from the legacy designs. That's an industry requirement for marketing, supply chain and also to limit progress. Even though Canoo was in many regards, a typical car (size, weight, performance), it was too radical to get a 2nd look from those controlling the automotive budgets. In western society we've seen Tesla and Rivian as new contenders, and that's about it. Now look at the dozens of Canoo type companies that never made it to market. The same is mostly true for motorcycles. Our financial ecosystem does not allow for new challengers, they're quickly pushed out of the nest.
That is why, in part, I've chosen to develop products that are non-cars. Vehicle that break the barrier of efficiency and cost, but simply are not a car and not going up against a legacy behemoth industry. But fill a significant role: trips under 30 miles, powered by the sun and making the pilots and the community healthier. The ELF is such a vehicle. After 15MM safely traveled miles, is it the safest bicycle ever produced? Is it the most efficient vehicle available?
Yes & Yes. The ELF is back.
"from those controlling the automotive budgets"
That would be end-users / customers refusing to spend their money to buy it, right? After all, they WERE marketing it.
Not exactly. Consumers never came close to being able to purchase one. They were marketing to investors.
People eat what they're served. If it's not on the menu, you ain't eating it.
Amazon (4,500) and USPS (6) were "consumers" that were left disappointed. DoD and NASA as well. Business can be consumers of a LOT of stuff.
But sure, a startup is ALWAYS marketing itself to investers.
For a large scale vehicle, it's a significant leap to go from, "We got these orders to", actual delivery. Like Arrival, Nikola, Dyson, Wheelhorse (?), Lordstown, and on... it's a difficult road to hoe. Just look at the Ford F-150 Lightening. All the assets Ford has and even that's up in the air.
>> "Just look at the Ford F-150 Lightening. All the assets Ford has and even that's up in the air."
Consumers, either business or individuals, didn't like Ford's value proposition. That's who, ultimately are "those [that are] controlling the automotive budgets"
"People eat what they're served. If it's not on the menu, you ain't eating it."
That last part about "the menu". That's the great thing about Capitalism - when there is a vacuum in the Marketplace, someone will figure out how to fill it and make it worthwhile in doing so. It's always about serving a customer and what his/her needs are.
When someone figures out a better solution, there is nothing in capitalism that prevents behemoth corporations from squashing early competition. This happens daily in virtually every industry. Often they're bought up and never heard from again. EVs have been available for over 100 years and even though the technology was low hanging fruit, it took an independent outsider to grab it up and turn it into one of the most successful car companies on the planet. That opportunity was/is available but to every car company but they were too married to business as usual and their supply chain and are now suffering because of it.
>>"When someone figures out a better solution, there is nothing in capitalism that prevents behemoth corporations from squashing early competition."
No, that IS capitalism and I don't have a problem with that.
Yes, EV tech has been around but it wasn't low hanging fruit because it couldn't compete well because the battery tech et al couldn't match up with even the early ICE tech at the time.
And yes, Elon saw a fault line in the marketplace and exploited it - and that is part and parcel of capitalism as well and found willing early adopters to consume his product.
>> "That opportunity was/is available but to every car company but they were too married to business as usual"
And that's nothing new either. I was in the computer industry for 40 years and watched it happen in real time as new thinking exploited the mainframes (IBM and the Seven Dwarfs), the minicomputers (next step down like DEC and Data General), the workstations (like Apollo), and then the PCs impacted the last two.
Now, we see exotic supercomputers being supplanted by AI data centers at the top end. Innovation never stops and even as it impacted me negatively over the years, I'm glad to see it.
But in each and every case, it was CONSUMERS that made the choice of a company thriving or dying.
I will note, however, that the rate of EV adoption is decreasing at a higher rates than anticipated except in China.
This is the first place I heard about this and it’s so sad. This was going to be the perfect vehicle. Now, where the hell am I gonna get an electric minivan. They’re the most practical vehicle on the road. And yet for some reason all the American car companies can do is build big dumb electric pickups that nobody really needs. (and apparently not enough even want)
Thanks for the shout-out, Lloyd. The first picture you use I had never seen before and it makes me realize Canoo really was the rightful successor to the VW Transporter/MicroBus. I have to believe someon will bid on the rights to Canoo's IP, much as VW did when it acquired the rights to Scout Motors after it bought what was left of International Harvester. It would be a shame if Canoo became another EV1 -- a curiosity that only a few have heard of and even fewer have ever seen.
Electric vehicle truth. Sorry, you have been fooled.
https://open.substack.com/pub/chemtrails/p/ev-owners-are-even-more-fcked-than?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=31s3eo
Additional info on the Electric vehicle deception, in my podcast here:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/4hFuingugcsXbgrCsy8XMw?si=VlfCgoEWSlSCVUy_gJiqWg
I'll agree - t was kinda cute. However it was clear that their marketing and "promises made" were WAY over their ski tips.
I would have zero confidence in any idea promoted by Amory Lovins.