France is in that list (hello i'm from france too) because construction is heavily subsidized and decommission is overall not happening, not planned, and more or less not even approaching the planning stage. The few decommissions that are taking place are decades late and billions over budget.
It's not industry secret that if you count the entire life cycle, nuclear is the most expensive (in terms of euros) energy we have. Does that mean it's a bad investment? Not necessarily. If you're an ecologist, it's a bad investment because it takes us in the wrong direction (more energy consumption) instead of going the way of degrowth. Also, the nuclear industry is very much in bed with the military industrial complex, which is something you may be concerned about.
And that economic analysis does not even account for how "stolen" the uranium we use is. If France paid an actual fair price to the Françafrique countries pillaged for their uranium, it would probably be more expensive. TBH, i haven't followed developments in the last years in regards to french neocolonialism collapsing in sub-saharan africa, but here's a small article from 6 years ago: https://infokiosques.net/IMG/pdf/uranium_de_la_francafrique-...
> If you're an ecologist, it's a bad investment because it takes us in the wrong direction (more energy consumption) instead of going the way of degrowth.
Why would an ecologist have to be against more energy consumption? For climate change, what matters is energy from the sun hitting the earth vs. energy being radiated back into space. More energy consumption also doesn't necessarily cause more pollution of any kind.
You're redefining environmentalism with a very narrow and technical view. Goodhart's law does not only apply to computer science, but to ecology as well, and says that CO2 emission alone is not a good metrics.
I'm not saying energy consumption overall is a perfect metrics, but the degrowth movement is a philosophy / science that's not aligned on a specific metrics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth
I think to most people, environmentalism is mostly about climate change and pollution. You're free to widen the definition of course, but note that even that Wikipedia article basically calls it a fringe ideology (in different words).
Can you name specific issues caused directly by energy consumption as opposed to specific energy sources or downstream effects like pollution, which is avoidable?
The degrowth movement is very fringe indeed. But its ideas are not, some have even been assimilated by the green-washing apparatus such as "reduce, reuse, recycle". I agree with your definition because it includes pollution, which is deciding factor for reducing production overall.
> Can you name specific issues caused directly by energy consumption
The question is good but not the framing. How is pollution avoidable? Energy consumption is not the problem but it's the means by which the auxiliary problems arise, and therefore a correct proxy to measure them. One of the problems is production of throwaway goods of dubious quality (leading to enormous pollution), a problem which technically could not exist before we had an abundance of quasi-free energy.
It's like in software development when people consider CPU/RAM is unlimited and don't provide any optimization. That may be fine in hypothetical settings, but in the real world resources are finite. (the analogy stops because using too much CPU/RAM does not "pollute" the rest of the machine and create memory corruption or whatever)
> One of the problems is production of throwaway goods of dubious quality (leading to enormous pollution), a problem which technically could not exist before we had an abundance of quasi-free energy.
Yes, but my entire point is not only is this solvable without throwing the energy baby out with the dubious quality goods bathwater, it's easier to solve with more and cheaper energy.
If the consumption of abundant energy has negative externalities, then those need to be appropriately priced. At that point, buying pollution causing junk will become more expensive than buying clean junk, but we'll still be able to afford the clean junk we want.
We are using that energy no matter how produced to terraform the planet into a less hospitable one for nearly everyone. Some get hung up on the resource extraction and associated pollution for renewable energy. But ultimately you can't fix "wanting the wrong thing" with technology. Our way of life and expected conveniences are not sustainable, they can't last 100k years, probably not even 100.
The issue is not only climate change. More consumption means more consumer goods, more resource extraction, more transport, more waste
We have huge environmental problems ranging from ecosystem simplification, microplastics, etc. The answer is not to keep consuming as we are. We really have to stop the neoliberal system that's based on ever increasing growth and externalisation of environmental impact.
There is a possible future where none of these things are a problem and yet energy consumption is greater than it is currently. I think it's actually the most likely future.
The ship may have sailed on climate change, but plastic pollution is not solved by consuming less, it's solved by consuming differently.
I get being critical of mindless consumerism, but degrowth doesn't seem to be about "order less junk on amazon/temu", but fundamentally reducing economic activity and energy consumption, which is civilisational suicide.
Well that deserves some actual argument. This abundant future has been promised to us for generations and has served as a justification for precisely fucking everything up in the name of the brighter future. Yet now we have, to my knowledge, no indicator of things getting better, but all indicators going way worse than we thought.
> I get being critical of mindless consumerism, but degrowth doesn't seem to be about "order less junk on amazon/temu"
Yes it is. It's about mindful production of useful products and services. Which is very much the same as reducing economic activity and energy consumption.
> Yet now we have, to my knowledge, no indicator of things getting better, but all indicators going way worse than we thought.
Several forms of pollution are now much better than they were decades ago. Chlorofluorocarbons, lead in gasoline, rivers and lakes around the world, catalytic converters, slash-and-burn agriculture etc. etc.
Electricity generation is also headed the right way.
The solution is usually better technology and political action, not abstinence. We still have fridges, just not with CFCs.
I'm not saying we'll fix climate change in time, by the way. That is uncertain. But if we do fix it, it won't be with degrowth.
> Yes it is. It's about mindful production of useful products and services. Which is very much the same as reducing economic activity and energy consumption.
Why do you think that wanting less cheap temu junk means overall economic activity will decrease? Why can't that economic activity be redirected to a sustainable future with abundance instead? I still want to eat food grown elsewhere in the world, just not sold in plastic packaging and transported with fossil fuels.
> We really have to stop the neoliberal system that's based on ever increasing growth and externalisation of environmental impact.
Like, I too would like a pony, but we gotta live in the real world. Ultimately we need more energy of basically every carbon neutral form.
I agree that the ideology of growth at all costs is problematic, but it's how our society is structured right now, so we need to fix our current energy problems rather than bet on transforming society.
To be fair, the declining fertility rate will probably solve a bunch of environmental issues over the next few generations.
> I agree that the ideology of growth at all costs is problematic, but it's how our society is structured right now
With this mindset, nothing ever changes. No social problem was ever solved without looking at it from a social/political perspective. If you agree that growth ideology is problematic, then that's what you need to dismantle.
> To be fair, the declining fertility rate will probably solve a bunch of environmental issues
I think this is just wrong. The problem is the lifestyle: the throwaway culture and abundant consumption of throwaway goods. We could be just as many billions living OK in our environment, but you could have just 100 million average middle-class westerners continuing to fuck up nature (just slightly slower).
> With this mindset, nothing ever changes. No social problem was ever solved without looking at it from a social/political perspective. If you agree that growth ideology is problematic, then that's what you need to dismantle.
OK great, what's the plan then?
Where do we start?
What small problem can we fix to make this better?
If you don't know the answers to the above, then this discussion is entirely pointless, and I would remind you that although I would love a pony, that doesn't mean that I'll get one.
Any "solution" that relies on changing the entirety of how society is structured isn't going to work, absent an incredibly good plan (against which one can make incremental progress).
To ask probably the most important question, in a world of zero growth, how do we pay back all the consumer debt we owe? Thinking specifically of mortgages here, as they're the largest amount of debt held by the populace.
Well it's just American society that really has this so deeply ingrained that it's deemed irreversible.
Europe only turned neoliberal a few decades ago and only some countries are deeply into it like the Netherlands. Before the 90s we were much more socialist and can go back that way.
China also isn't neoliberal. They're good at playing the capitalist game but they're not afraid to pull the handbrake where needed and they are going good things for green energy.
> Europe only turned neoliberal a few decades ago and only some countries are deeply into it like the Netherlands. Before the 90s we were much more socialist and can go back that way.
We all have the same financial system. Like, if you have interest bearing loans, then some amount of growth is required to pay back the principal + interest.
I think calling it neo-liberal isn't really correct, it's fundamental to the economic system we call capitalism.
Neoliberalism is strongly tied to capitalism, but it is more than that, it's a strong belief that capitalism is the only possible way and that it works best with no restrictions on it.
What we need to do is restrict capitalism. Some capitalism is ok, I'm not advocating for a pure communist system, but there needs to be a balance between both. Since the fall of the soviet union, the balance has swayed wayy too much in favour of the unlimited capitalism option, whatever you call it.
And no the system isn't really the same, or at least it wasn't. Interest-free loans were pretty common and when I studied the government even provided them as student loans. Unfortunately they don't anymore.
> What we need to do is restrict capitalism. Some capitalism is ok, I'm not advocating for a pure communist system, but there needs to be a balance between both. Since the fall of the soviet union, the balance has swayed wayy too much in favour of the unlimited capitalism option, whatever you call it.
I don't disagree with this at all, I'm all for red in tooth and claw capitalism, once every person has food, clothing, shelter, healthcare and education.
> And no the system isn't really the same, or at least it wasn't. Interest-free loans were pretty common and when I studied the government even provided them as student loans. Unfortunately they don't anymore.
I think that many people are missing my point here. Fundamentally, "capitalism" is structured (today, at least) around people with money giving it to others and getting the interest payments as the reward.
In a world with zero growth, where does the money for interest come from? (hopefully this is also a world with zero inflation, or we're all in trouble).
Again, philosophically I agree with a lot of this (our society is very rich, and yet millions of people starve and die from avoidable illness), but my core question is how we get there.
Preferably in small, incremental steps as that's the safest way for us in general.
No. Temperature increases until balance is restored. Temperature is currently increasing, which means the planet is not radiating away as much energy as it is receiving.
I think we're talking at cross purposes. There's a clear equilibrium state which is both higher temperature and notably bad whilst completely balanced from an energy perspective. Climate change is not bad because the temperature is increasing, its bad because it has increased and is going to increase more. The fact we still have baked in warming is additional bad.
Yes, at equilibrium the temperature stays constant. I'm talking about the average temperature of the entire Earth over time. We are currently not at equilibrium because we're pumping unfathomable amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, so the average temperature is skyrocketing. If we were to stop emitting CO2 today then in a few decades or so the planet would reach equilibrium and the temperature would stay constant at that new normal.
This is of course simplified, but roughly correct as I understand it.
Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only be transformed. This is the first law of thermodynamics and as far as I'm aware nobody has managed to refute it.
Finding better ways of controlling where energy comes from and where it goes, and doing it in a controlled way that has minimal impact on the surroundings is good (from an ecological perspective)- it is the most pure good an ecologist can hope for.
"Reduce, Reuse" has its place, but that place has to be in-line with also finding a way to balance our human needs with the environment.
I don't think reducing our energy consumption is realistic, many things that have a long-tail reduction in energy consumption have a huge up front cost.
For example, electric vehicles are a bitch to manufacture but are less impactful for the environment over a long term; and this is amplified if the energy that is produced to be used in the electric car has a minimal impact on the environment (Solar, Wind, Nuclear) - but nuclear plants have a huge up-front energy cost too.
I'll be forthcoming and say that I have a concern that over-reliance on solar and wind may have negative consequences on the environment too- harvesting wind energy from the atmosphere that animals may rely on, will likely impact the environment in ways we haven't thought about. However it's significantly better than coal and gas, and that's the marker we're going for: not perfect.. better.
Everything is bad at a certain scale after all, we just haven't hit that scale with our renewables- and because of this, on a baseline, I agree with you.
For France investment in nuclear is a big benefit, as you can see in the amounts of coal and gas burned to generate electricity in neighboring Germany in the last two decades, and still burning today.
Try to present the idea of "degrowth", to China, India, Indonesia, Brazil. They all on path of growth.
I agree that France, should be paying more to Françafrique countries, but raw uranium cost is only 50% of the finished nuclear reactor fuel. And nuclear reactor fuel is 5% to 10% of the operating costs of a nuclear power plant.
Heinrich Böll Foundation and Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, both funded from Germany, published many documents criticizing uranium mining in Africa:
"
Addressing uranium-producing countries in particular, whom it seems to want to stop or at least reduce their activities, the report also focuses on the health hazards associated with extraction and the neo-colonial aspect of exploiting the resource. Particularly virulent regarding France, which is the subject of three articles and cited in several others, the Atlas targets head-on Paris's relationship with one of its main suppliers: Niger.
The Atlas likens the uranium mining model to a vestige of Françafrique and accuses the French government of enriching itself on Niger's behalf while orchestrating an ecological, human and social catastrophe in the country. The French company Orano - formerly Areva - which mines and produces uranium in Niger for French power plants, is a particular target."
Thank you for this post. It is informative and nuanced about a complex topic.
> Also, the nuclear industry is very much in bed with the military industrial complex, which is something you may be concerned about.
I was born and raised in several countries that are a part of the NATO alliance. Without getting too preachy here, I want to say that I deeply value the nuclear deterrence that France proudly and effectively provides the alliance. Plus, personal here, I like the "je ne sais quoi/don't fuck with me" attitude of the French forces. I welcome the wildcard that keeps our adversaries on their toes!
> If France paid an actual fair price to the Françafrique countries pillaged for their uranium, it would probably be more expensive.
I am not French, nor deeply familiar with the arrangements here, but what happens if the uranium price is 2x or 5x? I am guessing it has little impact on the total cost of operating a nuclear power plant. Also: There are lots of alternatives. Kazakhstan, Canada, and Namibia control nearly three-quarters of the entire global uranium market. To be clear: I am not doubting that the existing purchasing agreements between France and its former African colonies are fair.
History behind the French decision to build it's own independent nuclear deterrence was interesting:
"
De Gaulle asked asked Kennedy: “Would you trade New York for Paris?” His point was that if he wasn't convinced, would the Russians be? So it's not just about numbers of warheads. It's about the defensive posture overall.
"
De Gaulle, like most of the French political elite at that time, also got a wake up call during the Suez Crisis: if you don't have the bomb you can't intervene to protect your own interests anywhere in the world, because one of the great power could block you without shooting a single bullet and the other won't come to your rescue.
It's not subsidized, quite the opposite EDF is subsidizing its competitors through ARENH.
> It's not industry secret that if you count the entire life cycle, nuclear is the most expensive (in terms of euros) energy we have.
It's not. It only appears expensive compared to other decarbonized means because the calculations never take the opportunity cost of intermittency. Wind and solar are only cheap because you never count the price of the back-up plan in the cost (and also because magnets and solar panels are bought for cheap from China). If you count the price of running an actual grid all year long then it suddenly becomes the most efficient option after hydro and that's why France has among the cheapest electricity in Europe. The German Energiewende is the canonical example of what the theoretical calculations leave out. It should have been cheaper and less carbon-heavy in the end, but instead hundreds of billions have been spent to get only expensive and high-emission electricity in the end.
>And that economic analysis does not even account for how "stolen" the uranium we use is. If France paid an actual fair price to the Françafrique countries pillaged for their uranium, it would probably be more expensive.
> If you're an ecologist, it's a bad investment because it takes us in the wrong direction (more energy consumption) instead of going the way of degrowth.
What a horrible, nihilistic philosophy. Disgusting that anybody takes it seriously.
No, it's not a suicide pact. If it was just a suicide pact, they'd get it over with and leave the rest of us alone. It's a homicide pact, a genocide pact for the entire human race.
And we have tried it too! There have been energy shocks before, where the price of energy spikes and causes corresponding drop in energy consumption, leading to degrowth.
They only talk about the benefits in the abstract, but not what an energy shock actually means. It means people can’t afford to pay for heating and freeze to death. It means factories close down because the inputs are too expensive. Construction stops because the raw materials (steel, concrete) are too expensive to manufacture, and people don’t have money to pay for new homes.
We have done all these things just in the last 4 years! So why should we do more of it instead of just building more renewable energy?
degrowth is compatible with increasing standards of living for 99.5% of people all the while being able to then actually preserve these standards up in the future.
our current model produces growth without proportionally increasing standards of living, and accepts that livelihoods will collapse all over Europe and Africa as it becomes increasingly hostile to agriculture due to climate change.
think of the viability of degrowth as a policy within the prisoners dilemma of global capitalism as you want, but please come up with a more serious critique that doesn't equally indigte the staus quo
It's interesting that they're feeling emboldened enough these days to not hide who they are and what their agenda is. That general movement had a slow motion replay of the Bolshevik vs. Menshevik action, where the moderates (like Patrick Moore, Michael Shellenberger) got purged, and after quite a long time of having an established, comfortable monoculture now they're starting to no longer feel the need to create fake narratives around why nuclear or mines are bad, now they're just straight up saying they want civilization to collapse. (Which is what would happen, there's never going to be any such thing as an orderly impoverishment)
Maybe it's for the best. If they're being honest maybe it'll clarify debates and positions.
It's not industry secret that if you count the entire life cycle, nuclear is the most expensive (in terms of euros) energy we have. Does that mean it's a bad investment? Not necessarily. If you're an ecologist, it's a bad investment because it takes us in the wrong direction (more energy consumption) instead of going the way of degrowth. Also, the nuclear industry is very much in bed with the military industrial complex, which is something you may be concerned about.
And that economic analysis does not even account for how "stolen" the uranium we use is. If France paid an actual fair price to the Françafrique countries pillaged for their uranium, it would probably be more expensive. TBH, i haven't followed developments in the last years in regards to french neocolonialism collapsing in sub-saharan africa, but here's a small article from 6 years ago: https://infokiosques.net/IMG/pdf/uranium_de_la_francafrique-...