 Yeah, so so the key result I guess from from the the 1.5 Special report was that there's like a substantial difference between 1.5 degrees and 2 degrees on the one hand for impact that it really makes a lot of sense to pursue 1.5 degrees because they are really substantial impacts in terms of human suffering and ecological damage in between those those two keystones basically And at the same time it said like yeah every ton of carbon matters every Every action matters so we can still like in theory limit warming to 1.5 degrees if we act now if we have emissions by 2030 and go to net zero around mid century. I think that's a absolutely crucial point because Yeah, there has been like a strong development in the modeling to include more and more negative emissions For instance because the declines in carbon emissions became subsequently much more ambitious with carbon emissions rising So it was initially it was thought of as a backstop Technology which can like in an emergency like if everything fails, you know, you can have a bit of that But then it became like a cornerstone of modeling more and more and the result was basically that the degrowth scenarios Which partly show like the strong negative GDP Development in the short term they perform better in terms of those technological indicators. They have less they're closer to the historical historical development and Hence we argue there's less risk and less uncertainty associated With them you still need like energy efficiency improvements and you still need Renewable energy transition and you also need some degree of negative emissions But it's a lot less than in the established scenarios Hello everyone and welcome to the circular metabolism podcast the bi-weekly meeting where we have in-depth discussions with researchers policymakers and practitioners To better understand the metabolism of our cities or in other words their resource use and pollution emissions and how to reduce them in A systemic socially just and context-specific way I'm your host I studied from metabolism of cities and on today's episode will spend some more time on Examining IPCC scenarios and why they might have a blind spot in Facts the IPCC special special report on 1.5 degrees assumes in most if not all of their scenarios that there is gonna be a continued Growth in GDP and the latter is necessary to support social societal well-being And therefore to achieve this societal well-being and the increase of GDP We would need at the same time controversial amounts of carbon dioxide removal and Technological change what if we flipped this question and instead of only focusing on efficiency We also explored sufficiency so by exploring post growth and degrowth scenarios What would that look like can we drastically reduce and converge the energy use Between the global north and the global south and can we reduce the risk of getting to 1.5 degrees by using these type of scenarios? to discuss all of that I have Laurence Kaiser which is a researcher here at the University of Lausanne and Lawrence has been exploring post growth and degrowth policies for mitigated mitigating greenhouse gas emissions which at the moment as I mentioned are overlooked as You will discover Lawrence walks the talk as well as and he's involved in the number of Associations and has a quite unique story to to share. I think it will surprise some of you Just before kicking the episode I would like to encourage you to continue this discussion by telling what you have learned what you have Also was surprising to you and also continue the discussion with your colleagues and friends After this episode with all that being said Lawrence welcome to the episode. Welcome to the podcast. Thank you very much. I still driving me It's a it's a great pleasure to be here. Thanks for the invitation Yeah, it was of course very I was very happy to to read that you're now based in Lausanne So it made this very easy I want to start perhaps with a bit of your backstory meaning how did you get interested in this? post growth degrowth ecological economy Economics, where do you position yourself and how did you arrive to this? Okay, so I It all I guess started in my youth when I was around 16 years old. I Got very interested in and romantic questions by a friend of mine who was Vegetarian at the moment and he provoked me a bit that I was still eating eating meat and then I thought about it and Thought okay. He has a point. So I also became vegetarian and that brought me into like Yeah, some more activist groups Which are relatively liberal groups like a Greenpeace use or something and then I studied environmental science because of that and During these studies I I got in touch with lots of Students co-co students of mine colleagues Which were interested in a variety of topics and I think that was sort of the first? Avenue through through my colleagues that I got in touch with with growth critical ideas or post-growth ideas We also had a lecture in our Bachelor's which was about ecological economics and and post-growth ideas Which was where sir at ETH from from professor emisidal A lecture on this so so this was I think the first Real real contact with post-growth de-growth ideas but I would say the the coin really dropped when I did an exchange semester in in Leeds at the University of Leeds and visited a lecture of professor Julia Steinberger and read an actual book on de-growth the de-growth of vocabulary for a new era by D'Alyssa and et al so so that was really where I I Thought okay that concept really has some some Something to it and has potential and describes something Which is missing from Mainstream environmental protection debates, so I think that was sort of a key turning point where I Really read up on those ideas and and got very passionate about about them And I mean before we focus on some of your findings I would like to to help everyone to to get on the same page at the same level I said in the introduction that we're gonna talk perhaps of IPCC IPCC scenarios the special report Some of the assumptions that they are doing so perhaps can you provide us with a very brief overview of you know, what are some of the Models used or scenarios built and how does that work and and what were the results of the Special report perhaps. I think that will help everyone to before we get into the results and your research Yeah, to have a summit a common ground. Yeah, sure. So Yeah, the the key starting point for much of my work was that was actually the the the IPCC special report on 1.5 degrees and it Yeah, they they review the existing literature on a lot of topics for climate mitigation and adaptation and etc so a key role in in these reports are taken up by integrated assessment models Which are very complicated models Which I'm also like No real expert off like I've never really worked with one of those complicated I am because it takes years to to really Work yourself into them so Yeah, but but these are models which basically combine many aspects of the human climate human environment interaction Including like an economy module a energy module Land use change module climate module and how those interact Yeah, for instance the economy module then calculates the the prices and GDP Resulting from the energy trajectory and and and these kind of things feeding back into it again So so these interactions make these models so so complicated because there are tons of aspects which which need to be considered and Taking care of And these interaction are based on literature and stuff like that. I guess yeah, yeah, exactly and estimates for Impacts of for instance behavioral change on on certain levels which then reduce energy use and then carbon emissions and etc If you feed him back into a climate module Which gives out their numbers on warming etc? So Yeah, the the IPCC reviews these these modules which come from many teams around the world Which which have built those model models and they are like a few which are very prominent I would say so they were also used to Establish a framework with to you to work with those models These are called the shared socio-economic pathways and they basically cast some some storylines for the future which which are then translated into the module into the model with numeric assumptions and basically each of those Pathways is then sort of linked to one baseline model So there are about five of those really prominent models, but there are much many more models, of course So these scenarios from those integrated assessment modeling teams are then submitted to the IPCC Who reviews them? Yeah, so so the key result I guess from from the the 1.5 Special report was that there is like a substantial difference between 1.5 degrees and 2 degrees on the one hand for impacts that it really makes a lot of sense to pursue 1.5 degrees because they are really substantial impacts in terms of human suffering and ecological damage in between those those two Keystones basically And at the same time it said like yeah every ton of carbon matters every Every action matters so we can still like in theory limit Warming to 1.5 degrees if we act now if we have emissions by 2020 30 And go to net zero around mid-century So there is like possibility to act and it makes sense to act and we can act So these were like I think the key Results from from the report And these models so sorry so these within these models you had I guess numerical values of the temperature and then also of the components This is how the economy would look like by the end of the century. This is what the energy would look like etc Yeah, so so this this shared social economic pathways they come along with like assumptions on how population develops How GDP develops? The also how like global coordination Corporation develops like more optimistic more pessimistic Scenarios whether there's like social conflict and and Which makes them mitigation harder? So they're oriented around like challenges to mitigation and adaptation. So some scenarios pose less challenges Which are like the SSP one for instance, which is more like a green growth storyline actually because it combines like quite strong economic growth with like sustainable transformation a high corporation these kind of assumptions and it's sort of the In these scenarios the easiest pathway to 1.5 degrees that poses the least challenges to mitigation and yeah exactly so the the models then use those those shared social economic pathways to combine them with with assumptions on how climate policy develops and like for instance through a carbon price higher lower carbon price and then they arrive at greenhouse gas emission trajectories and carbon concentrations in the atmosphere and then this leads to to the warming So yeah, that's that's sort of to give the integrated assassin modeling Community more framework and to to make also the the comparisons and stuff more easy and to to coordinate These kind of things. Yeah, and so that gives like a vast trumpet of Different scenarios different pathways. Yeah with More less warming. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. And yeah, some of these have been strongly criticized like the SSP 5 with like a return to coal which now seems a rather unrealistic maybe So so they are also like scenarios which have super high concentrations of carbon emissions which Yeah, I have been criticized as as unrealistic if from a purely energy system standpoint But of course also others kinds of criticism as like the post-growth degrowth literature would say that Yeah, there are all growth scenarios and and the scenarios which have also less growth They're often also accompanied accompanied by social conflicts and more challenges to mitigation So They are not Able to to meet for instance the 1.5 degree target SSP 3 which is like the Scenario of like a conflict rule unequal development. Yeah It was quite interesting indeed because when I read some of the papers it mentioned that while you and your co-authors mentioned that There might be some fundamental flaws in them because of the risky assumptions meaning that all of them of the 222s IPCC scenarios where Well, have well had growth embedded in them or something like that. Is that the case or or how does that? really Entangle together. Yeah, so so I have to say that in the 1.5 degree special report They were around 222 scenarios, but now with the AR 6 they are many more scenarios and It's also important to to emphasize that the IPCC doesn't create those scenarios it's just reviews they exist in literature and It's more like that the integrated assessment community hasn't explored those post growth and degrowth pathways and Indeed like on a global level. They they all show growth in until to 2100 all the 1.5 degree scenarios But also in in rich countries like the EU or the US the OECD that they all grow Although they are already quite rich. So so that's like also a point we we we mention Because their growth might not be as necessary as somewhere else So yeah, but all of them show growth and and and the countries which have other scenarios Which have declining growth. There are there are also some Scenarios where some countries in the global north for instance, they have declining growth because of less productivity improvements and declining population for instance, but these are then Yeah, not sort of cast as as maybe a chance or a connected to Some maybe positive developments, but it's rather seen as a problem. It's more a recession Yeah, exactly like it's it's a it's a it's a problem and something undesirable and Yeah, as I said look these scenarios there then also not able to to meet the 1.5 degree target Yeah, so it's basically it's basically a trade-off if you have Less growth you have higher challenges to mitigation But if you have more growth like an SSP one You can have lower challenges to mitigation although SSP five also has strong growth, but High challenges to mitigation. So it's yeah, it's a bit complicated Yeah, I mean for I think for the mirror a human or mortal it's it's hard to see clear and hard to understand all of that but I Understand that's at least all of them all of the the models and the scenarios reviewed had a component of growth inside and and somehow so you and your colleagues say, okay So what if what if instead we because well, perhaps we should remind that? By saying that there is more growth Then you also need to assume that there's gonna be a lot of technological change and a lot of you know carbon dioxide sequestration or capture because One should lead to to the other. Yeah, and that's more or less betting on something, right? Yeah, absolutely. I think that's a absolutely crucial point because Yeah, there has been like a strong development in the modeling to include more and more negative emissions for instance because the declines in carbon emissions became subsequently much more ambitious with carbon emissions rising So it was initially it was thought of as a backstop Technology which can like in an emergency like if everything fails, you know, you can have a bit of that But then it became like a cornerstone of modeling more and more and this is one aspect of the more speculative or risky assumptions in the modeling because many models also assume that Although you have the high GDP growth You also have a partly extremely steep decline in energy consumption for instance Which then results in I mean coupled results in a very high energy efficiency increase Which other studies have then cast doubt on that this is a completely unprecedented In terms of yeah, we have seen since the last 40 over 40 years and Yeah, so there are a lot of problems with with for instance assuming this strong decoupling between energy consumption and GDP Also because many mechanisms which lead to rebound effects for instance, which then reduce the energy savings Are not included in the in the model So there's a risk of overestimating the gains there and yeah Additionally there of course this the next level lever is the renewable energy transformation Which is which is of course important And there's a bit of a debate going on whether like integrated assessment models under or overestimated Those such changes and there I think that also good arguments for Like the under estimation of renewable energy speed but nevertheless those speeds in the 1.5 degree scenarios they are much faster than the maximum speeds which we have observed even in like Yeah rich countries which which have pushed Quite a bit in this direction So yeah, this is also in the sense many cases unprecedented So yeah, and also has other impacts in terms of social and ecological Aspects for instance the mining aspect is a crucial one So yeah, that's basically what we highlight that all those levers they they they can be questioned And there are risks associated with them So yeah, why why don't we explore potential alternatives which could reduce those risks and Yeah, that's what we highlight. We should be doing Basically, yeah, and well the episode should come soon, but had also an episode with Dominic Vidianhofer that did the The decoupling or the systematic review that there is no decoupling or there is a decoupling for just some flows and some specific cases So just as a reminder, there is no absolute decoupling observed or There is for for three or four countries But it's not at the at the pace that we need and for all of the materials or for all of the flows something like that, right? Yeah, no, absolutely the study was tremendous Yeah, it's it's crazy, but no it yeah, absolutely like for for material use. There's no decoupling Especially but for carbon emissions is some decoupling for some countries especially rich countries In the European Union for instance, even if you include the imports the consumption based accounting which is then Often or very often shown as a proof that greengrove is here and and working Which is way too too fast in my view because As you said like the rates are way too small and they were also associated many times with With last financial crisis in 2008 2009, which was followed by quite low GDP growth rates That was also highlighted in some papers on it that if you would have had normal growth as before Then you probably wouldn't have seen this decoupling This absolute decoupling. Yeah, so yeah, there's a lot of Nuance, I think to do these numbers. Yeah Okay, so now ideally we should go to the Okay before we present the scenarios Let's perhaps make sure that we are on the same footing as well with the definition of post-growth de-growth and all that There is many many different definitions a bit like a circular economy. There's a myriad of definitions How could you very simply? provide a definition of a of a post-growth or de-growth Policy society or something like that? Yeah, that's that's a crucial point. I think because yeah, there's a lot. I mean Some of those words they they are also often misunderstood. So I think that's that's important Yeah, so so de-growth I would define de-growth as a start as a like a social social transformation which sort of is aimed at Yeah, providing a good life for for everyone via like increased democracy increased equity and participation and This social transformation then results in a in a decline in carbon emissions material use energy use and in turn Also, most likely results in a decline in GDP because many of those measures Have have this effect on on GDP For instance working less and these kind of things So it's it's yeah, it's it's these three steps basically like a Social transformation which then leads to less environmental impact and also likely less GDP growth And it's also I would say especially if we look at the international debate. It's more advanced in terms of being more explicit about what this transformation entails in terms of Moving beyond the growth drivers and growth imperatives in the system, which are often associated with capitalism. So de-growth is more openly anti-capitalist in in tendency Then for instance post-growth which which has similar goals like making the economy independent the well-being of the people independent from from economic growth and pursuing the sustainability transition But it Includes many more strands. I would say many more camps which for instance are not so openly anti-capitalist or which Yeah, which which are agnostic about this or and yeah, yeah So so there are a lot of different different camps which are not in some aspects not so explicit or less or more explicit in other aspects but Yeah, what one could describe them as more reformist for instance like to pursue more reforms within the system Yeah, or a cultural changes With stronger focus on cultural changes and less on economic structures and these kind of things. So Yeah, there are a lot of a lot of different strands and it's very heterogeneous Internally, so so that's an important point to keep in mind. There's there's not I would say that's not the de-growth Yeah, storyline or or yeah Program, let's say they're overlaps and some important Communalities but beyond the point it gets Also controversial, I would say like internally and There you are. You're set to develop your scenarios I don't know if that coincided with the moment where you did your research day in in Australia But let's make a small interlude that's where you you have your your crazy story So for those who don't know the University of Sydney has Some of the the best input output modellers in the world Manfred Lenzin, Tommy Witt, Vidman and All of this team which is fantastic and somehow you wanted to connect with them and you said, okay I'm gonna go there, but you choose a rather peculiar way to go there Or let's say the more in line with your values way way to go there So can you just share this this story? It's funny when I meant when I had the discussion with With Julia. She mentions she mentioned your name and then I didn't make the link between Your name in the papers and your name doing the the actual thing, but can you perhaps share the story? Yeah, that's that's a bit of a longer one, but Yeah, so my my my partner at the time Julia she had a friend from Australia her best friend Rosa and She married in in Australia and she moved back to Australia the best friend and Julia was about was then supposed to become the maiden of honor for for this wedding But we decided both to not fly anymore. So it was like, yeah, we can't participate no like It's impossible and somehow during like a tea or coffee. I don't quite remember in the living room We were discussing discussing somehow this idea dropped. Yeah, maybe we could go there without flying and We were discussing this over months many months and Then this plan developed of going there without flying and after many months of planning we we took the Trans-Iberian Railway through Russia Mongolia and China and Jumped on a cargo ship in China and went there for for two weeks over the over the sea and Stayed in Australia for one year So it was actually worth it to the whole journey And then went back to the same way basically But yeah, this was in your ride. This was coinciding with with my encounter in Sydney and the work there Which was what I was doing during the time in Sydney But yeah, all in all it was an incredible effort to to do this journey and It wasn't it was not easy for for both of us to to do it and we also had a lot of Barriers to overcome like we and we were very privileged already with the right passwords and stuff. So Yeah, you have to have how do you book yourself within a cargo ship? You know, I mean, it's actually quite easy Yeah, yeah, I mean, it's it's very expensive But there are like agencies travel agencies which have the contacts of all those shipping companies and they Offer usually like one free cabin on the ships some routes. It's more already But yeah, then you can just ask the agency and they they can sort of Get you a cabin But yeah, it's it's very expensive. Unfortunately, you would have thought I mean you don't weigh that much So I could imagine that that's not the most Yeah, it's I mean it's sort of it's a basically you have a hotel room and you get three meals a day And it's it's a lot of things included and yeah, so so yeah, but That was it wasn't an incredible experience for sure Yeah, but of course I always tried to to sort of put this into perspective because it also sort of gives the the impression that sort of Individual solutions to these kind of things. So and that's also very problematic discourse and very dominant discourse So it's also important to push back against that that the system needs to change and we need like a Collective political solutions to these problems and it's not I think with with this journey We we on the one hand wanted to show that it's kind of possible to to do but also Yeah to to To to try it ourselves whether whether it's possible and see whether whether we could do it And I guess it was also driven by our conscious conscious that we couldn't yeah, we couldn't just go into the plane Yeah, but yeah, so long was it or one and a half months each way Each way one and a half months one and a half months and we were already quite quick I would say we made some stops in between of course, but not super long Like four to five days this kind of thing So yeah, and then like one year staying I'm taking notes. I'm taking notes I did back in the day my research day or half of my PhD in Australia as well But I wasn't that quick to think about this So you arrive now in Australia you're part of the University of Sydney group and you start saying, okay, let's start Doing this These new is it a new model or is it just the scenarios? How does it work by proposing these post growth and degrowth scenario? And how did you go about? Okay, we have what exists already the integrated assessment models And what did you do and what did I give you? Okay, so Yeah, I have to say I wrote my bachelor thesis in Sydney as well and there I was looking at integrated assessment data output in terms of land use change and During this engagement with with integrated assessment models. I was reading some critiques of them as well Especially the one from from Kai Kuhnhand from Germany would who wrote about that? There's like a blind spot in terms of no D-growth post-growth scenarios being developed So I actually thought okay. I write my master thesis about this And I I was writing like a sort of pre-proposal for for this at the time and After my bachelor thesis, I thought okay now I have half a year time and I had the privilege to to not Not to not having to find a paid job because my parents still supported me So I thought okay, I can do what I like to do So I and that was I am Cindy and that was I am Cindy growth So I I could I I just searched okay Who are the people in Sydney who have to do with with the growth and and these kind of issues and There I came across Among others professor mantra Lenson and I won in my Malik and I just wrote them me an email. Hey Yeah, can I can I do an internship at your place and? Yeah, they were very open to this and we had a chat I was initially very overwhelmed with with all the information and and and the The conversations they were very in-depth very mathematical Yeah, coming from an input-out for analysis view No surprise, but yeah, I was I was still overwhelmed and then I basically Discussed this pre-proposal with professor my foot Lenson and And Yeah, he said We had a really long back-and-forth about the growth of our emails and one day what was his point of view about about the growth because I I know how he speaks on it's a bit Come aside, but Was he interested in it or did he also think it was a blind spot between his research and the rest or I? Think it was primarily he Asked a lot of questions about it, and I tried to answer to the best of my ability with yeah, I'm trying to point to important literature bids and I guess it was there was an interest there to to to Get to know more of it and in this process of of these conversations Yeah, I think I think it He saw some potential in it and Developed and as an x-step like a very simple model. That's that's maybe the next step the very simple model and axle of the of the energy Sector global top-down model of the energy sector very easy Yeah, I think he did this in two days and I was Impressed but And he showed you showed me this model and asked me I can you do something with this? and Then I thought about it. I looked at it and played around a bit and said yes I think we can do something with this And this was out the idea of the 1.5 degree degrowth scenario paper was born So Yeah, and then we started with to to develop this model like we noticed okay it Lex may be carbon capture and storage and negative emissions. So so yeah, we tried to build this in and in collaboration and Adapted it in terms of at first. We only had primary energy use and then we incorporated final energy use as well and Yeah, then also GDP because we we we hadn't we haven't had it in the in the beginning so we basically we tried to include all those major levels which which are in the literature and where which are also other papers have said sort of if you if you evaluate the feasibility of scenarios you can look at those Indicators like negative emissions energy efficiency renewable energy increase, etc And yeah, this was in 2019 and The paper got published 2021. So over two years We developed this model basically which was always thought not as a replacement of IAMs or something because it's way too simple To to cover those aspects, but as a supplement basically to it And exploratory toy model something basically. Yeah And yeah, we we changed a lot through the time and Yeah, then included basically representations of the mainstream model. We approximated those with with our model So to represent sort of the biggest trends in the IPCC report And Went beyond it in terms of also including some more extreme cases like if you if you Use much more renewable energy much quicker for instance and then also digraph scenarios of of course Which we basically implemented via Yeah, reducing finite energy use and then coupling GDP on it with a sort of historically average energy efficiency improvement So this was the the interacting link between finite energy use and GDP And this was an energy descent somehow This then yielded. Yeah, the assumption was sort of the energy descent Which you can also find in the literature through the low energy demand scenario for instance Which has very strongly decreasing energy use but they have strongly increasing GDP as well Because they don't explicitly look at this interaction So that was basically we fixed this interaction through the historical Level of energy efficiency improvement and this then yielded like the decline also in GDP In the short term So it wasn't yourself that forced the model to decrease the GDP It was by doing the energy model saying we're going to have a descent and these are the rates of Gains or of efficiency and stuff like that. Yeah, that that Resulted to a reduction of GDP. Yeah, exactly And yeah, then then after like I think How was it after the the energy transition is completed? We basically kept energy use constant and also GDP constant So so this was basically the the logic behind it And the goal was really to compare those mainstream scenarios in the IPCC With these degrowth archetypes So we had different scenarios of degrowth with more or less negative emissions with a higher or lower renewable energy transformation But also like in I would say Maybe more extreme case like the the the decent living energy scenario from from Joel Millward Hopkins that are which really tries to research what would be needed to Have decent living standards at the minimum for 10 billion people in 2020-2050 Sort of as the lower bound So we also included that that scenario um, and yeah It was crazy how how well this performed like you you only need very little Renewable energy increase with with such a very low energy consumption. So so Yeah, we basically plotted this on on a big plot to compare it with historical data on on those Indicators like energy efficiency negative emissions and renewable energy increase And the result was basically that the degrowth scenarios which partly show like the strong negative GDP Development in the short term they perform better in terms of those technological indicators They have less they're closer to the historical historical development and Hence we argue there's less risk and less uncertainty associated With them you still need like energy efficiency improvements and you still need Renewable energy transition and you also need some degree of negative emissions But it's a lot less than in the established scenarios I think this is quite important to to underline. I mean we also frequently make the The dichotomy degrowth equals no technology or degrowth equals no renewable energy I think it's also very I mean quite nuanced to to add them up that You know this facilitates the solution so much so that the rest the technology Renewable energies and all that are just a small complement. Yeah, absolutely like it's it's very important to stress that Also a degrowth scenario includes a strong renewable energy expansion and energy efficiency improvements, etc But additionally to that you have the sufficiency aspect Which scales down socially less necessary forms of production and consumption And hence makes the transition easier in these in these terms. So what we basically did is put a few numbers on those already known Um Yeah statements basically And and try to show how much better It would be with this very simple model, of course to motivate like further research In this as or to explore whether this would make sense the research Um, so yeah, the result was in these terms of technical technological indicators. It makes totally sense and it's very it's actually Um, if you if you see the graph, it's a bit like it's just too easy. Yeah, it's a bit like, okay They are so close and we don't research this like How how can this be like? Yeah, why do we go so far away from from all the the historical trends? But of course we also say they're also like the trade-off is that uh degrowth scenario would imply a lot of social and political changes, which also Yeah Are connected to social conflicts with current power structures and and these kind of topics So there would be more challenge there in terms of transformation then With say a green growth scenario, which leaves everything more or less as it is but just changes changes the technology But yeah, then we argue, okay, um Um, you you when the one hand it's very hard to say how what is politically feasible. This can change Very quickly with as we have seen I think With things like covid or so, uh, ukraine crisis Um, so it's not a reason not to not to explore this So if we have to compare Your results with the IPCC report or you know, do we stay under the 1.5 degrees with the degrowth scenarios? How well do we fit in all of that? Can you provide a bit with some examples or some comparison between the two and How drastically they differ or do they still converge in some elements and not in others? um so Yeah, I think if if we compare it from our paper, we can say that The degrowth scenarios could meet 1.5 degrees With this like strong sociopolitical transformation, which is not covered in the mainstream scenarios But with a lot less energy efficiency increase negative emissions and renewable energy increase and and partly drastically like the the low energy demand scenario Which was a keystone scenario in the 1.5 degrees report They have up to three to four times higher energy efficiency increase than than the degrowth scenarios, which is completely unprecedented Even for single year changes like if you have the some outliers, which are very very strong in energy efficiency Like this is still part far beyond What has been achieved? So yeah, one one can really argue. Okay. This this is Yeah, completely beyond the the trends and and frankly A bit unrealistic if you also not include rebound effects and and these kind of things So so these are these are big problems, which the degrowth scenarios would would solve or not solve but drastically reduce At least and also in terms of negative emissions, which I think is another crucial point There's a huge potential there to to reduce The the carbon emissions, but this is a bit of a trade-off with renewable energy. So if you in our scenarios if you want to have basically no negative emissions Then the renewable energy transition would also need to be far quicker than than what we have seen And so It seems likely that you need some amount Still for 1.5 degrees But it opens up also the possibility to refrain from more risky technologies Such as bioenergy to carbon capture and storage and keep it rather with relatively well known Technologies such as aforestation reforce station and soil carbon sequestration these kind of things Um So so this is a big potential there in comparison to to the IPCC reports. Um, yeah, so yeah, but you still have this trade-off, I guess a bit with the political Uh conflicts, uh, really Yeah, I hope this answers your your question a bit. I mean I think more explicitly to make it easily understandable to everyone When we talk about the growth scenario do we talk about decreasing by 50 percent on X amount of years to the amount of energy How do we make it a bit more tangible before before we also propose some policies to actually get there, right? Yeah, so in terms of finer energies, um, if I have it right in my head, it's approximately to Harvard By by 2050 or I think even earlier 2040 Um, which is also what the the low energy demand scenario assumes Um, and in terms of decent living energy, uh, you could even still use even less like a quarter, I think to to Reach like really good living standards for for everyone But what I have to say is in terms of per capita decline This would be massive for the global south for the global north. Um, we we actually Tried to put some numbers on this And in our degrowth scenario, I think for the global north there would be a decline to 25 percent of on average the current Energy consumption and this doesn't include like imports already. So So it's even bigger if you include the imports And of course there's a huge inequality also in the global north with with some individuals Using much more energy. So this would probably be for us for some of the richest individuals This would be a decline over 90 probably like really really big For the global south, uh, this would I think in our degrowth scenario on average Remain as it is, uh, of course, this is uh, too reductive because it includes an internal redistribution and technological transformation Um, uh, so It would in with the numbers of the decent living energy scenario. It would be possible to eliminate poverty Uh in in such a scenario if you only use the energy metrics um Yeah, but I also have to say that even in an aggregate growth scenario of us which comes close to the mainstream Uh, I've seen these scenarios if you Include a convergence of global south and global north, which you mentioned in the beginning Uh, which is an absolutely crucial point then also the global north would need to halve the energy youth Under like as assuming 10 billion people by by 2050. Um, so Yeah, and and this points to the to the fact that mainstream scenarios they come Predominantly from the global north and they also cement The the inequalities in energy use they project them in the future and don't don't have this convergence Which is a crucial neglect. I think um So yeah, and in terms of gdp, which is another important point maybe Uh, the the degrowth scenario on average. I think they have a decline Um, uh, how much was it? Um, I think from from 80 From I think when 20 20 20 we start we had like 84 trillion trillion uh dollars and it declines to I think 70 78 or something by 2050 by 20 40 Um, it's it's it's not the strong. It's not a strong, uh decline Although again, like if you look at it on a per capita basis, uh, this would be massive for the global north Um, yeah, and if you look at the decent living energy scenario, that's also has a very strong decline in gdp because I think The energy trajectory is just so so steep But I mean also what's interesting we talked about convergence, which is already Like leaps and bounds ahead of what we're doing right now Ideally, it shouldn't even be a convergence I mean global south needs to build the necessary infrastructure to provide services Which might need like more than the global north for a certain period of time before they even converge Or not in the distant future, right? I mean all the accumulated energy that we have within our stocks and all that I mean I guess this is a more theoretical discussion, but uh, I don't know if convergence is even equitable or not In the long run. Yeah, that's an that's an interesting point. I I I don't have like global numbers for this I only know like nara shimarao has done some research on this for Three specific countries. I think I I forgot which which specific ones there were But there the result was that sort of the the build up of of the stocks In order to to have this decent living energy standards This build up is not too much Energy so it's it seems Fairly small if I remember correctly and Compared to what is then needed to maintain it Yeah, for for the operation so I I would expect in energy terms that maybe it's not too too much of a of a Of an overcompensation basically that would be necessary But I mean it's clear that from the global north, this would mean very strong reparations for for the global south in order to To conduct such a transformation Which is another big political challenge and also like that that forgiveness and these kind of things very very important um You wanted to conclude or yeah Um, I think perhaps another point which might help us to make it a bit more practical would be Okay, how do we take these big scenarios? What would be an intermediary step? In order to get there meaning for instance, what are some policies that could help us today? um post-growth or de-growth policies that might be the The you know the next step in order to to achieve these scenarios, right? Do you have any? examples Well, you have mentioned a number of them over here, but some that seem to be Prominent or promising to you and easy to adopt as well because we're gonna come back to the You know how difficult it is to be accepted Politically, right? I don't know if we could drag them both into the Effect or impact they can have and also political feasibility and therefore find an optimum or Let's start with some examples first and then we can have this discussion of optimum or something yeah, so To start with I think I think really none of this is is really easy. I think it's really it's really something Which which yeah, it's it's just Really really difficult But but of course they're different in terms of difficulty. I mean we could just see at what is being implement Implemented to to see what's relatively easy like you can have some investments in renewable energy You can have some policies to reduce energy consumption to incentivize energy saving Some labeling maybe to to nudge behavior These kind of things but that's not the growth per se, but that's not Exactly because it's trying to sort of increase the efficiency of the system while while maintaining the growth economy basically so degrowth would necessitate much more radical changes, which In the end not only decouple Well-being from GDP growth because currently if we if we just would do what would be necessary like to implement The really high carbon taxes to implement the caps on resource use which decline Very strongly energy quotas, whatever Tariff structures progressive tariff structures these kind of things then What would be the result is that there would be a lot less economic activity going on because so many things would just get more expensive and Firms could not invest so much in Replacing human labor power with with machines making much more profit, etc. So basically the result would be a recession like People investment strikes capital flight these kind of things So you need to account for this and I think that this is where it gets interesting Like many degrowth and post-growth models then point to things like universe of basic income or working time reductions and working time reduction is a really central one to basically reduce working time while Sharing the work which is there So you can have basically declining GDP and and still maintain the jobs the jobs because people work less and less and Yeah, and for employment Yeah, but again like all all of these policies I would say if you look in detail at them in the current economic context, which is like a very competitive Economy where where firms really Look at yeah, what the competitors do and and states do what other states do and In firms look at where the highest current capital investors Look for the highest returns Etc. So there are a lot of issues for instance with a single country wanting to implement these kind of measures So you need to account for that and for this for instance Yeah, it's it it gets really really complicated and I think there are a lot of debates How to best do this like some say you need like very strong State action to impose like capital controls for instance to impose job guarantees And maximum incomes to to reduce inequality The I think these are all important measures, but I would also say that states historically have been like strong growth factors now they have fostered growth they have sort of Increased economies of scale by keeping energy prices low for instance So as an actor this points to me Away from from the state as sort of the center actor to implement. I mean it needs to implement those measures But in order to get this you basically need a bottom up social movement, which which builds up the pressure to to Yeah, make those actors Bring those those socially beneficial policies Yeah, because at least historically I would say the states rather seem to to foster growth and Also in terms of power geo geopolitics for instance is a big picture problem So these social movements are really central and Also in degrowth thought So to be able for instance to to via the means of a strike or Yeah, occupations these kind of things to to build up the pressure So yeah, it's it's but this also necessitates sort of a cultural change which goes along with this Sort of to not only build up the social trust With that people can trust. Okay I won't suffer under this Because we have each other and we have the solidarity I think this is a crucial point but also like the The confidence that this can create a better life quality And this is basically the message of degrowth. No, like you can have a better life with that with less stuff If we if we increase democracy if we increase Long longevity of products So these are the more radical size of things but the more immediate uh Things you you you you mentioned, I mean there are things like for instance, right to repair or longevity guarantees Which can be um, I think without which are relatively easy to to implement Or also like things like a very weak green new deal Could be could be avenues for pragmatic changes But again, like the I think the stronger your Your grassroots is the stronger the basis and the more sort of costs you can impose The easier you will also get those reforms because um, yeah, you can basically pressure The state into making those concessions Also against the capital so, um, yeah, I I I think all of none of this is easy and it requires a lot of uh, yeah uneasy conversations and organizing and Yeah work But we we I don't think we have another choice and then to do that because no matter what comes like This things what you build up it will help us in any situation Yeah, yeah, it's funny how Well beforehand at least the radical left Was a vector of social change Reducing inequalities and all of that, but it was also very much embodied embedded within Productivist approaches, right because also we had to build stocks. We also had to to provide You know to lift people out of poverty. There was a bunch of elements, but it seems that radical left stayed there, uh, and now it's trying to reinvent itself. I think with uh I know also heard with uh, you know as soon as the friday for climate Kind of radicalized itself a bit more into or politicized itself a bit more We might have a convergence Of let's say traditional politics and grassroots into One pathway. I I don't know but That is perhaps one pathway that seems a bit promising to to see Some traditional political parties that get a bit more into Out of the productivist, but still maintain these, you know, societal interest and reducing inequalities and at the same time like the The activists that really care about the environment only and perhaps get more political And there might be a convergence. I don't know what whether you have Any ideas about this or because you also are you Involved with uh, I think you were involved. Does it still exist post growth Zurich? um, so it it uh It it transformed actually, you know, it it evolved post growth Zurich transformed into degrowth switzerland Okay, that was my question like what were the Yeah, so what why did you choose because I found it's very poetic as well There is this question of a post growth city, which appeals very much to me to figure this out Um, what was the change about why did you choose to change it? uh, yeah, that's a that's a Good question. I think like just historically it evolved out of a strengthening of um degrowth and post growth thought also in the the romandy the western switzerland switzerland part, um among others also with the arrival of drew a steinberger and losan and um This was sort of the It seemed the logical step to us to combine sort of our strength and uh to to go national with with this organization um and to foster sort of degrowth thought in the whole of switzerland to increase our reach uh there um So that's basically why we changed from from post growth Zurich to to degrowth switzerland to um, yeah increase our reach and unite sort of these both hubs But yeah, we still have like I would say a bit of a local roots and local focus Both in Zurich and in losan And it's also like a relatively young organization. Um, so so we were founded last year Only and it's it's an evolving process also to find our strategy our own strategy and and How we want to approach this? Um, so yeah, that's that's all in development. Um, I would say Um, but yeah, so I would say we haven't done a ton of work on like how to create a post growth city or a degrowth city Uh, so much I would think that maybe People from the transition movement have thought more about this which are also quite strong in Zurich for instance um But yeah, so so we were also There are lots of Yeah, true No, um, yeah, but So so what we did mostly was a bit of um with a bit of a too strong also We we recognized this too strong of an academic focus. We had a lot of reading circles Also tried to formulate our own understanding of of degrowth and post growth and how this relates to Yeah issues in switzerland more specifically and Yeah, that's a very time intensive pro process as well um, so yeah, we are we are still seeing where we where we sit in terms of like concrete projects in terms of grassroots notopia projects to have have Projects in the year and now which embody a degrowth ideas but also like political change in terms of state policies and also like connection to social movements and Such as the climate strike for instance, so we are all like in between this So it's an interesting mix But it's quite hard actually. I mean one of the barriers. I think of degrowth as well is The imaginary like what is a degrowth lifestyle? Um There it's very easy also to imagine it when you look at transition town So I think there is you know, that's more on the bottom up approach But then at the top level, what can you do and should you do it? What is the right scale to do it? So? um Find it that quite the challenging task to to figure out or triangulate between movements ideas um, what is feasible in what's In what scale and all of that so That might be also a good segue to I don't remember in which paper you mentioned that there are future research directions that might be relevant as well to head like you mentioned How do we achieve fundamental changes in lifestyle? How do we Deal with unsustainable unethical and unjust parts of consumption What are some governance and institutions needed to explore these future pathways and all that so What in your from, you know dealing between associations? academia Also as a activist yourself, how do you find the How can you Underline some future pathways of research still needed. I mean, I guess you still want to finish your your research So you have a clear idea of where you personally are headed But perhaps it's a at a wider community level Where do you think we should head and what is still useful given that, you know, we're in urgent needs of Of action. What is still? relevant to to be researched Yeah, I mean, there's a ton of things which which need to be researched. Uh, yeah, it's it's it's quite a lot I think like the the recent Uh Grant which was won by by georgia callis jason hegel US hamburger this goes very much in this direction of the open questions still to be tackled um, I think like for me The most interesting part maybe is that we have like this internal heterogeneity within uh digraph especially also in terms of strategic Thought strategy. I mean, it's a big topic. There was a digraph conference with the focus on strategy because everyone Feels okay. There's a need to to better strategize And I totally agree with this So I think that's that's a huge avenue for for more research to also clarify Those heterogenities and where they come from and Yeah, also, I think to a degree you have to evaluate which which one of those strategies are they contradictory? Um, which one if so, which one has more merit, uh, maybe which one has the higher likelihood of being effective um So I think this assessment is is really uh important and I mean, yeah, I'm I'm planning I'm trying to to Uh to contribute to this in my in my phd. Um with a look at sort of growth imperatives uh again, uh because it's sort of the I I think it's a basis for like deciding The strategy the the problem analysis. Okay. Where does the problem come from actually? Um, so to to reassess the theoretical debates we have there um Yeah, and in in terms of in terms of uh concretely where we should go um, I think it's super important to look at the connection between um D growth and uh Yeah, social movements specifically working working class worker movements. Um, because I I think this is um Yeah, this is sort of a precondition for for d growth that you have this this bottom up mobilization of Working people who have the trust in each other and the solidarity built up to know that Um, yeah, these changes won't negatively affect them. Um And uh to be able to sort of assert the pressure to push these policies through as I as I described Um, so I think this is uh, this is a really important avenue And I think this can also bring back a lot of What what has been theorized already in in for instance classical, uh classical Um, um more more libertarian socialist traditions. Um, which I think are Under included in the research uh community, which has more of this focus on the not now topias In the here and now cooperatives This kind of things and then more the the state socialist aspect of like public ownership and State-centered transitions, um, but not really like working class Yeah class struggle Bottom up still focus, which is very participatory very horizontal Which also existed historically, so I think that's that's Personally, I think that's an avenue which has a lot of promise But yeah for me it was a Long story or long journey to to to come to this point and yeah, maybe I In a few years I would think differently, you know, but um, I think In terms of literature in terms of research that's That's underexplored in in my view and it has a lot of potential um to also resolve Problems in terms of this tension between the bottom up and the top down, which is everywhere So yeah So I hope this answers a bit your question But I think there are like many many avenues for for for research also in the modeling Part per se like making actual integrated assassin modeling of of digrov It is coming there are more and more studies, but um Yeah, I need to be more of course so So if you are a current or future researcher, please Take these into your consideration. We definitely need more hands and brains in this operation Before we conclude, I don't know if you have any Topics that you would like to cover that we haven't covered so far This is a very good, uh question I mean we have we have covered quite a lot. Um But Yeah, maybe maybe one one one small point is important I think because lots of lots of times when you hear like the screen growth degrowth and discussion The the the biggest retort against degrowth is yeah, this is This is impossible in terms of social change in this short amount of time. We don't have time We need to act now. So we need to be pragmatic Um and and focus on the small changes which we can win here and now and I I think and and this is then more in line With with screen growth for instance to have a bit of efficiency improvements and these kind of things um, and I think this is really a problematic way of thinking about this because, um We if we really want to solve the problem in the longer term We really need to start now to think about how to solve the problem itself and degrowth points to like capitalism the growth economy as the the key driver basically of of of the the the social ecological crises um And also in terms of coming crises, which which are coming which are upon us in many parts of the world um as as soon the sooner we start building those those structures and uh support each other build those networks of solidarity and self-reliance and see what we can do as people ourselves in terms of putting pressure on on on those in power basically, um the more leeway and the more Possibilities we will have in the coming coming crisis no matter what happens and it's also I think When and when it comes to time, you know, we don't have time then we should look at what are the most effective ways strategies of change and I think the case can be made that historically this was really having actual radical movements Which can threaten the system and which can put costs on the system via strikes via occupations of like and strikes also in terms of housing where people Don't pay don't pay rent for instance with increasing rent prices these kind of things them really imposing material costs that there's a huge lever in terms of change and also it's it's um leads to concessions trying to pacify those those struggles and then an example is the new deal and all like which is often brought up for of green new deal Advocates that this was in the context of basically global revolution like communist threats these kind of things very strong working class movement strikes, etc and also of course economic crisis and this was a way of pacifying and Restoring the trust in the in the institutions and re regaining growth and and power so in terms of time and radical change we basically need to try the impossible and Yeah, have this this Um, yeah, optimism of the will and even if there's a pessimism of the intellect to side grumpy, but Yeah, it's uh, it's uh, I think that's really crucial. Um, and it's missing in a lot of Discussions because yeah I I get the the struggle with the time and the the urgency, but it urgency can also be Like a argument to make repressive changes authoritarianism These kind of issues and I think we really really need to be very careful um, and Yeah, work against that Yeah to finish perhaps do you have any initiative or book or movie or article that seems like Very to the point and something that Will help us to to dive deeper and know some of these topics One or all of the topics that we have covered today I know it's always the tricky question like I wish I had prepared for that Yeah, that was actually in my mind right now. Um, yeah, I mean in terms of Books, uh, I guess the the best book in my mind on de grove really is the the future is is de grove by by Mattias Schmelzer et al around was indian and andrea fetter And uh, I mean it's a rather academic one. So as introduction, it's maybe not the best book, but it's super comprehensive and it Talks a lot about the things which we have discussed as well Yeah, um other Things it's a bit it's a bit hard. I I I really like the text from it's a shorter text, which I think Encompasses some of the things I I said Quite well for those who want to look it up. It's from tom wedzell And it's on eco syndicalism And the green new deal And I think it describes sort of this interaction quite well I talked about between like this grassroots movement and the the reforms which we so urgently need um, and it also yeah It's it casts a a strategy to a very participatory very highly democratic future Which Still is sustainable and Provides a good life for all. So I think this is like a Shorter text which can be interesting. You can find it online googling Oh, no duck duck goan Or brave or whatever. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, not not to support the monopolists so, yeah Yeah, I think I would have to think more about different Different texts Yeah, well, you can always share them Sure, you can You can look at my my mastodon account now Yeah, you'll need to teach me I I went yesterday and tried to figure out mastodon, but it seems like a How do you pick your server and all that I'm looking at my peers to figure out where to To fit and then what happens and it's refreshing. Yeah, yeah, it takes some time For sure. I I also I'm also not an expert by any chance, but yeah, it It's fascinating. I think I like it because it avoids some problems of of twitter Like with with a quote reading and the the really short text. It has more More space. I really like it So far But it's I agree. It's a challenge of settling somewhere else. It's really hard as Anais Tilkin from Renovate Switzerland said habits are the bane of our existence, you know because of habits That's why we don't change Yeah, oh man, but uh, yeah, thanks so much. Uh, thank you It was a very fun discussion. Yeah, uh, likewise. I I really enjoyed it and thanks for the really important questions and um, yeah for for the interest in our work like I I I just have to say maybe that yeah, I owe huge amounts To to matthewed lenson for instance, but also my partner at the time who supported me very much And my family as well. So I think it's important to really see the the context as well So there's a lot of contributions from all Around all all corners sort of the acknowledgments Which which are really important to yeah to say it's not like I I could only like write those papers because of all this social network and support. Yeah Well, thanks once again and thanks everyone to listening watching until the end I mean don't hesitate if you have questions If this resonates if this is something that you would like to explore further If you have ideas for policies if you were looking for a master thesis subject or a pet topic I hope this resonates as well for you And uh, don't hesitate to share it around with your colleagues with your friends to continue stimulating our our brains and uh, I'll I'll say, uh, I'll see you in two weeks for for a new episode and until then If you like this topic, uh, we recorded other episodes On similar topics so with julys tanberger with team jackson with george gus callis Timote paris so there is A number of colleagues that might give a slightly nuanced or different view on what we have just said today Thanks again. Thank you again. And see you all in two weeks. Thanks