Prominent commentator Noah Smith recently took to social media to assert that a "deserved backlash against degrowth environmentalism" is inadvertently causing conservatives to "totally miss the importance of the Electric Tech Stack that is crucial to future growth." Smith's tweet underscores a growing tension between different approaches to environmental sustainability and economic development.
Degrowth environmentalism, an academic and social movement, critiques the concept of continuous Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth, advocating for a planned reduction in consumption and production to achieve ecological sustainability and social equity. Proponents argue that endless growth is incompatible with planetary boundaries, while critics, including Smith, contend that it is economically unfeasible, politically unpopular, and could lead to reduced well-being and hinder technological advancements necessary for climate solutions.
Smith's "Electric Tech Stack" refers to a suite of rapidly advancing green technologies, including electric vehicles (EVs), renewable energy sources like solar and wind, advanced battery storage, and green hydrogen. He views these innovations as foundational for future economic expansion, offering cheaper energy and new industries, thereby providing a path to sustainable growth without the need for economic contraction. This perspective aligns with "green growth" proponents who believe technological innovation and market mechanisms can decouple economic growth from environmental impact.
However, conservative viewpoints often express skepticism or opposition to components of this "Electric Tech Stack." Common criticisms include concerns over the cost of EVs, their reliance on foreign supply chains (particularly China), the perceived instability of renewable energy grids, and opposition to government mandates and subsidies promoting these technologies. This resistance is sometimes framed as a defense of individual choice and free markets against what are seen as overreaching environmental regulations.
The "irony" Smith points to is that while conservatives rightly push back against the perceived austerity and impracticality of degrowth, their skepticism towards electrification might prevent them from embracing technologies that align with their own principles of innovation, energy independence, and economic prosperity. The economic benefits, such as job creation in manufacturing and infrastructure, reduced fuel costs, and enhanced national security through diversified energy sources, represent significant growth opportunities.
Ultimately, Smith's observation highlights a critical divide in the discourse surrounding climate action and economic strategy. It suggests that focusing on the practical, economic, and technological advantages of electrification, rather than solely on environmental imperatives, could bridge ideological gaps and foster broader adoption of the "Electric Tech Stack" for collective future growth.