Degrowth fails to invest into renewable energies, which are key to replacing current unsustainable practices.
David Schwartzman 12. Schwartzman received his BA from McGill University, Canada in 1945, and spent the 1945–1946 academic year studying under Milton Friedman and George Stigler at the University of Minnesota. He earned his PhD from UC Berkeley, USA in 1953. He held many teaching positions in economics: Lecturer at McGill (1948–1951); Instructor at Columbia (1954–1958); Assistant Professor at New York University (1958–1960), and Professor at the New School for Social Research (1960–1964), where he attained emeritus status in 2002.[1] . “A Critique of Degrowth and its Politics.” Taylor & Francis. 2-10-2012. https://www-tandfonline-com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/doi/full/10.1080/10455752.2011.648848 //CB
Bonaiuti and Latouche critique the capitalist mode of production but are rather vague with respect to what should replace it. For example, Bonaiuti (Citation2012) recommends “other forms of economic and social organization more suitable to the new situation.” If we take these alternatives to be roughly equivalent to ecosocialism, then ecosocialist political practice needs a robust theory to transcend capitalism. Ecosocialist theory needs to fully engage the natural, physical, and informational sciences, in particular, climatology, ecology, biogeochemistry, and thermodynamics. Unfortunately, degrowth proponents take little notice of these sciences, particularly the real thermodynamics of open systems. These sciences will inform the technologies of renewable energy, green production, and agroecologies, whose infrastructure are to replace the present unsustainable mode. Twenty-first century socialism will be ecosocialism, or it will simply remain the vision of political sects.