The de-growth article and commentary on the blogs appear to lack a problem statement - which is something like we are exceeding at least 6 of 9 basic biophysical planetary thresholds (Stockholm Resilience Institute), we exceed our ecological footprint (https://overshoot.footprintnetwork.org/newsroom/country-overshoot-days/). This is happening under global capitalism and the continual drive for growth. How we should address this is .....?
Environmental damage is real … but the lesson of recent decades is that it is not strongly correlated with economic growth as we conventionally measure it.
Nor is “capitalism” clearly at fault. For example, communist states such as the former Soviet Union achieved worse environmental outcomes at lower levels of GDP than did advanced capitalist nations.
It follows that degrowth — which seeks to reduce the size of the economy as conventionally measured — will not necessarily lead to a reduction in environmental damage. What will, and won’t, achieve that is complicated. I don’t think anyone has fully convincing answers, but my suspicion is that it will involve a messy and hard-to-predict mixture of new technology, economic growth, increased incomes, and changed consumer preferences.
Well said. What we can say is that degrowth isn't an answer to the problem, that would just create a whole lot of new problems that would need answers.
The de-growth article and commentary on the blogs appear to lack a problem statement - which is something like we are exceeding at least 6 of 9 basic biophysical planetary thresholds (Stockholm Resilience Institute), we exceed our ecological footprint (https://overshoot.footprintnetwork.org/newsroom/country-overshoot-days/). This is happening under global capitalism and the continual drive for growth. How we should address this is .....?
An excellent question Andrew.
Environmental damage is real … but the lesson of recent decades is that it is not strongly correlated with economic growth as we conventionally measure it.
Nor is “capitalism” clearly at fault. For example, communist states such as the former Soviet Union achieved worse environmental outcomes at lower levels of GDP than did advanced capitalist nations.
It follows that degrowth — which seeks to reduce the size of the economy as conventionally measured — will not necessarily lead to a reduction in environmental damage. What will, and won’t, achieve that is complicated. I don’t think anyone has fully convincing answers, but my suspicion is that it will involve a messy and hard-to-predict mixture of new technology, economic growth, increased incomes, and changed consumer preferences.
Well said. What we can say is that degrowth isn't an answer to the problem, that would just create a whole lot of new problems that would need answers.