Greece and the Limits to Growth
Certainly there is reason to pause and to question the idea of infinite economic growth on a finite planet.
Certainly there is reason to pause and to question the idea of infinite economic growth on a finite planet.
But whether or not „degrowth“ would make a better translation of the Pope’s intended meaning, much more significant than a single word is the manner in which the letter as a whole points in direction of the territory constituted by the thinkers and activists of degrowth.
Put otherwise, based on my calculations, if the whole world came to look like one of our most successful ecovillages, we would still need one and a half planet’s worth of Earth’s biocapacity. Dwell on that for a moment.
What is needed to get us out of our comfort zone and fight for our children’s future?
…[T]he…climate movement tends to deny…that renewables are unable to maintain our Western…consumer lifestyles on a global level.
Our proposal is not necessarily to reduce GDP (an arbitrary indicator), but rather to ask new questions and search for alternatives to today’s society based on a predatory, unjust and unsustainable capitalist economic system.
From a degrowth perspective, technology is not viewed as a magical savior since many technologies actually accelerate environmental decline.
Can there actually be climate justice?
One of the provocations the degrowth movement offers is whether true sustainability, one planet living, actually implies a rejection of the affluent consumer way.
We might err, but we believe that in the night of the elections in January 2015 a symbolic “tipping point” has been reached in Greece…
Both the name and the theory of degrowth aim explicitly to repoliticize environmentalism.
If climate disaster, degrowth and whatever else the future holds for us is “involuntary” and the best we can do is to become “resilient” in “transition towns”, then what is the point of an international “cap and share”, like the one your propose, or any other mitigation action for that matter?