A Stick in the Stocking: Santa’s Supply Shock
It’s déjà vu all over again: another oil “supply shock.” Seems like we’ve had one every few weeks for the past few months.
It’s déjà vu all over again: another oil “supply shock.” Seems like we’ve had one every few weeks for the past few months.
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?
We are on the verge of a major tipping point in the way civilization works.
American institutions are in decline and rife with corruption brought on by a combination of hitting the limits to growth while under the control of neoliberal capitalism.
In industrialized societies, where so many people regard economic growth as the essence of human progress, the idea of deliberately rejecting growth is seen as insane.
Progress acts as a kind of meta-narrative, an incredibly potent and pervasive trope that is woven through stories ancient and contemporary, and forms a core part of our culture.
What if Icarus’ father—knowing his son would fly too close to the sun—had made the wings he designed more resilient?
Some people object to the concept of “natural capital” because they say it reduces nature to the status of a commodity to be marketed at its exchange value.
If there is a theoretical pathway to a significantly smaller economy we should try to identify it.
[I]nternational media, governments and the United Nations enthusiastically welcomed a new report entitled “Better Growth, Better Climate” and trumpeted its central message around the globe: that economic growth and tackling climate change can go hand in hand….
In this talk, Nate Hagens synthesizes the current landscape of global energy, environment and financial risks while offering suggestions on what to do as a hominid living on a full planet.
Economist Paul Krugman evidently feels irked and irritated by the notion that there might be limits to economic expansion: he has followed up his New York Times op-ed with a new piece. It reveals a great deal about how economists think, and why they tend to disregard physical science when it comes to questions about finite resources and the possibility of infinite economic growth on a small planet.