My new (today's) post: The illusion of “degrowth” in a poor and unequal world http://glineq.blogspot.it/2017/11/the-illusion-of-degrowth-in-poor-and.html …
-
No, we need economies that enable us to thrive while (in rich countries) reducing material throughput and emissions. We cannot be agnostic about the dangers of ecological overshoot.
Everyone seems to be in agreement about the need for reduced materials use and emissions - the question is whether this requires a contraction in GDP.
-
-
I agree, and this is why I never use the term 'degrowth' - I always find it confuses debates rather than elucidates them. And we really need clear and effective debate on this! See my blog exchange with
@g_kallishttp://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/why-degrowth-has-out-grown-its-own-name-guest-post-by-kate-raworth/ … -
Well, reducing material throughput means de-growth, given that absolute decoupling isn't a thing. You can redefine GDP if you want, but then it's not GDP - it's something else.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.