Sustainable Degrowth: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
unknown (talk) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
= '''a growing community of scientists and social activists, sharing the basic insight that a reduction of energy and material use implies a reduction of gross domestic product (GDP), is gathering under the heading of sustainable degrowth''' [http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/1143] | = '''a growing community of scientists and social activists, sharing the basic insight that a reduction of energy and material use implies a reduction of gross domestic product (GDP), is gathering under the heading of sustainable degrowth''' [http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/1143] | ||
| Line 9: | Line 8: | ||
* The [[Solidarity Economy]] | * The [[Solidarity Economy]] | ||
=Discussion= | |||
These are from the reading notes of Michel Bauwens, but the source is unknown: | |||
Sustainable Degrowth is a contradiction: we have to maintain [[Natural Capital]] intact, and we have about 50 years to do this. This is the only possible definition of a sane economy. | |||
N. Georgescu-Roegen distinguishes: | |||
* high entropy = energy not accessible to humanity | |||
* low entropy = accessible energy | |||
Stabilizing our economic world still means using up natural capital, so the 'only option is degrowth'. | |||
For rich countries, a negative annual growth of 4% for 30 years, would be necessary, argues Edward Goldsmith. | |||
Since no political power could realistically impose this, it can only be a bottom up process. Economic crises, chaotic politics and then calls for a strong leader are not advisable. This is why the process has to be sustainable, so as not to engender a crisis of democracy. | |||
Fossil fuels are non-renewable in human time frames and must be abandoned. A consequence of this is the abandonment of air travel, no refrigerators, no supermarkets, but more physical work and a return to the local. | |||
The author Serge Latouche sees a 3-level economy: | |||
1) small-scale economy geared against concentration | |||
2) mixed private-public investment level | |||
3) public services (water, energy, education) | |||
These will be great steps for Westerners, but one should look to the planet as a whole, where | |||
* 80% of the world population has no car, no fridge, no phones | |||
* 94% never took a plane. | |||
Nicholas Goergescu-Roegen stresses that sustainable development is a most nefarious concept. Herman Daly's attempt to define a development compatible with zero growth, are also seen as irrealistic. Zero growth in current conditions is still toxic, degrowth remains a necessity. | |||
| Line 18: | Line 55: | ||
[[Category:Degrowth]] | [[Category:Degrowth]] | ||
[[Category:Economics]] | [[Category:Economics]] | ||
[[Category:Ecology]] | [[Category:Ecology]] | ||
[[Category:Movements]] | [[Category:Movements]] | ||
Revision as of 16:35, 5 September 2022
= a growing community of scientists and social activists, sharing the basic insight that a reduction of energy and material use implies a reduction of gross domestic product (GDP), is gathering under the heading of sustainable degrowth [1]
Examples
"Two outstanding examples are the solidarity economy in Brazil and the global information commons."
See:
Discussion
These are from the reading notes of Michel Bauwens, but the source is unknown:
Sustainable Degrowth is a contradiction: we have to maintain Natural Capital intact, and we have about 50 years to do this. This is the only possible definition of a sane economy.
N. Georgescu-Roegen distinguishes:
- high entropy = energy not accessible to humanity
- low entropy = accessible energy
Stabilizing our economic world still means using up natural capital, so the 'only option is degrowth'.
For rich countries, a negative annual growth of 4% for 30 years, would be necessary, argues Edward Goldsmith.
Since no political power could realistically impose this, it can only be a bottom up process. Economic crises, chaotic politics and then calls for a strong leader are not advisable. This is why the process has to be sustainable, so as not to engender a crisis of democracy.
Fossil fuels are non-renewable in human time frames and must be abandoned. A consequence of this is the abandonment of air travel, no refrigerators, no supermarkets, but more physical work and a return to the local.
The author Serge Latouche sees a 3-level economy:
1) small-scale economy geared against concentration
2) mixed private-public investment level
3) public services (water, energy, education)
These will be great steps for Westerners, but one should look to the planet as a whole, where
- 80% of the world population has no car, no fridge, no phones
- 94% never took a plane.
Nicholas Goergescu-Roegen stresses that sustainable development is a most nefarious concept. Herman Daly's attempt to define a development compatible with zero growth, are also seen as irrealistic. Zero growth in current conditions is still toxic, degrowth remains a necessity.
More Information
- Martínez-Alier, J, Pascual, U, Vivien, F-D & Zaccai, E. Sustainable de-growth: Mapping the context, criticisms and future prospects of an emergent paradigm. Ecological Economics 69, 1741–1747 (2010).