'Degrowth'

[marmar]

from the Next American City blog:


Sustainability By Any Other Name

Washington, D.C. | 04/16/2012 7:09am |
Diana Lind | Next American City



[font size="1"]Degrowth may control our over-consumption in developed countries. Image: 99 Cent II Diptychon by photographer Andreas Gursky.[/font]


Last week, I attended the launch of Worldwatch Institute’s journal State of the World 2012. The topic of the latest State of the World issue is “Moving Toward Sustainable Prosperity,” and is focused on environmental sustainability. Perfectly timed two months in advance of the Rio 2012 Earth Summit, the launch was one of the most impassioned and inspired events I’ve attended in the run up to Rio, in part because the authors involved in this year’s State of the World were not afraid to talk about the radical changes developed countries will have to endure if we are going to be serious about reversing climate change.

The most compelling idea of the day came from Erik Assadourian, who wrote about the concept of degrowth. A terrible moniker that is unlikely to replace “green” or “clean” economy, the ideas behind degrowth are nonetheless sound and important. According to Assadourian, “degrowth is the intentional contraction of overly inflated economies and the dispelling of the myth that perpetual pursuit of growth is good for economies or the societies of which they are a part.” He goes on to say that “degrowth can be achieved through policies to discourage overconsumption, raising taxes, shortening work hours, and ‘informalizing’ certain sectors of the economy.”

What does this look like in practice? Basically, the United States’ new model would be focused less on infinite growth and expansion, and more in keeping with the finiteness of the planet itself. Indeed, if everyone in the world lived and consumed like Americans, only 1.4 billion people could live on the planet. If we don’t start radically changing habits — perhaps by taxing carbon, better distributing work so that the unemployed and the overly employed both lead better lives, and making more sustainable lifestyles more economically feasible — it’s inevitable that the planet will be imperiled. The question no longer is “if” but “by when.” ............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://americancity.org/daily/entry/sustainability-by-any-other-name

[xchrom]

1. Du rec. Nt

[4th law of robotics]

2. We could just work on reducing the population

via better access to education and contraceptives.

[jwirr]

3. I would assume that is part of it. Bookmarked to read full article later.

[PWD]

4. Degrowth with Increasing Personal Incomes & Lower Unemployment

The problem with Degrowth is that it often associated with decreasing incomes and higher unemployment and is politically unpopular for that reason.

An alternative strategy combining green growth + degrowth + depopulation would deliver strong environmental gains and, because of the depopulation component, would decrease the world's GDP (i.e. deliver degrowth) while personal revenue (GDP per capita) is maintained or increased (for examples in poor countries). The full argument is outlined at:

http://wavesofthefuture.net/degrowth-sustainable-development-economic-de-growth-natural-resources.shtml

Without population reduction, incomes would have to drop... but we need to decrease the world's population for many reasons... so it is the perfect solution!