Shows a few graphs to illustrate that co2 emissions have been fairly constant despite increases in GDP.
So the idea here is that we don’t need degrowth; instead, we can keep raising everyone’s standard of living without exhausting the planet’s resources. Because growth doesn’t just mean using more and more stuff; instead, it can mean finding more efficient ways to use the stuff we have.
There may be some amount of resource use and co2 emissions to grow but it seems that it can peak and level out once a nation is industrialised. De growth counter this with the notion that this is not happening fast enough.
This argument isn’t as strong as it sounds — China and India and the rest will be able to take advantage of the efficiency-inducing technologies created by the developed countries, like solar power (indeed, they are already doing so). And they will be able to embrace “dematerialized” goods and services like social networks and video games (sorry, Xi Jinping) very early in their growth path. So these countries’ resource use trajectories won’t look quite like the U.S.’ or Europe’s.
Are resource consumption is unsustainable though.
This post summarises some of Klein and Pipers work
Degrowth is, as its advocates understand it, a act of global economic planning really without equal anywhere in human history. It is an act of extraordinary central planning.
Green growth, building out renewables and that
This is an absolutely enormous economic undertaking, and it is economic growth. It will require delaying some consumption so that the next generation can enjoy both higher standards of living and a more sustainable planet. But crucially, it represents delaying consumption, rather than permanently reducing consumption. That’s the big difference between green growth and degrowth.