It's an interesting angle, reduce living space to reduce population
growth. But if that is the objective, it seems rather perverse for the
UK government to simultaneously shell out some £13,000 or so in child
tax credit and child benefit for a low income couple with 5 children.
Besides, Germany has negative population growth, and the kind of
planning laws giving both steady prices and much more garden space, and
for new build, larger detached houses with a real garden.
--------------------------
You will find a lot of interesting material in chapter 2 and in the
technical annex on ethical frameworks (both of the Stern Review
Report).
You write:
"This doesn't mean our well-being will stop growing, but it may well
mean that our cumulative wealth, measured in dollars or something like
that, must stabilize."
I do think that when people talk about economic growth as an
unqualified good, they usually mean growth of "general welfare". And
who could be against that?
I also think that it is well understood that GDP is a rather imperfect
proxy of "general welfare", and while GDP can grow at infinitum, it
would have to be more and more knowledge intensive, as energy and
materials flows cannot grow ad infinitum in a finite world.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
