Gene said: > It will be more effective, politically and environmentally, to > "discard the economic growth pardigm" right now, and then the other > pieces will more easily be achieved.
Steady state economics is an important issue, and we as economists should definitely do research about it. But right now there is no general consensus that economic growth is bad. On the contrary, right now one of our most effective arguments for renewable energy etc is that it creates jobs, i.e., allows the economy to GROW again. And at the beginning, much energy can be saved by higher efficiency and other low-cost measures, therefore the emission goals of the first few years can be satisfied even in a growing economy. But I assume that the evidence that the climate is in crisis will become more and more drastic (hurricanes, wildfires, droughts, crop failures), and it will be obvious that deeper cuts must be made even after the low-hanging fruits have been picked. That would be the time when people might be receptive to the idea that this can be achieved more easily in a steady-state economy. Hans. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
