Gar Lipow wrote:
Which would not be for its own sake. But part of my argument is that we can get the same GDP with less energy.
Gene Coyle wrote:
Why do we want the same GDP?
This is the wrong question. Gar was simply saying that the same amount of marketed stuff (GDP) could be produced with less energy, i.e., that the stuff could be produced with greater technical _efficiency_. It doesn't say anything about increasing the amount of stuff. You could decrease the amount of stuff and also increase the efficiency of produciton. You could also drop GDP and use some measure like the Genuine Progress Indicator, which brings in non-market benefits and subtracts non-market costs from GDP. Then Gar is saying that we could raise the energy-efficiency of the production of the GPI. The Sandwichman wrote: >Are you [Carrol] saying WWII was all about getting growth revving? If so, isn't that the essence of economic determinism?< my reading is that CC was saying that if not for WWII, world capitalism would have stayed in depression, not that WWII started because capitalism needed it to get the ball rolling again. -- Jim Devine / "... the greatest bulwark of capitalism is militarism." -- Emma Goldman.
