Comments on: The limits to environmentalism – Part 1

By: jonjermey

jonjermey — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 01:36:27 +0000

The Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, made a speech last night in which she pointed out that the Green Party — in Australia, at least — does not understand or accept the need for maintaining and increasing prosperity. This was remarkably brave for someone who needs Green votes to remain in power, but unquestionably true. Responses like those made above confirm just how right she was.

By: Boutagy

Boutagy — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 20:46:53 +0000

A good article but your claim that “capitalism is destructive, and certainly does threaten to destroy the habitability of the planet for us” if not wrong is highly debateable. The worst environmental destructions occurred under regimes were those centrally controlled (communist, military dictatorships and fascist) ie non-capitalist. However it is people that are destructive not regimes and the beauty of capitalism is that it encourages the efficient use of resources and hence LESS destruction. The underlying reason is however property rights namely the protection thereof. Fundamentally the lack of clearly defined and protected property rights is why the above regimes were so destructive.

By: The limits to environmentalism – Part 3 | Political Climate

The limits to environmentalism – Part 3 | Political Climate — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:04:07 +0000

[...] year on from our controversial review of Growth isn’t Possible by the New Economics Foundation, we’re venturing back into the fray. [...]

By: ¿Decrecimiento, o disminución de la productividad? « Las Danaides

¿Decrecimiento, o disminución de la productividad? « Las Danaides — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:18:29 +0000

[...] todo ecológicos. Como en todo movimiento, hay defensores y detractores (véase la crítica de Matthew Lockwood, vía Gonzalo).Lo que no he visto, ha sido que este movimiento del decrecimiento se base en una [...]

By: Twyla Toomer

Twyla Toomer — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:26:05 +0000

Your site is definitely a breath of fresh air in comparison to the typical rubbish I read on solar panel technology. So many scams out there. Thank you for helping me out.

By: A New Response to Climate Change « Political Climate

A New Response to Climate Change « Political Climate — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 23:44:18 +0000

[...] clear on some of the most important issues in the climate change debate. Thus we’ve covered growth, innovation, the underlying politics of climate change and [...]

By: Unions and environmentalism – uneasy bedfellows? | ToUChstone blog: A public policy blog from the TUC

Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:55:06 +0000

[...] arguments are put much better in Matthew Lockwood’s two-part critique at Political Climate. So I’ll move [...]

By: John Rainbird

John Rainbird — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 10:33:42 +0000

Well done to NEF for their work in stimulating discussion on this central issue. Tackling the current convergence of issues requires more than a focus on just decarbonising the economy. Climate change is indeed a critical threat which must be addressed immediately, but is is of course just one symptom of a unsustainable system. IF we step back for one instant and consider the basics – we are polluting the planet faster than it can absorb and process the pollutants, we are destroying natural capital faster than it can be replenished, and in doing so exacerbating the planets capacity to deal with pollution and respond to other pressures, and lastly we are still expecting another 2-3 billion folks to arrive over the coming 3-4 decades. The Limits to Growth modeling has proven to be remarkably accurate. Even if we maintained current population levels and stabilized material throughout at current levels, the system is still expected to collapse sometime this century. So any economic system that is going to move us back to a point of sustainability ( whilst accommodating the extra population growth which is coming to some significant degree no matter what we do) has to have as it core focus a shift in values away from generating artificial wealth to generating real wealth as expressed by the restoration of community and environment. These are the parameters that we need to grow. This requires we move to a system that is based upon the real economy – i.e. the transactions that occur around us every day that make life possible and meaningful, but are not factored into the current economic system. A version of the current economy that helps decarbonise society will help reduce the threat of climate chaos, but will not deal with other major threats related to overuse of resources, inequity, and other pollutants. Given how hard it is to even have this discussion with most people, the chances of us shifting to any meaningful system in time are pretty damn slim to put it optimistically – but try we must.

By: Another green world….. « Political Climate

Another green world….. « Political Climate — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 22:51:29 +0000

[...] issue at the heart of our last two controversial posts was the potential for innovation in low carbon technologies to delink energy growth (and therefore [...]

By: claudio

claudio — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 12:57:51 +0000

“We need to change the terms on which the economy evolves, not destroy the algorthim”

I am not familiar with math (nor Matthew) but if you change the terms of the algorithm, you should have a new algorithm, you should have destroyed the (previous) algorithm … just what we need to seriously address sustainability.

The persistent, blind faith in infinite innovation echoed in Maya’s comment is mind-boggling. I could understand that E.F. Schumacher had to deal with this kind of resistance … but it was 1973!! Wake-up dudes!