In theory, that may be true. But people differ greatly on what they consider negative externalities and what they would pay to make them go away. Once you get beyond clear-cut health hazards with measurable effects, there is no purely technocratic solution. It's all politics. And there are positive externalities as well that don't get priced in. What's the uncaptured value of more eyes on the street or a livelier restaurant scene in neighborhoods where building is easy?
"The poll suggests that Americans value a clean environment, but not at the expense of prosperity. At the ballot box, dynamism is likely to be far more successful than stasis." That seems to have proven correct, at the national level at least.
In my work I've focused on redirecting the wealth generated by new technologies away from oligarchic capture. Here's my response to Juliet Schor's 'Plenitude' (2010), which also addresses growth vs. sustainability:
There was always a stream of Green thinking that argued for what's now being called an abundance agenda - cheap solar energy, more leisure time and so on. Amory Lovins was the leading figure. And we are now seeing lots of Greens aligning with YIMBY supporters of high-density housing against NIMBY home-owners (denser cities means more open country). By contrast, what we are seeing on the right is best described as retrofuturism, pushing for things like nuclear power and space travel which seemed like the path to growth last century.
I hate smog, lakes I can’t swim in, other annoyances that deny use of the outdoors. I also realize I don’t have the North American continent to myself and have to share it with others.
I am attracted to anything that makes the environment cleaner in spite of all the people sharing it. I also don’t want to pay more for an EV to get me places and that has a limited lifespan because the batteries can’t last over a decade and lose range in cold weather.
It’s a reminder that being green is easy until I have to spend more.
There’s so much in here that proved prophetic. Even the quick line about the paleo-cons seeking to displace the neocons by offering a communitarian, anti-immigrant, anti-trade vision. Or the bit about Democrats falling for the allure of elite environmental activists and in doing so selling out working-class voters on whom they depended.
sustainable is a useless word (except in very narrow fields.) Carbon Dioxide is a life giving gas essential to all plants. the current demonization of CO2 is both wicked and stupid.
Rapid economic growth, accelerated by AI, holds hope of enriching us and having the money needed to discover and apply solutions to environmental problems. Do not strangle the economy; ride it to prosperity.
We need to make growth sustainable by taxing negative externalities. There is no intrinsic conflict.
In theory, that may be true. But people differ greatly on what they consider negative externalities and what they would pay to make them go away. Once you get beyond clear-cut health hazards with measurable effects, there is no purely technocratic solution. It's all politics. And there are positive externalities as well that don't get priced in. What's the uncaptured value of more eyes on the street or a livelier restaurant scene in neighborhoods where building is easy?
"The poll suggests that Americans value a clean environment, but not at the expense of prosperity. At the ballot box, dynamism is likely to be far more successful than stasis." That seems to have proven correct, at the national level at least.
In my work I've focused on redirecting the wealth generated by new technologies away from oligarchic capture. Here's my response to Juliet Schor's 'Plenitude' (2010), which also addresses growth vs. sustainability:
https://logosandliberty.substack.com/p/eudamoinia-plenitude-and-sustainability
There was always a stream of Green thinking that argued for what's now being called an abundance agenda - cheap solar energy, more leisure time and so on. Amory Lovins was the leading figure. And we are now seeing lots of Greens aligning with YIMBY supporters of high-density housing against NIMBY home-owners (denser cities means more open country). By contrast, what we are seeing on the right is best described as retrofuturism, pushing for things like nuclear power and space travel which seemed like the path to growth last century.
I hate smog, lakes I can’t swim in, other annoyances that deny use of the outdoors. I also realize I don’t have the North American continent to myself and have to share it with others.
I am attracted to anything that makes the environment cleaner in spite of all the people sharing it. I also don’t want to pay more for an EV to get me places and that has a limited lifespan because the batteries can’t last over a decade and lose range in cold weather.
It’s a reminder that being green is easy until I have to spend more.
There’s so much in here that proved prophetic. Even the quick line about the paleo-cons seeking to displace the neocons by offering a communitarian, anti-immigrant, anti-trade vision. Or the bit about Democrats falling for the allure of elite environmental activists and in doing so selling out working-class voters on whom they depended.
sustainable is a useless word (except in very narrow fields.) Carbon Dioxide is a life giving gas essential to all plants. the current demonization of CO2 is both wicked and stupid.
This was written in 1990? Wow, how very prescient.
Rapid economic growth, accelerated by AI, holds hope of enriching us and having the money needed to discover and apply solutions to environmental problems. Do not strangle the economy; ride it to prosperity.
Perceptive & prescient!
Utterly correct.
Listening to this post, I had to keep reminding myself it wasn't a current article.
Thanks for the post. I recognize several topics and arguments. Your post triggered me to write a new post regarding "regrowth"
I am still pro-dynamism and I think that degrowth and similar movements can have certain valid points but that the solution is in decentralisation
https://www.bulbapp.io/p/49e9f9f6-f444-4871-941f-1d88f7bba5b4/time-for-regrowth-rethinking-growth-degrowth-debate
https://substack.com/@iweothers/note/p-122857357?r=1eqrx1
This was great. You called it in The Future and Its Enemies. Gonna be reading your Substack more closely now.