# data[].attributes.body
This paper about circular economies relies on recycling, upcycling and the likes.  It is an interesting idea which has the advantage of thinking laterally, to exploit what we have.  It has two limitations - one acknowledged and one not. The first, the idea of recycling is hard to fit into consumption as symbolic value.  The second is , recycling capital goods addresses only a part of the issues as it does not account for running consumptions.  A plane has a footprint which is both made of the plane itself and the resources consumed to go up and down between London and New York - the latter form of footprint cannot be recycled.    As I was reading, something else also  came to my mind -  circular economy does not seem to provide a solution because it argues that what's needed is a valorisation of sunk costs, not a departure from optimisation (this is an economic principle that once costs are supported, they become 'past' and therefore should not have an impact on future (optimised) decisions - i.e. if the cost of rebuilding is less than the cost of restructuring, one shoudl rebuild no matter how much resources have been used to build the existing). In so far the proposed principle is about using better accounting for growth, it seems to me to not depart from a basic economics principle - that growth is essential to the functioning of economic systems.  Related to this is is the concept that was presented during the lecture, i.e. that circular economy does not account for redistribution.  This is implicit in the assumption that the decision makers will be perfectly knowledgeable of the distribution of values (i.e. will know exactly who stands to lose and to gain and take their decisions based on these values as well). However circular economy makes no assumptions about the fact that the distribution of the (social but also economic) value of use of goods considered 'sunk costs' may differ from that of the value of rebuilding. So for example, circular economy would support upgrading slums, but if the value of the final product is high enough, the slums could become the preserve of a different group than that of the people that built the slum.  This is entirely compatible in principle with circular economy (actually, it is integral: think about the 'upcycling' of London docks buildings, no impossibly priced) and it is economically efficient but socially inefficient as the value of the old goods to the original users is higher than that of the new goods to the new users (another economic theory principle that I will not delve into here).  So, circular economy seems to me still entangled with some very strong assumptions of economic theory, specifically with the optimality of economic principles to guide growth, so possibly not a gamechanger. / Emanuela

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/all-podcasts/

The Green Wave podcast, showcasing in audio a selection of articles from the Green European Journal. Covering progressive politics and green ideas from a range of perspectives from across Europe and beyond.

(Anna, 675638)

# data[].attributes.body
"A healthy economy should be designed to thrive, not grow" by Kate Raworth

https://youtu.be/Rhcrbcg8HBw
Eleni

# data[].attributes.body
"if women are everywhere, a woman is always somewhere, and

those places of women are transformed as women transform themselves."

Feminism is 'politics of becoming' in place, embraced by decentralised, uncoordinated,

and place-based consciousness-raising groups.

The second-wave movement is characterised by intermixing of alternative discourses, shared language, embodied practices,

self-cultivation, emplaced actions, and global transformation.

Its practice of seeing and speaking differently enables us to make visible the hidden and alternative economic activities and see non-capitalist activities as prevalent

and viable as a way to transform local economies.

Eleni, 686974

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/explore/fashion-and-the-circular-economy

Stella McCartney Range of Recycled and Eco Sourced Materials in Fashion

Materials and innovation | Stella McCartney

# data[].attributes.body
Article on how architecture can be more sustainable through retrofitting and repairing rather than demolishing and rebuilding.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/20/cities-greener-prize-architecture-emissions?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1616232028

# data[].attributes.body
This article highlights the potentially transformational aspect of the circular economy. While the circular economy concept can radically change how the planet’s finite materials are extracted, manufactured and consumed, there are still vast amounts of resources required to be mobilised to make the relevant industries work. For example, recycling plants need to be built, technologies created to recover metal residues, logistics and energy to collect and transport recyclables, etc. Is there a danger that the circular economy will become yet another justification for a “better” form of capitalism where consumerism is not curbed because of the existence of this escape clause? Will this also create another problem of the “race to the bottom” where recycling and upcycling processes and related externalities are outsourced to poorer or disadvantaged parts of a country or the world? Perhaps a degrowth agenda which addresses global inequalities in consumption and production would be a more holistic and radical paradigm shift that's needed.
-Sheu Jeen

# data[].attributes.body
I really enjoyed Gibson-Graham's chapter, their work always strikes a chord in me as they without fail provide clear analysis and deconstruct concepts such as capitalism in a very accessible way. I particularly enjoyed their reference to Rebecca Solnit's work - another fantastic feminist scholar who they quoted in discussion of reclaiming the streets, something that as a woman in London at the moment is at the forefront of my mind.
- Georgia 686396

# data[].attributes.body
Reading this paper felt like a bit of a rollercoaster ride – each of the proposed models to mitigate climate change sounded so promising, but they ultimately all fell short of at least one crucial thing. Hickel and Kallis write that ‘emissions reductions in line with 1.5 [degrees] C are not empirically feasible except in a de-growth scenario.’ A continued focus on GDP growth therefore seems to be the key issue getting in the way of a real solution. Growth is fundamental to capitalism so surely the only way out of this mess is for a fairer, sustainable, post-capitalist economy. We have become so embedded in capitalism that it is hard for us to see a world beyond it, but alternatives existed before (and still do outside of Western society) so why not again? Plus we are at a critical point where drastic change needs to happen. We just need to find a way to do this.

Hannah Abbott (695804)

Response by Priyanka (683580)

I too had the same sentiments as Hannah while reading the paper. The repetition of the term 'GDP' though made me wonder. While we definitely seem to be rooted in capitalistic philosophies driving our motives, perhaps, rather than looking at the problem from economic mechanisms what if we look at it in terms of human drivers to these actions and beliefs and then explore mechanisms of reworking the context architecture to move focus or position a focus on GDP as social norm violation to the survival of the human species. Look at the context with the emotional associations.

# data[].attributes.headline
New Economies: How Degrowth Will Save the World with Jason Hickel

# data[].attributes.subject
New Economies: How Degrowth Will Save the World with Jason Hickel

# data[].attributes.body
'Scientists are increasingly clear that what's required is that high-income nations actively scale down their energy use... It's about scaling down unnecessary parts of the economy, scaling down the material economy because that's what really takes all of the energy. So the less economic activity we have in aggregates, the less energy we use, the easier it is to transition rapidly to renewable energy.'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjHq-vQLAiY

Hannah Abbott (685904)

# data[].attributes.headline
‘[The GDP] measures everything… except that which makes lifeworthwhile.’ (R.Kennedy, 1968)

# data[].attributes.subject
‘[The GDP] measures everything… except that which makes lifeworthwhile.’ (R.Kennedy, 1968)

# data[].attributes.body
In the article “The Post-growth Challenge: Secular Stagnation, Inequality and the Limits to Growth Jackson discusses a correlation between productivity, a slow-down in growth rates, labour productivity growth and the rise of inequalities in highly developed countries. For this he elaborates on the different growth rates that could be observed in the 20th century, before and after the second world war, as well as the oil crisis in the 1970ties and the financial crisis in 2008.

“Chasing growth through loose monetary policy in the face of challenging underlying fundamentals had led to financial bubbles which destabilised finance and culminated in crisis.”

Gordon Brown pointed at the era of “easy money” and the age of “irresponsibility” but there has never been a stretch in which our economy did grow sustainably.

Jackson points out that the two economic approaches that dominated the last century, Keynesian or monetarism, are not adequate to tackle today’s problems.

He highlights that inequality is not necessarily inevitable but notes that we have been obsessed with a “growth-fetish” , consistently trying to revamp capitalism.

This has hindered ecological innovation and exacerbated financial instability and inequalities.

To really progress he acknowledges that we have to let go of a “fossil-fuel driven hyper-productivity” and create the conditions that are needed on a planet with finite resources.  (Anna, 675638)

# data[].attributes.headline
Climate Change, economy and people power. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Climate Change, economy and people power. 

# data[].attributes.body
“Society is beginning to place greater value on sustainability, and that’s a precondition to solving the climate crisis.” In this podcast Carney talks about the human frailties that created the tragedy of the horizon, meaning that future generations will have to deal with the impacts of climate change which is rooted in the economic models and the rapid growth that we pursued for too long. The Gross Domestic Product reflects a monetary value, but not factors such as well-being or our planet and nature. To save our planet we must achieve net zero.

To create a greater feeling of responsibility Carney suggests that there are two solutions to the tragedy of the commons: property rights and pollution pricing. He further notes that we can “unleash the dynamic of the private sector” through the development of a consensus for sustainability so that value reflects values.

“If the society sets a clear goal, it will become profitable to be part of the solution, and costly to remain part of the problem.”

Whilst I do agree with this and whilst I would love to believe that this is achievable, I have mostly felt pessimistic in the past, simply based on what I see and what is wasted.

I really do hope that values are changing quickly enough and that social movements gain enough traction to lead to sustainable investments that would drive a total transformation. (Anna, 675638)

# data[].attributes.body
Some of you may enjoy this: personally I side mostly with David Harvey (if you know/have read him its quite funny to see his silent and vocal reactions to the other panel members, particularly Paul Mason)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g18JoOZsoEM

Jacob Heath 685615

# data[].attributes.body
Does the change of lifestyle during the Covid pandemic offer a solution to climate change through reduction in the use of carbon in commuting, leisure travel and offices? Galbraith’s idea would work for some and an area where we will hopefully see long term change.  However one of the effects of the pandemic has been highlighting who the key workers are based on the nature of their work which is caring and providing services like supermarkets, not necessarily goods which can be sold for profit with an accompanying carbon tax. This group of workers has no choice in their workplace and, due to shift work and location may require commuting via private transport.
Susie

Response from Karen:
In the early days of the pandemic, I did feel that there was an opportunity to 're-set' the system and that we would value different things. However as time went on, and the pressure to save 'the economy' took over, it felt like we went back to business as usual (even if we were still at home). There will certainly be long-term changes in commuting etc. but I'm concerned that the emphasis on returning to 'normal' will quickly shift us back in the other direction.

# data[].attributes.body
I think your last sentence : "we just need to find a way to do this" is exactly the difficulty. But I would still say we need to ask ourselves how we define growth. I don't  necessarily think that growth as such is bad, since creating a surplus is a natural instinct / concept that you will find everywhere in nature. In a human context surplus allows for research in the sciences for example.  What's problematic is the velocity. Therefore it is not growth, but how we grow. Slow and steady is healthy whereas exponential growth can be problematic because it can lead (and has led) to an unbalance. (Anna, 675638)

Response to Anna:

Absolutely! Slow & steady is healthy, but we are not healthy as a society - in our capitalist world, where speed and excess are championed, then it becomes about a change of consciousness - which takes time. It feels like a vicious cycle. Clare 677349

# data[].attributes.body
I found this an interesting talk and Carney raised some valid points. However, it is hard to trust someone who represents some of the main problems - greed, profits and capitalism. I also found the emphasis on what citizens should be doing e.g. looking into whether or not our financial institutions have a net zero policy was so reminiscent of how the UK government have dealt with Covid-19 - constantly telling the public what we need to be doing, whilst not doing enough themselves at the top.
A continued focus on growth just seems like an excuse for a somewhat business as usual approach with additional greenwashing. He also advocates carbon capture and storage which I am highly sceptical of.

Hannah Abbott (695804)

I agree with Hannah, whilst Carney is highly persuasive and offers some salient points it is difficult to put a huge amount of trust in his words as he is, in the end, another capitalist technocrat who is invested in maintaining the system as it is rather than investing in an overhaul that might prove a better - if more risky - solution to the ills of capitalism. - Georgia 686396

# data[].attributes.body
‘A great many leisure-time activities that are energy-intensive – recreational travel is a major one – are simply superfluous in the pandemic and will go away on their own.’ Pg. 5.

I really don’t see recreational travel going on away on its own. I see it shooting right back up if and when the opportunity arises (I may be wrong). Even though historically speaking it is a fairly new thing to do, for a significant amount of people it’s become almost like a right to go on holiday (a break from the stress of ‘normal’/working life); overseas gap-years and ‘travelling’ have become like a rite-of-passage for many too…

(just to clarify, I don’t necessarily judge people for wishing to/going on holiday abroad, gap-years, travelling, etc).

Jacob Heath 685615

response to Jacob
The issue with all this, is that even if superfluous leisure travel goes down, all it would do is free up the resources to be used somewhere else, so it would make zero difference to overall emissions picture. In my view, one really must target the supply of oil/gas/coal, to ensure it stays in the ground and does not end up as CO2 in the atmosphere.
Marie

Response to Jacob and Marie
I also thought it sounded presumptuous (and unrealistic) to say that international travel 'will go away on their own'. I think it will go back to pre-Covid levels within a few years. That said, I don't think personal travel is entirely incompatible with the path to sustainable greenhouse gas emissions. I also disagree with Galbraith on the limitations of sustainable forms of energy like solar and wind. It's more a case of political will.
Will 676615

# data[].attributes.body
Who is accountable, set the standards and monitors the results? Business or government? Or does It rely on customers to create the demand for ethical based finance and business to lower carbon emissions and protect the environment. Can social coalitions become global particularly with growing use of coal in China and a business first mentality in so many countries which we have seen demonstrated during the covid crisis?

Susie

# data[].attributes.headline
This Country Put Happiness Before Economy, But Did It Work?

# data[].attributes.subject
This Country Put Happiness Before Economy, But Did It Work?

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMjbru15oCI&ab_channel=NowThisWorld (675638, Anna)

Response: I like the last line of the commentator:  'There could be more consequences if the talk of happiness persists over  real progress'.  as well as the 'pursuit of uniformity'  contrasted to addressing important social issues.    I am struck by how laden with judgements this conclusion is.  Probably this is the whole key. In the next video, the prime minister gives more details. I like the way he disposed of Bogaboos prams (that go by the tune of £2,000) and fancy handbags (sky is the limit) in one go. I suppose these are the sort of low-hanging fruits for us
/ Emanuela

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eff-Z0NdwzY&ab_channel=ChangingSeasTV

and

Greenwashing: A Fiji Water Story

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOpa8kd6fBI&ab_channel=OurChangingClimate

Anna (675638)

# data[].attributes.body
I remember really liking the earlier lecture we listened to from Carney - where he painted a world that was about more than just profits but rather driven by values. I found it refreshing given his prior role. However in this lecture, where he began to lay out some solutions, it felt as if he was falling back on same-old solutions rather than really challenging the underlying assumptions and structure of the system. I do agree with him that there is significant societal interest in changing the system but will it go far enough or just create more band-aids? -Karen

Response to Karen
I agree with you, and I think the term 'band-aid' is very fitting here! He keeps talking about values, and how our values can be made the drivers of (economic) value. As attractive as it sounds, I find it worrying that the premise is still that economic value is the priority. He even refers to the climate crisis as a potential 'financial opportunity', which made me quite uncomfortable.

Edda (667994)

# data[].attributes.headline
The economics of enough: Dan O'Neill at TEDxOxbridge

# data[].attributes.subject
The economics of enough: Dan O'Neill at TEDxOxbridge

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIG33QtLRyA

Hannah Abbott (685904)

# data[].attributes.headline
Developing Countries and the Circular Economy

# data[].attributes.subject
Developing Countries and the Circular Economy

# data[].attributes.body
Reading the recommendations laid out by Stahel for the adoption of the Circular economy, I am reminded of the frugal innovations prevalent in most developing countries, especially in Africa. I think this presents an opportunity and competitive advantage for most developing countries where Small medium enterprises and Entrepreneurs have embraced frugal innovation. However, this mostly applies to small scale industries, there are still many challenges that developing countries would face in trying to adopt the circular economy.

Sarah Kazira

# data[].attributes.body
Anthropologists are great critics of what is not working, and in that they are helpful for businesses to realize their shortcomings. But I am wondering how helpful we can be for providing better solutions. I was coming to this week hoping to hear something groundbreaking an anthropologist or two would be working on to save us all, and all I found were ways in which current ventures are fallacies are bound to fail in their aims. This makes me wonder about our role in today's world, for I feel like any science nowadays that is not geared towards a solution to bad growth and the climate crisis is relegated to a secondary importance. Maybe this is the second great crisis of anthropology?
Marie

Response to Marie
The only anthropologist I can think of (doesn't mean this is the only one, however) that offered solutions is (was) David Graeber. But then there is the question of whether you agree with his solutions.

There is also David Harvey – somehow a geographer and anthropologist, I don’t know how. I couldn’t find the video but somewhere there is an interview with him, and he describes his participation in a sustainable city (New York, I think) design group with urban designers, architects, council officials (or whatever is equivalent to the councils in New York), etc. All members of the group really valued his ideas on how to build and develop the city sustainably for the future. At the end of the meeting, group members asked him where he got his ideas from. Marx was Harvey’s response. And that was the end of Harvey’s involvement with that group.

Point being that whilst I mostly agree with you – there is a lot of critique without solutions – but when some do offer solutions, they are excluded, disagreed with, scoffed at… Of course, this is not what happens every time.

If I find the video will post here :-)

Jacob Heath 685615

Response to Jacob:
Great example with Harvey and his disclosure of a divisive philosophy - if only the 'group' were curious enough to deconstruct and value what was between Marxism (opposition) and themselves, in order to value what Harvey contributed. Clare 677349

# data[].attributes.body
I am under no illusion that consumption levels will rise again, however I think that this paper offers a positive point of view, which is the 'slowing' down of consumption, movement, and the space we occupy, which without Covid would never have happened.

Anthropological research and observation will be invaluable, to see how we bounce back from such a shock. Working with hyper local community and  economies, I believe that Covid has helped to reframe the way we see our local high streets, what is on our doorsteps, and in some cases have saved them from dying. This shows a change in the way we live, the reduction in travel, our investment in local, support of smaller independent shops, community engagement which has big ramafications for big business.

Ever the optimist, it won't stop the desire and need for consumption & energy, but this slowing down has helped some re think how we will operate in the future and we have been afforded some time to ask and think about the big questions. It will take time to regain momentum and hopefully by then we will have some better solutions in place or at least be moving in a better direction.

Natasha (675589)

# data[].attributes.headline
The 4 laws of Ecology- Priyanka (683580)

# data[].attributes.subject
The 4 laws of Ecology- Priyanka (683580)

# data[].attributes.body
The article by Galbraith puts forth the interesting, relevant and seemingly obvious point-

"Energy is the resource required to make everything work. And while carbon-based energy is a subset of all types of energy, the substitutes for carbon-based energy are few, and expensive. Basically there is hydro-electric, wind and tidal power, limited by nature, and nuclear power, limited by safety concerns, as well as solar collection, limited by scale and cost. And all of them, using cement and metals, require energy to produce – energy that comes, mainly, from carbon-based fuels." (2020: 3).

The above quote, reminded me of two recent examples of actions taken to curb a negative consequence but triggering additional repercussions.

1) In March 2020 the government, imposed complete lockdown. As a consequence though migrants living in urban centres who lived a hand to mouth existence, in the absence of income to meet even basic need with transportations on halt, chose to walk back home to their villages; over 100's of kilometres in harsh climatic conditions. The largest exodus of migrants in recent times. Ironically, an early lockdown was implemented to limit and curb the spread of Covid-19 to the rest of India.

2) Metro's are being built in urban cities of India to reduce the load on other public transportation systems and mainly to get cars off the road to reduce carbon emissions. They are being built for sustainable transport. Yet, usership so far has not reduced congestion on roads plus the metro's require more electricity and to run the Ac's within metros requires more energy which is dependent on coal generated power (since 90% electricity generation is dependent on coal). Raising the question of whether metros as of now are sustainable mode of transport or require additional measures to be sustainable.

All 3 of the above examples reminded me of the '4 laws of ecology'-

1.Everything is connected to everything else

2.Everything must go somewhere,

3.Nature knows best, and

4.Nothing comes from nothing

Perhaps if the above laws were imbibed at level of policy/implementation design the 2nd order effects countering the purpose of the action may be pre-empted.

# data[].attributes.headline
Decoupling prosperity and development from growth? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Decoupling prosperity and development from growth? 

# data[].attributes.body
I found this article very interesting, even though it was a little bit technical. I found it particularly shocking that the EU uses ‘Domestic Material Consumption’ (DMC) to calculate the resource efficiency of economies, as DMC does not include the material impact of production and transport. Due to this, EU economies are able to appear much more resource efficient, as their production has been largely outsourced to poorer countries.

I also found Hickel and Kallis’ 'solution' very interesting. Beyond calls for de-growth (or at least significantly slower growth), they suggest that we find ways to “decouple prosperity and development from growth” (483). I definitely agree with this idea, as the whole idea of ‘green growth’ has always sounded like an oxymoron. However, this would be a major ideological shift, and I was left wondering how exactly this could be achieved. Basic income is mentioned, for instance, which seems to suggest shifting the focus from the market to the state.

Edda (667994)

# data[].attributes.body
For a relatively short article, Galbraith manages to explore many different resources, including labour, capital and energy, but the one which captures my mind most is land. 'Land' as a concept has arisen several times in several ways throughout this term, and whilst Galbraith frames energy as the more-central finite resource to consider in contemporary times, I don't think that the value of land has ever abated. If anything, with global population growth, it has become more relevant. Especially if we consider the value of land under a alternative economic lens (i.e. having value beyond economic), we see that land, it's use, it's 'ownership', and access to it, is a central driver for much of human behaviour (touching on ideas as diverse as borders, agriculture/food, indigeneity/identity, access, power, physical/mental wellbeing and environmental protection). More than this, issues of land are relevant on a macro level (i.e. international border disputes) to a micro level (i.e. urban residents who lack living space). However, whilst I think the value part is indisputable, not for the first time this term, I find myself considering whether land truly can/should be owned (either individually or collectively) - which is central to the discussion of how this 'resource' is stewarded and utilised.
- Sara (684725)

Response to Sara:

I really liked your post -very interesting and beautifully written. In fact, about the meanings of land that are been overseen: yesterday I read a post on Instagram (I need to find the source) that explained that in the US the 98% of the land is owned by white people, and only 1% belongs to black people, as to show how economic reparations are needed in the country: the land is still a factor of social inequality and the billions made through the land are still a reflection of the institution of chattel slavery. Laura Torres

# data[].attributes.headline
The tension between what is and what should/could be

# data[].attributes.subject
The tension between what is and what should/could be

# data[].attributes.body
Mark Carney lays out a pragmatic and well reasoned argument for how to proceed towards a sustainable form of economy. One of the most compelling parts of the lecture for me was the questions at the end. A representative from extinction rebellion asked if Mark Carney would endorse the idea of radically altering the political economy to reflect the true needs of society and citizens. Carney responded by saying there was not enough time to enact such a sea change to deal with climate change fast enough and that it was more prudent to adapt existing structures. This exchange lies at the heart of the issue for me, there is currently an ideological rift that seems almost insurmountable.

Ali

Response to Ali
Like you, I found the questions at the end one of the most interesting parts.

My thoughts during Carney’s lecture were reflected by a question posed Stefanie, she brought the lectures attention to the effects a changing climate has the poorest countries, the least developed, the greatest - how can international finance ensure that ‘global North’ countries take responsibility? Carney’s reply felt rushed to me, perhaps simply due to a lack of time, suggesting that responsibility MUST be taken, that money will be invested in the supply chains and directly in these emerging economies through global banks. I wish he had included some mention of this aspect in his lecture and did not have to be directly questioned at the end.
-Rebecca Luff

# data[].attributes.body
I also was struck by this quote specifically, and this section in general. It really made me think about how often economic structures/dynamics are led by the privileged minority, though they are contributed to by the diverse majority. The lived experiences and embodied realities of all stakeholders must surely be incorporated in any re-imagining of the wider system. But too often, the economic contributions outside formal, full-time employment (often by women and/or other marginalised group) are forgotten - which seems to be a massive 'blind-spot', but also shows how the values attributed to different forms of labour (i.e. paid employment versus unpaid domestic labour) is central to the disenfranchisement of certain community members.
- Sara (684725)

# data[].attributes.body
This paper made me even more pessimistic toward economic solutions to climate change. Reducing investments and consumptions, as the paper suggests, are problematic. But so it is reducing waste, I believe, which the author suggested as the most achievable options. Particularly, the examples, clearly inspired by the current events, are not without problems.  For instance, working at home would reduce the heating, cooling and energy use of offices, but as people work from home, each households will use and consume more energy. Similarly, are centralized warehouses and deliveries (which come with their own energy expense issues) the best alternative to energy-intensive shopping?
- Sarah M.

Response to Sarah:
I agree with you, but I also feel like Galbraith is saying that we don't have too many options looking ahead. I feel like his rejection of the economic solutions to climate change and his proposal to academics to rename their economic departments into departments of resource allocation and environmental science seems to be a desperate shout out that we need a more responsive and sensitive intellectual climate within which some concrete solutions may emerge
-Anuradha-

# data[].attributes.body
I really liked this text, but it made me think that in the exploration of sustainable economic measures, there is a need to address class. For instance, this quote:

“Reducing current consumption is an unpleasant prospect, sure to provoke two questions: How much? And whose? […] It is possible – as the pandemic is also teaching – to reduce consumption in wealthy societies and to do so with relatively small loss of psychic well-being, so long as basic needs are met. A great many leisure-time activities that are energy-intensive – recreational travel is a major one– are simply superfluous in the pandemic and will go away on their own” (4-5). This is true but in a very classist way: at least in Spain, and I am sure that in other places, wealthy people have still been able to travel (they have secondary houses, if the plane tickets rise they have money to pay for them, they also have enough money to pay for the PCR -200 euros on average- that many countries ask for, etc. -I live near the airport of Madrid and during quarantine, when traveling was forbidden, there were many planes going around without us understanding how, then we found out that private jets were becoming more popular with covid!!) so it is the middle/low income parts of society who stop enjoying “superfluous” activities and carry on their shoulders the responsibility of compensating the planet for the climate abuse. I agree that we need to reduce consumption as a responsible act towards the environment, but it should be done in a regulated, equitable way: everyone should be part of the ‘sacrifice’ to consume less, it can’t be a question of money. I guess this is my question this week: How can we ensure that everybody, society as a whole, reduces its consumption (e.g. traveling for leisure) without favoring classist dynamics? - Laura Torres

# data[].attributes.body
I am sure that as Covid-19 begins to fade and life starts to return to somewhat normal consumption will rise again. I think that superfluous leisure activities, like travel, will not “go away on their own” (5). That as Sarah M suggested, changes such as reducing office space would cause energy increases in individual households. I what the paper suggests is that the pandemic is useful for reflection, that the slowdown will help people to think about how their lives have changed and what this means for our planet, questioning how to continue to function in the future. Also, worth noting, I liked how Galbraith concluded the paper suggesting that universities could switch resources from economic departments to environmental science to “create the intellectual climate necessary for ideas to become…relevant to effective action” (5).
-Rebecca Luff

# data[].attributes.body
This paper is an interesting compendium of possible interventions together with the predicted impact and an illustration of perverse incentives  The one perverse incentive that seems popular is creative accounting - the introduction of new theories in the predictions seems to be useful to the purpose of arguing for the feasibility of carbon emission reductions, for example, regardless of the realistic import of the technologies assumed in the accounting.  Second, some of the graphs (for example Fig. 5 on CO2 mitigation) actually show that even predictive analytics do not exclude the possibility that the actual net effect will be that of increasing emissions - with a likelihood of about 40% which remains a very large risk. This would suggest that none of the policies currently under consideration are likely to achieve tangible effects   I think the general conclusion of this paper is that, given thermodynamically maximum efficiency (i.e. we will not be able to go past the total amount of matter which is given in absolute terms), absolute reductions due to substitution effects or redistribution will not matter.   In other words, this is a re-formulation in matter / modern terms of the Malthusian principle whereby there is a total amount of matter / energy that will pose a limit to - not just growth - but existence (and of course Malthus did ignore growth and redistribution, so colonialism in fact does represent the overcoming of the Malthusian arguments by making the pie bigger - but if we do argue back the theoretical maximum of matter is fixed, so transposing the Malthusian argument to materiality, then the criticisms decay as there cannot be more 'matter' than we have (Elon Musk being the only one to think otherwise for the time being).    This paper also raises a criticism that, as long as we do not have a theory of value that goes beyond materiality, we will not be able to account for growth of value which is decoupled from resource use.   However, I argue, this is not the solution as it does not resolve the issue of how the political acceptable limits are set - and indeed the authors conclude that there need to be hard choices.  I think this conclusion in the paper is under-examined as while it is true that a decrease in resource exploitation is the way forward, the key  remains who will be the winners and losers and the authors somehow bypass the question.  If (as I believe) politics remains the set of power relations that preside to redistribution of resources, then a reduction in the overall consumption will still fall short of the objectives, and will generate more conflict unless we are able to flesh out, exactly, what will be the  political consequences of setting these limits.  / Emanuela

# data[].attributes.body
I think the data and arguments in this article reveal the important point that there is no significant correlation between technological advancement and reductions in emissions and consumption, as global material use rose more quickly than GDP in the 21st century. And technological progress is one of the key underpinnings of the promise of green growth. Are there other possible paths for us to maintain growth while reducing pollution and consumption? The authors' critique of growth seems to deny this possibility. According to accelerationism, growth-oriented development is pushing us toward some kind of end of development. Is it then possible for us to imagine an economy that is truly centered on sustainability while accepting zero or even negative growth as a cost? This is hard to imagine, because it is not only a scientific issue, but also necessarily a political one, since the overall level of human development is not average, but varies greatly within.
-Zhenyuan Fang

# data[].attributes.body
Hickel and Kallis argue that developed nations do not need economic growth in order to achieve social goals. They put forward the idea of distributing income more fairly, shortening the working week, and shifts in public investment towards low carbon sectors. They argue that the only way developed countries can reduce emissions fast enough to stay within the carbon budget of 2 °C is to reduce resource use through a degrowth economy.

Brigid 685345

# data[].attributes.body
I feel that underlying Carney’s ethos, is the ‘capitalist reality’ that there is not another way to achieve the climate change goals in the time required other than to use the system which already dominates our lives, and that is upheld by how the majority of the worlds people live their life each day. As Mark Fischer defined throughout his short life's work on ‘capitalist realism’ - "the widespread sense that not only is capitalism the only viable political and economic system, but also that it is now impossible even to imagine a coherent alternative to it." In the interests of time, and these impending tipping points, it seems that there is no option but to prioritise solutions from within the current economic system. Sometimes I think that the only way out of capitalism is to burn it out, because all that once was is impossible to achieve. Clare 677349

Response from Bo Yang:

Capitalist is actually the biggest one around the world, it is hard to deny. However, the problem about scale worth exploring. I all know many other alternative live style of different human groups exist, also within the most developed countries. Those alternative possibilities are always there, as the specific wisdom from specific conjuncture of socio-cultrual, environmental, geographical and historical construction. These small-scale alternatives are what we should look at, and try to figure out undetected wisdoms.

# data[].attributes.body
I too think that the lecture was overly optimistic. The spokesperson confronted Carney on that point after his presentation, but he vehemently opposed, telling "i absolutely dismiss the premise of the question".

Andrew

# data[].attributes.body
I think it is pretty telling that most considered-developed countries have not come close to decoupling their GDP. Some people will never want to realize that infinite growth is only pheasible in a short context, and there are some finite resources that we will be yet to be able to replenish for a few more centuries. An alternative for bypassing this conflict is negative impact technology, although the fact that humans have an innate sentiment that they can fix even the most intangible things, coupled with the unproved/experimental nature of this technology does not boast too much potential. And of course few want to stop consuming in parallel to their economy growing. They earned the fruits of their hard work as a nation, right? Is it possible that this capitalist narrative of always having to exploit what we took possession of is false? Why is it that India and China managed to grow despite maintaining a very impressive record of domestic material consumption?

Andrew

# data[].attributes.body
Actually, growth and competition is already here, historically constructed as now what has been shown. Nobody could judge or blame the desire of being better (want money for next day) of another one, especially for ordinary people in un-privileged position. These rely on the economic rationale and modernised market around the world.

The other aspect, as in this paper. We should know also about biophysical stuff of this earth. Some objective limits are clearly shown, but sometimes, these limits are relatively 'big', beyond the capacity of ordinary people's daily concerns.

These two dimensions need collaboration between social sciences and biophysical sciences. However, each discipline has their own disciplinary presupposition. Probably anthropology is more easily to do that, such as experiments from sustainability anthropology, Anthropocene and so  forth.

Bo Yang

# data[].attributes.body
Interesting to hear a founder of Extinction Rebellion come into dialogue with the former Governor of the Bank of England, albeit very briefly. I think Mark Carney didn't really engage with the question of time posed by Gail Bradbrook, which is a shame. 'Growth is not a dirty word' - but clearly some sort of intervention is needed. Having said that, I disagree with her assertion that 'it's too late' for many places.

Will 676615

# data[].attributes.body
Response to Claire:

Yes, I was also reminded of Fisher's capitalist realism! I agree that our imagination in discussing alternatives is lacking. Perhaps we should go to other epistemologies to find alternative concepts such as Buen Vivir, rather than relying on solutions from western epistemology which is so inextricably intertwined with capitalism. A similar idea to Fisher that I like is the 'tyranny of the visible' by Blaug 1998 I believe.

Marten 686321

I think this set of lectures represents a decent pragmatic attempt at addressing the issues created by 'the economy' and the 'invisible hand' market mechanism that is devoid of environmental and social responsibility over the past two centuries.

However, I would argue that Carney is overly reliant on the private sector to address these issues. A transition towards sustainable energy through private companies still does not address issues of
private ownership and of issues concerning politics and inequality as was raised in the Carbon Democracy article. Given how intertwined these are, I am not sure how sustainable (in a broader sense) his solutions are.

Marten 686321

# data[].attributes.body
"there are two paths: a massive expansion in new energy, and a massive conservation of existing reserves, designed to be as tolerable as possible. Those are the only two potentially feasible paths."

While we’re actively working towards achieving quick results and quick solutions that reduce emissions, these solutions are primarily designed within the neo-classical framework which is incompatible with actual life in the real world, it requires interdisciplinary reform. What is necessary is an approach that is explicitly consistent with the biophysical realities of nature. The Covid-19 pandemic has fundamentally forced us to slow down and work with nature rather than against it, which has in turn made it clear that there is scope for progress along the lines of conserving existing reserves. Tanita 685926