This from the group who did not acknowledge that the President just marked off limits offshore oil and gas in Florida, Georgia and S. Carolina. That said, give it up for my alma mater, S.U.N.Y. College of Environmental Science and Forestry and Dr. Charles Hall. And actually even Gifford Pinchot knew that the philosophy of Conservation had to come into play for long term intergenerational equity.
He makes some good points but fails to mention that economic growth is tied inextricably to population. There can be no ecological economics without population control.
for a very very very long time population on the planet was rather stagnand.. it was limited by the ecological negativ pushbacks, so that it fluctuated gradualy with the environmental circumstances. Of Course, this was changed by the use of aboundand fossile fules that exploded al natural negativ feedbacks, so that we now have seen for about 2-3 centuries the full exponential growth potential of humankind. And it was exaggerated by per head consumtion that also exploded because of the same reasons, that fossil energy just alowed it. now. The are of unlimited growth practicaly and in our mindset is at its end. You are right, that we also have to adress population growth. But cynicaly said.. this will regulate on its own the one ore other way.. The only chose we have is, if we try to allready reduce the impact, before it all hell breakes loose. This is more difficult as most people think, because on the way we also would have to revolutionise nat at last our financial system that systemicaly only can grow, or implode chaoticaly. So also a new monetary system is heavily needed.
And nice, straightforward elegantly simple explanation of the fundamental conceptual shift needed to come at the question of institutional design in support of true prosperity, i.e. Finding how to meet real needs of all by healing not harming planet or people. As John Reynolds notes Our ability to do that does depend upon our ability to limit population growth but experience has shown repeatedly that to promote genuine prosperity across a population combined with gender quality pretty readily starts reducing population growth. There is a transitional problem involved in improving income equality, as Eric Glock, has pointed out namely middle and especially lower income will spend more on real goods when they have more to spend on a per capita basis than the rich, spending it on goods and services that may involve further extraction, further destruction of soil etc., Unless a company buy such corollary changes as, for example, regenerative agriculture or recycled housing or materials could in the short run at least put social justice need and environmental needs on a collision course, unless carefully planned for. A green new deal seeking both outcomes and consistent with an environmentally well conceived economics would need to think through these trade-offs quite carefully. Not an insurmountable problem but does demand sober assessment in conjunction with deep paradigm shifts within the culture.
Waste, pollution & any adverse environmental effects of consumer production are "externalities" in the current economic model. This model is mostly controlled & practised by corporate billionaires who disregard such externalities, because they have no interest in preserving the only human habitat which sustains life itself. Politicians are pre-selected, bought, & paid for by corporate funds & thus they are usually the only choices available to voters, so only catastrophic scenarios like war, famine, major recession or extreme climate breakdown are gonna provide the impetus for change. The current pandemic has only served to widen the wealth divide between the 1% and the rest. No cause for optimism then, particularly with Bernie Sanders spurned once again by a DNC in Wall Street's pockets & Biden almost guaranteeing more of the same jam that Trump has spread around corporate America. Ugh.
Very necessary topics!
This from the group who did not acknowledge that the President just marked off limits offshore oil and gas in Florida, Georgia and S. Carolina. That said, give it up for my alma mater, S.U.N.Y. College of Environmental Science and Forestry and Dr. Charles Hall. And actually even Gifford Pinchot knew that the philosophy of Conservation had to come into play for long term intergenerational equity.
allready an older Video from 2009 but never the less as important as back then
He makes some good points but fails to mention that economic growth is tied inextricably to population. There can be no ecological economics without population control.
for a very very very long time population on the planet was rather stagnand.. it was limited by the ecological negativ pushbacks, so that it fluctuated gradualy with the environmental circumstances. Of Course, this was changed by the use of aboundand fossile fules that exploded al natural negativ feedbacks, so that we now have seen for about 2-3 centuries the full exponential growth potential of humankind. And it was exaggerated by per head consumtion that also exploded because of the same reasons, that fossil energy just alowed it.
now. The are of unlimited growth practicaly and in our mindset is at its end. You are right, that we also have to adress population growth. But cynicaly said.. this will regulate on its own the one ore other way.. The only chose we have is, if we try to allready reduce the impact, before it all hell breakes loose.
This is more difficult as most people think, because on the way we also would have to revolutionise nat at last our financial system that systemicaly only can grow, or implode chaoticaly. So also a new monetary system is heavily needed.
And nice, straightforward elegantly simple explanation of the fundamental conceptual shift needed to come at the question of institutional design in support of true prosperity, i.e. Finding how to meet real needs of all by healing not harming planet or people. As John Reynolds notes Our ability to do that does depend upon our ability to limit population growth but experience has shown repeatedly that to promote genuine prosperity across a population combined with gender quality pretty readily starts reducing population growth. There is a transitional problem involved in improving income equality, as Eric Glock, has pointed out namely middle and especially lower income will spend more on real goods when they have more to spend on a per capita basis than the rich, spending it on goods and services that may involve further extraction, further destruction of soil etc., Unless a company buy such corollary changes as, for example, regenerative agriculture or recycled housing or materials could in the short run at least put social justice need and environmental needs on a collision course, unless carefully planned for. A green new deal seeking both outcomes and consistent with an environmentally well conceived economics would need to think through these trade-offs quite carefully. Not an insurmountable problem but does demand sober assessment in conjunction with deep paradigm shifts within the culture.
Waste, pollution & any adverse environmental effects of consumer production are "externalities" in the current economic model. This model is mostly controlled & practised by corporate billionaires who disregard such externalities, because they have no interest in preserving the only human habitat which sustains life itself. Politicians are pre-selected, bought, & paid for by corporate funds & thus they are usually the only choices available to voters, so only catastrophic scenarios like war, famine, major recession or extreme climate breakdown are gonna provide the impetus for change.
The current pandemic has only served to widen the wealth divide between the 1% and the rest. No cause for optimism then, particularly with Bernie Sanders spurned once again by a DNC in Wall Street's pockets & Biden almost guaranteeing more of the same jam that Trump has spread around corporate America. Ugh.