Read on Twitter
Environment vs economic growth. AGAIN.
What's neededed:
- degrowth ppl eg @jasonhickel need to stop downplaying decoupling potential
- green growth ppl eg @ramez need to accept decoupling is not happening fast enough
and both shld accept theory is lacking.
Notes follow... 1/ https://twitter.com/ramez/status/1295084512846569472
What's neededed:
- degrowth ppl eg @jasonhickel need to stop downplaying decoupling potential
- green growth ppl eg @ramez need to accept decoupling is not happening fast enough
and both shld accept theory is lacking.
Notes follow... 1/ https://twitter.com/ramez/status/1295084512846569472
The modern enviro mvt is derailed by unstructured 'debate' around the role of technical innovation + econ growth in sustainability.
What's wrong:
1 failure to define terms
2 lack of theory, bad evidence
3 smuggling conclusions
4 irrelevance to policy
5 irrelevance to narrative
What's wrong:
1 failure to define terms
2 lack of theory, bad evidence
3 smuggling conclusions
4 irrelevance to policy
5 irrelevance to narrative
1 Failure to define terms
Hickel says degrowth is not about reducing GDP, but refuses to say that he means dematerialization instead (much more palatable to green growth / ecoefficiency folks). Why?
Why cling to the hideous phrase degrowth? https://twitter.com/jasonhickel/status/1294686650514063360?s=20
Hickel says degrowth is not about reducing GDP, but refuses to say that he means dematerialization instead (much more palatable to green growth / ecoefficiency folks). Why?
Why cling to the hideous phrase degrowth? https://twitter.com/jasonhickel/status/1294686650514063360?s=20
1b Failure to define terms
Similarly the whole point of decoupling is removing economic growth from materialization growth. So why continue to push the phrase growth, green or otherwise?
'Development' has been out their as a candidate word for a econ progress for decades.
Similarly the whole point of decoupling is removing economic growth from materialization growth. So why continue to push the phrase growth, green or otherwise?
'Development' has been out their as a candidate word for a econ progress for decades.
2 Bad theory, lack of data
For some reason the same paper on growth keeps getting written and misrepresented by its authors
@jasonhickel et al 2020
@WiedenhoferD et al 2020
@Green_Europe 2019
https://twitter.com/jasonhickel/status/1294686650514063360?s=20
https://twitter.com/KTrebeck/status/1295255991966203904?s=20
https://eeb.org/decoupling-debunked1/
For some reason the same paper on growth keeps getting written and misrepresented by its authors
@jasonhickel et al 2020
@WiedenhoferD et al 2020
@Green_Europe 2019
https://twitter.com/jasonhickel/status/1294686650514063360?s=20
https://twitter.com/KTrebeck/status/1295255991966203904?s=20
https://eeb.org/decoupling-debunked1/
2b Bad theory, lack of data
What is wrong these heroic but v similar papers [Wiedenhofer is best IMO] is that they are very broad reviews, unmoored from stable theory, with a overcooked conclusions.
The absence of evidence of decoupling is not evidence of its impossibility.
What is wrong these heroic but v similar papers [Wiedenhofer is best IMO] is that they are very broad reviews, unmoored from stable theory, with a overcooked conclusions.
The absence of evidence of decoupling is not evidence of its impossibility.
2c Bad theory, lack of data
Conversely, green growth folks eg @mattwridley at worst and @amcafee at best, don't situate themselves in a defined research discourse at all. Data is supplied, but it's not even aiming at a theory.
How is this reliable guidance on decoupling?
Conversely, green growth folks eg @mattwridley at worst and @amcafee at best, don't situate themselves in a defined research discourse at all. Data is supplied, but it's not even aiming at a theory.
How is this reliable guidance on decoupling?
2d Bad theory, lack of data
Prob most sophisticated work here is eg stock-flow modelling of @ProfTimJackson. But it is also theoretically unmoored (to fair it's pretty new), unclear in implication, and also suffers from motivated reasoning. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800920301427
Prob most sophisticated work here is eg stock-flow modelling of @ProfTimJackson. But it is also theoretically unmoored (to fair it's pretty new), unclear in implication, and also suffers from motivated reasoning. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800920301427
3 Smuggling conclusions
Much motivated reasoning in these papers comes from intention to smuggle (political) conclusions into scientific stuff. @jasonhickel I think is the worst offender in this category. He hates capitalism - fair enough - and can't find enough ways to show it.
Much motivated reasoning in these papers comes from intention to smuggle (political) conclusions into scientific stuff. @jasonhickel I think is the worst offender in this category. He hates capitalism - fair enough - and can't find enough ways to show it.
3b Smuggling conclusions
The prob with this is not partic ideology, it's that it ends up proposing pathetically underpowered solutions to the problems - that seem good only when varnished as a political turn.
Do Hickel, EEB, Wiedenhofer, degrowth folks have no new change ideas?
The prob with this is not partic ideology, it's that it ends up proposing pathetically underpowered solutions to the problems - that seem good only when varnished as a political turn.
Do Hickel, EEB, Wiedenhofer, degrowth folks have no new change ideas?
3c Smuggling conclusions
Take @WiedenhoferD et al's conclusions below.
That framing of sust consumption is ... stunningly crude. It ignores research, policy, tech, social innovation, planning, in this field over 30 years. The same grand statements!
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800920301427
Take @WiedenhoferD et al's conclusions below.
That framing of sust consumption is ... stunningly crude. It ignores research, policy, tech, social innovation, planning, in this field over 30 years. The same grand statements!
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800920301427
3d Smuggling conclusions
When I wrote the UN Environment Program policy on sustainable consumption 20 YEARS AGO I was assumed the elision of such ideological and nomenclatural clashes.
https://unep.ch/scope/documents/en_SCO.pdf
Here's what I proposed, and it's not close to being implemented:
When I wrote the UN Environment Program policy on sustainable consumption 20 YEARS AGO I was assumed the elision of such ideological and nomenclatural clashes.
https://unep.ch/scope/documents/en_SCO.pdf
Here's what I proposed, and it's not close to being implemented:
3e Smuggling conclusions
But to be fair to @jasonhickel + Team Degrowth, the circular arguments, hyperbole, blinkderdness of pro-growth folks goes beyond smuggling conclusions. They just will not accept that mkts have limits:
all good - endogenous to mkts
all bad - exogenous.
But to be fair to @jasonhickel + Team Degrowth, the circular arguments, hyperbole, blinkderdness of pro-growth folks goes beyond smuggling conclusions. They just will not accept that mkts have limits:
all good - endogenous to mkts
all bad - exogenous.
4 irrelevance to policy
The tragedy of these kinds of standoffs between @ramez and @jasonhickel is that policy makers who are way more stupid than these brilliant minds, will just ignore all of it, and make up far worse policies in the absence of any, even contingent, consenus.
The tragedy of these kinds of standoffs between @ramez and @jasonhickel is that policy makers who are way more stupid than these brilliant minds, will just ignore all of it, and make up far worse policies in the absence of any, even contingent, consenus.
5 irrelevance to narrative
And ultimately, there's worse: it's that what ought to be motivating and mobilizing is lost in spats about words and old ideologies with poor theoretical underpinning.
Extremely unworthy of the public's attention, and not part of any useful narrative.
And ultimately, there's worse: it's that what ought to be motivating and mobilizing is lost in spats about words and old ideologies with poor theoretical underpinning.
Extremely unworthy of the public's attention, and not part of any useful narrative.
5b irrelevance to narrative
What these folks fail to understand is that the future will not be written by corralling ppl to these hyper-pessimistic or hyper-optimistic narratives.
But by building narratives that compelling new life stories out of current complexity and stress.
What these folks fail to understand is that the future will not be written by corralling ppl to these hyper-pessimistic or hyper-optimistic narratives.
But by building narratives that compelling new life stories out of current complexity and stress.
I got out of this bc it was progressing too slowly, but seemed well meaning.
Now IMO it's clear progress is still too slow but there is a wilful standoff that must end.
Does anyone truly think @amcafee and @jasonhickel are so far apart with titles like these?
Get over yselves!
Now IMO it's clear progress is still too slow but there is a wilful standoff that must end.
Does anyone truly think @amcafee and @jasonhickel are so far apart with titles like these?
Get over yselves!
Some more notes on this for folks who may not be up on the details here: https://perspectives.resource.vision/growing-pains/
