Let us suppose, for the sake of discussion, that environmental decay exists, and that exhaustible resources mean genuine constraints.
Author and environmentalist Richard Heinberg drives home this point in his book, “The End of Growth,” making a compelling -- and I would argue readily apparent – case that that the world and everyone in it is subject to environmental limits. And unless we are willing to recognize and come to terms with the fatal flaw of conventional economics and its primary article of faith -- that these limits don’t exist and that anything can be replaced for the right price – it’s game over.

The current “financial crisis,” is only a symptom of a much deeper disease – one whose manifestations are being experienced (and are in full evidence) all over the world: Our lives and livelihoods are being wrecked, not just by debt, but by resource depletion, accelerating climate change and environmental devastation.

Those lives and livelihoods won’t be “saved” unless and until we reconcile this deeper dilemma.
I'd like to know where this conventional economics that ignores the limits to economic growth, or disregards incentives to conserve resides. "When an energy source that’s got half the carbon emissions effect also gets cheaper in absolute terms as well as relative to coal, economic and environmental benefits are aligned". But there's no opportunity to engage in radical vanguardism if the healing of the planet happens one substitution at a time.

No comments: