| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
164028
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The safe and just space framework devised by Raworth calls for the world’s nations to achieve key minimum thresholds in social welfare while remaining within planetary boundaries. Using data on social and biophysical indicators provided by O’Neill et al., this paper argues that it is theoretically possible to achieve a good life for all within planetary boundaries in poor nations by building on existing exemplary models and by adopting fairer distributive policies. However, the additional biophysical pressure that this entails at a global level requires that rich nations dramatically reduce their biophysical footprints by 40–50%. Extant empirical studies suggest that this degree of reduction is unlikely to be achieved solely through efforts to decouple GDP growth from environmental impact, even under highly optimistic conditions. Therefore, for rich nations to fit within the boundaries of the safe and just space will require that they abandon growth as a policy objective and shift to post-capitalist economic models.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
186233
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
134366
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The current model of economic growth generated unprecedented increases in human wealth and prosperity during the 19th and 20th centuries. The main mechanisms have been the rapid pace of technological and social innovation, human capital accumulation, and the conversion of resources and natural capital into more valuable forms of produced capital. However, there is evidence emerging that this model may be approaching environmental limits and planetary boundaries, and that the conversion of natural capital needs to slow down rapidly and then be reversed. Some commentators have asserted that in order for this to occur, we will need to stop growing altogether and, instead, seek prosperity without growth. Others argue that environmental concerns are low-priority luxuries to be contemplated once global growth has properly returned to levels observed prior to the 2008 financial crisis. A third group argues that there is no trade-off, and, instead, promotes green growth: the (politically appealing) idea is that we can simultaneously grow and address our environmental problems. This paper provides a critical perspective on this debate and suggests that a substantial research agenda is required to come to grips with these challenges. One place to start is with the relevant metrics: measures of per-capita wealth, and, eventually, quantitative measures of prosperity, alongside a dashboard of other sustainability indicators. A public and political focus on wealth (a stock), and its annual changes, could realistically complement the current focus on market-based gross output as measured by GDP (a flow). This could have important policy implications, but deeper changes to governance and business models will be required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|