Created 01/13/2018 at 2018:10PM
je recycle un commentaire vieux d'un an mais qui est toujours pertinent:
Growth, growth, growth mentioned 20 times (I know, it’s an interview about growth). Exponential growth in a closed system. When will macroeconomists recognize the physical impossibility of such a thing? And that past historical data (“I know from history that a full-employment, rapidly-growing economy is much better for working people.”) are irrelevant now that physical limits begin to manifest themselves.
Yet, Mason wrote “The problem of the 21st century is the problem of climate change” and asks “Is Capital Being Reallocated to High-Tech Industries?” (his answer is no). But even if capital was reallocated to global renewable energy infrastructures, what about constraining EROIs ?
I’ll close my comment citing Jancovici’s conclusion (at the 3rd Science and Energy Seminar at Ecole de Physique des Houches): “After two centuries of growth, we have lost our habits of ruling a constrained world. The good question is not how we avoid “degrowth”, but how we manage it at best. (…) Less energy = less GDP. Going to zero carbon in 65 years is equivalent to following a recessive path, that we accept because it allows our species to (sur)vive longer. ”
Jancovici, J.-M. (2016) Summing all up [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://science-and-energy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Houches-summing-it-up-2016.ppt
discuss at masto stub toot macroecon Mais qu'est-ce qu'on dit? Ouaiis!... Merci professeur Lutz!