I don't think it's a stupid question. I'm not an economist either. It's debatable (if you use Google, you can easily find a lot of environmental and economic pa

I don't think it's a stupid question. I'm not an economist either. It's debatable (if you use Google, you can easily find a lot of environmental and economic papers talking about the subject) but GDP growth is probably a good proxy for environmental footprint growth as of now. Of course it's possible to imagine better production technologies producing the same or more output for less input, but broadly speaking if you are a fan of a sustainable future you should be an advocate of negative growth economies.