5 ms·

constant growth != infinite growth constant growth just means converging growth if the population is shrinking all we need to do is increase gdp per capita.

ihaveajob 4y ago
Zeno has entered the chat. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Achilles_an...
mr_toad 4y ago
> constant growth != infinite growth constant growth just means converging growth if the population is shrinking all we need to do is increase gdp per capita. In theory. In practice GDP growth is strongly correlated with things like energy use and waste/pollution generation. There will come a point when either that correlation has to be broken or growth has to halt.
- PeterisP 4y ago
  While GDP growth has historically been strongly correlated with energy use and pollution (including CO2/greenhouse gas emissions), due to the switch to service and digital economy, in rich countries GDP growth has become decoupled from energy use for a few decades already, already before year 2000. The correlation is already broken, and it seems quite plausible to continue GDP growth even with a decrease in energy use and waste/pollution generation.
  - Qem 4y ago
    > due to the switch to service and digital economy, in rich countries GDP growth has become decoupled from energy use for a few decades already. They just pushed pollution elsewhere, by outsourcing manufacturing.
    - PeterisP 4y ago
      That strengthens the effect, but no, the growth is decoupled even if you take into account the energy and pollution cost of the outsourced manufacturing. The same goods (and better goods) take less energy and pollution to produce than in 2000, and a lot of physical goods have been effectively replaced with features in digital devices; and the main part of GDP growth for developed countries does not involve any growth in consumption of goods but rather the consumption of services - the shift from an industrial economy to a service economy has quite fundamental impact on the nature of growth.
      - hikingsimulator 4y ago
        Do you have a current source on the decoupling claim accounting for outsourcing? That's a good trend if true.
        dane-pgp 4y ago
        It was true in the UK ten years ago (although this Guardian article[0] tried to downplay the success): > The amount of greenhouse gases linked to goods and services consumed by UK households, including emissions from the foreign manufacture of imported products, rose by 3% between 2012 and 2013, the most recent data shows. But the figures are almost a fifth (19%) below the peak seen in 2007, when UK consumers were responsible for nearly 1.3bn tonnes of greenhouse gases. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/02/uks-carbon-footprint-rises-3 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/02/uks-carb...
      - lm28469 4y ago
        > The same goods (and better goods) take less energy and pollution to produce than in 2000 But thanks to the rebound effect we make/sell/trash more of them Like with airplanes, it doesn't matter that Rolls-Royce make their engines 5% more efficient every 10 years if in the meantime you have 4 times as many plane flying.
  - throwanapple 4y ago
    A different analysis here: https://eeb.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Decoupling-Debunked.pdf https://eeb.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Decoupling-Debunk...
  - lm28469 4y ago
    > GDP growth has become decoupled from energy use for a few decades already, already before year 2000 Only because we delocalised all the industries to Asia, globally co2 = gdp, before and after 2010 https://jancovici.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/GDP-CO2-world-768x443.jpg https://jancovici.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/GDP-CO2-wor... https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gabe-Scelta-2/publication/331072601/figure/fig2/AS:725891374141444@1550077398942/GDP-and-CO2-emissions-growth.png https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gabe-Scelta-2/publicati...
- oceanplexian 4y ago
  The USA is the exact opposite example of this. US carbon emissions have fallen 15% since 2005 but the massive US economy continues to grow. There’s no requirement that more growth always == more pollution.
honkler 4y ago
population cannot shrink forever

ihaveajob 4y ago

Zeno has entered the chat. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Achilles_an...

mr_toad 4y ago

> constant growth != infinite growth constant growth just means converging growth if the population is shrinking all we need to do is increase gdp per capita. In theory. In practice GDP growth is strongly correlated with things like energy use and waste/pollution generation. There will come a point when either that correlation has to be broken or growth has to halt.

PeterisP 4y ago
While GDP growth has historically been strongly correlated with energy use and pollution (including CO2/greenhouse gas emissions), due to the switch to service and digital economy, in rich countries GDP growth has become decoupled from energy use for a few decades already, already before year 2000. The correlation is already broken, and it seems quite plausible to continue GDP growth even with a decrease in energy use and waste/pollution generation.
- Qem 4y ago
  > due to the switch to service and digital economy, in rich countries GDP growth has become decoupled from energy use for a few decades already. They just pushed pollution elsewhere, by outsourcing manufacturing.
  - PeterisP 4y ago
    That strengthens the effect, but no, the growth is decoupled even if you take into account the energy and pollution cost of the outsourced manufacturing. The same goods (and better goods) take less energy and pollution to produce than in 2000, and a lot of physical goods have been effectively replaced with features in digital devices; and the main part of GDP growth for developed countries does not involve any growth in consumption of goods but rather the consumption of services - the shift from an industrial economy to a service economy has quite fundamental impact on the nature of growth.
    - hikingsimulator 4y ago
      Do you have a current source on the decoupling claim accounting for outsourcing? That's a good trend if true.
      - dane-pgp 4y ago
        It was true in the UK ten years ago (although this Guardian article[0] tried to downplay the success): > The amount of greenhouse gases linked to goods and services consumed by UK households, including emissions from the foreign manufacture of imported products, rose by 3% between 2012 and 2013, the most recent data shows. But the figures are almost a fifth (19%) below the peak seen in 2007, when UK consumers were responsible for nearly 1.3bn tonnes of greenhouse gases. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/02/uks-carbon-footprint-rises-3 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/02/uks-carb...
    - lm28469 4y ago
      > The same goods (and better goods) take less energy and pollution to produce than in 2000 But thanks to the rebound effect we make/sell/trash more of them Like with airplanes, it doesn't matter that Rolls-Royce make their engines 5% more efficient every 10 years if in the meantime you have 4 times as many plane flying.
- throwanapple 4y ago
  A different analysis here: https://eeb.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Decoupling-Debunked.pdf https://eeb.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Decoupling-Debunk...
- lm28469 4y ago
  > GDP growth has become decoupled from energy use for a few decades already, already before year 2000 Only because we delocalised all the industries to Asia, globally co2 = gdp, before and after 2010 https://jancovici.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/GDP-CO2-world-768x443.jpg https://jancovici.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/GDP-CO2-wor... https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gabe-Scelta-2/publication/331072601/figure/fig2/AS:725891374141444@1550077398942/GDP-and-CO2-emissions-growth.png https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gabe-Scelta-2/publicati...
oceanplexian 4y ago
The USA is the exact opposite example of this. US carbon emissions have fallen 15% since 2005 but the massive US economy continues to grow. There’s no requirement that more growth always == more pollution.

honkler 4y ago

population cannot shrink forever