Can you explain to me the difference between "liberal growth-based economics" and "conservative growth-based economics," and why one of them is worse for the environment than the other?
Ummm, no. I can't. But I never claimed one side's policies are "worse" for the environment, and I acknowledged I'm picking on liberals because of the two groups, they are more likely to be the defenders of the environment.
Democrats, like Republicans, are capitalists, which is somewhat antithetical to the idea of sustainability. It's an issue our species is going to have to resolve somehow if we expect to survive: growth obviously cannot be sustained forever.
If your time scale is "forever," it's easy to concede this point. Of course, growth cannot occur forever in a finite environment. There are varying levels of denial around infinite growth (the "then we'll colonize space" arguments), and then there are a few who fully accept it. If it's acknowledged that growth cannot occur forever, the question becomes "when does growth need to stop?"
(The capitalists in the room shriek with horror) I think it needed to stop at least a few decades ago.
(and the shrieks become louder).
How can a libertarian leaner post such things? For one thing, I would want the Federal Government to retain some of its environmental protection powers, because companies creating massive environmental externalities frankly should be considered criminal, in my opinion. But beyond that, people need to get smacked with the painful consequences of their decisions, rather than be taken care of by their government. And if they are left to fend for themselves, markets rebalance. If companies won't hire, won't pay higher wages, that's fine, because eventually they'll lose sales when no one makes money to afford their products. Laissez faire economic policies are somewhat like Darwinian evolution, and in that sense, we are less likely to dramatically outgrow the carrying capacities of our local ecosystems and economies, because if our idea fails, we aren't propped up by a federal bailout of some sort, and we are forced to adapt.
Even .1% growth
eventually leads you to a scenario where resource consumption would require you to expand your sphere of usable resources faster than light speed.
It sounds so weird, doesn't it? But it's true. .1% growth per year forever eventually turns parabolic like so many of the other graphs related to our population and activities over the last several hundred years look like.
Going back to my previous question, "when does growth need to stop," I think that time is when your population and production and consumption graphs go parabolic. A skyward rise, line going from relatively horizontal to pretty much vertical. Then your time is fast approaching. And what will be the tipping point? Oil price spikes related to production declines.
