




So much of the analysis of how we respond to climate change assumes that economic growth and emissions reduction are compatible goals. But is this wishful thinking? To question maximising economic growth as an organising principle of society seems close to economic heresy.
But is there any evidence that we can de-link consumption and economic growth from emissions growth? Must we re-think the very notion of growth and what it means to be genuinely prosperous?
As in his effusively reviewed book Prosperity Without Growth Professor Tim Jackson helps us both understand and chart a course to a new, truly rich and lasting human prosperity.
Tip: In your comment, you can link to a particular point in the video like this: 0m30s for the 30th second, or 4m18s for 4 minutes and 18 seconds in.
Great presentation, and fantastic work to have the video up so quickly. What I wanted to ask Tim was what he makes of the current resources tax debate. One of the key government defences is that it will ultimately be good for the industry and lead to expansion. Yet nowhere in the debate is there any accounting for the climate, environmental or human health cost of the mining industry, which will only worsen with any expansion - especially in the absence of an effective ETS or strong carbon tax. I support the resources tax, and would do so even more so if it served to put a brake on damaging and excessive mineral extraction. What says Tim?
Darren Lewin-Hill
10 June at 02:04PM
at last someone who is coming to the table with fresh ideas about positive steps we can take towards solving our planet's challenges. PWG should be required reading for everyone in business and policymaking positions... thank you Tim.
15 June at 10:53AM
the simplest ideas are often the most powerful:
'How Can We Redefine PROSPERITY to Serve Mankind?'
Brilliant.
15 June at 10:54AM
crap - unlikely ever to get policy buy-in by a party system where votes equal power.
phil debach
08 November at 07:18AM