Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRanders, Jørgen
dc.date.accessioned2012-08-22T08:40:13Z
dc.date.available2012-08-22T08:40:13Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.identifier.issn0940-5550 (e-utg)
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11250/93630
dc.descriptionThis is an Open Access journalno_NO
dc.description.abstractThe book The Limits to Growth (Meadows et al. 1972) has been discussed aggressively for decades. Still it is not commonly known what this research report really did say when it was first published in March 1972. Many believe that The Limits to Growth (LtG) forecast the end of the world before the year 2000, using a big mathematical model of the world system. Others believe that LtG was a neo-Malthusian projection of population collapse in the 21st century, caused by global shortages of natural resources including oil and agricultural land. Others again think that it proved that economic growth cannot continue forever on a finite planet (see, e. g., Bardi 2008). Very few seem to know that LtG was a scenario analysis of twelve possible futures from 1972 to 2100. And that the main scientific conclusion of the study was that delays in global decision making would cause the human economy to overshoot planetary limits before the growth in the human ecological footprint slowed.Once in unsustainable territory, human society would be forced to reduce its rate of resource use and its rate of emissions. This contraction could only happen in two ways: either through “managed decline” organized by humanity, or through “collapse” induced by nature or the market. The only thing that could not happen was for world society to remain forever in unsustainable territory, using more of nature every year than nature produces during that year. Irrespective of what it really said, “growth will come to an end” was the imprecise summary that stuck with the book. This was unfortunate, because most believed that LtG spoke about “economic” growth, while it really spoke about growth in “the human ecological footprint” – an important distinction, because LtG opened for endless economic growth (in economic value) as long as that growth is not associated with growing physical impacts (e.g., in resource use or pollution output).no_NO
dc.language.isoengno_NO
dc.publisherOekom Verlagno_NO
dc.subjectecological economicsno_NO
dc.subjectecological footprintno_NO
dc.subjectenvironmental governanceno_NO
dc.subjectscenario analysisno_NO
dc.titleThe real message of The Limits to Growth: a plea for forward-looking global policyno_NO
dc.typeJournal articleno_NO
dc.typePeer reviewedno_NO
dc.source.pagenumber102-105no_NO
dc.source.volume21no_NO
dc.source.journalGaiano_NO
dc.source.issue2no_NO


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record