Talk:Uneconomic growth

deletion

This whole article is making a political issue out of a negative externality.

This is a nonsense term made up by anti-globalization advocates with a few digs at Bush thrown in for good measure.

Recommend for deletion. --Capsela 06:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I second the recommendation. This isn't an encyclopedic entry but a political pamphlet.radek 05:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I support deletion, though I've never wanted to delete an article before. Much, much too 1st world oriented; is growth bad if people get fed? DOR (HK) (talk) 08:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Extreme Normativity

This whole concept relies on establishing the normative good/bad benefits of growth. Normative judgements are different for all people.

Establishing vague "social and environmental" growth which by definition can't be empirically measured is absurd.

This is like creationists creating a psuedo-science like intelligent design. Only its hippie liberals instead of evangelicals doing the wool pulling.--Capsela 15:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It is, generally speaking, difficult to argue that the drying up of the Aral Sea, the disappearance of glacial reserves in the Himalayas, the or the development of hypoxic dead zones is anything but a 'bad' thing and thus a negative effect- by the logic of extreme subjectivism you're arguing, one could argue that economic growth in the traditional sense of expanded manufacturing, production, and service provision isn't really good because normative judgements are different for all people. What matters is that, on the whole, people tend to not find themselves benefitting from environmental degradation, just as they tend to find themselves benefitting from the availability of new products that increase their quality of life. --152.65.34.201 (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Deletion? I don't see why; clearly, even if term were "made up by a certain group of people" the accompanying text offers a view into an existing vision with references, and as such should have a place, whether you subscribe to it or not!

• I'm no expert in this area, but the concept of externality as explained on wikipedia to me has a very different intention and scope.
• The Bush examples were on the jabby side, but on the other hand do help to illustrate points, not just "dig".
• Good and bad are inherently bound to opinion and thus offer potential for controversy, the article addresses that in the context of the term.

--OnixWP 02:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite needed

This article needs a major rewrite -that is clear enough. It’s horribly POV (The original author seemed more concerned with bashing Bush then improving WP) However, the concept itself is entirely valid and in common usage (I have seen it a time or two). For example Scientific American had an 8 page article on the subject a few months ago (I think the September 2005 issue). I will try to track down that article and start a rewrite of the subject. I think Jeffrey D. Sachs did a piece on the same subject a while back. Anyway, some good info exists out there, just not on WP at the moment. So I will see what I can do with it. Brimba 16:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"Good vs Bad growth"

[I presume the above comments were made before significant rewriting; they appear to be quite irrelevant now.]

The example given in the "Good vs Bad growth" section is of cars being produced to run on renewable energy. This is a good step, but my understanding is that the vast majority of energy use / greenhouse gas emissions results from the production of the vehicle, not its own consumption/emission over its life.

To have a significantly smaller impact on the environment, the production of the vehicle must be greened. Should this be added to the article?

It is both, the production of the vehicle and the combustion fluid it uses (otherwise, there would be no problem with SUVs... On an other note, the example is just bad because you are measuring the growth of India, China, and Brazil versus an externality of the world. It may very well be that India, China, and Brazil will still want to buy all those cars even if they consider the effects of global warming. Thus, for them, it would be good growth. If the benefits they get out of getting the cars are greater then the costs brought to THEM by global warming, they may just carry out the transaction. All other countries that do not benefit from the car purchase made by Brazil, China, and India will be losers, and their growth will be adversely affected by the 'selfish' actions of the former three countries. Thus, we need to find a better example as this one relies on costs that will not be entirely internalized by the respective economies. If no one comes up with something, I will try in a few days... Lets try to come up with something a bit more deterministic. Brusegadi 06:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with "good" vs. "bad" growth is that it only applies to the rich. If you aren't rich, all growth is good. It may not be sustainable or economical or ecologically sound but if it puts food in the belly and literacy in the head, it is good growth. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I simply propose to remove this section Good vs Bad growth. This sort of superficial, naive comment without reliable sources may be in fact a dangerous simplification. For instance, it candidly encourages the use of highly questionable alternatives such as ethanol and nuclear. ---Yone Fernandes (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Link from Italian entry "Decrescita"

(My comment is not on the content of this entry as such, but on the link from the italian entry "Decrescita". If you go to it:Decrescita, the English link under other languages points here. I don't know what the appropriate place for this comment is.) This topic is not the right translation for the italian "Decrescita", a concept loosely translated as "de-growth", and surprisingly non-existent in english anywhere. The concept was coined by Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, who is nowhere mentioned in this entry.

I agree with you. I'm French and "La décroissance" is something quite different from "Uneconomic growth". We should begin the "De-growth" article... Ecureuil espagnol (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Others have expressed concern over this article. In my view, its just a negative externality. I suggest a rename and rewrite. Brusegadi (talk) 09:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just created the De-growth article, maybe we could delete this one.--Ecureuil espagnol (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the links to the others languages articles which was "Degrowth".--Ecureuil espagnol (talk) 08:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Global Warming is still disputable and their are many factors that prove it's wrong, including large global cooling in the 70s, heat causing co2, and sun spots. Research it if you like, but using Global Warming as an example is misleading. Not to mention typhoons and hurricanes are caused more frequently because of El Nino, which you can research if you'd like, it has NO link to cars.

Ethanol contributes to uneconomic growth

however, if the new automobiles were ethanol fuelled or hydrogen-fueled from non greenhouse gas producing energy sources such as solar, wind, or nuclear instead of petroleum-fueled, the effect on global warming might be very minor and not uneconomic at all.

This sentence is ridiculous because ethanol powered automobiles still contribute CO2 to the atmosphere. Current studies show that it may even be twice as much as gasoline powered vehicules and therefore contributes to unecomonic growth. It should be modified accordingly.

Paullb (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, one thing is that you have to ask yourself, where does the CO2 from ethanol come from? Plants use CO2 in the air to grow, so the CO2 from ethanol was already in the atmosphere whereas the one from gas was underground. The bad thing about ethanol is the it will encourage deforestation at some point (if not now.) If you have a reliable source for what you are saying then change it, if not, and this is not sourced, tag it as such :) Brusegadi (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Difficult to detect

I deleted the section called "Difficult to detect" because it was factually inaccurate. If you disagree please cite some references. 67.182.208.38 (talk) 04:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)