悲观主义与增长困境脱钩。对Jackson et al.（2024）的回复

IF 6.3 2区经济学 Q1 ECOLOGY

Ecological Economics Pub Date : 2025-03-03 DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108580

Rikard H. Warlenius

{"title":"悲观主义与增长困境脱钩。对Jackson et al.（2024）的回复","authors":"Rikard H. Warlenius","doi":"10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108580","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Are most degrowth/postgrowth advocates “decoupling pessimists”, in the sense that they are critical about the possibilities to decouple carbon emissions from economic growth quickly and sufficiently? So I have claimed, but to my surprise, Tim Jackson, Jason Hickel, and Giorgos Kallis (2024) denounce that they are and instead claim that “most postgrowth scholars readily accept the need for high levels of decoupling”. Despite what is stated in <span><span>Hickel and Kallis (2020)</span></span> and how the article has been interpreted, they now further claim that there are no “definable limits to decoupling”.</div><div>In this reply to Jackson, Hickel and Kallis commentary, the foundation for why they were interpreted as decoupling pessimists is laid out, while their new and more optimist standpoint is welcomed. Further, my view on “the dilemma of growth” and how it differs from Jackson, Hickel and Kallis is elaborated. The difference revolves around the question of capitalism: can it be expected to stop growing, and is it likely to disappear within short? If the answer to both questions is no, strong decoupling is our best chance to avoid runaway climate change.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51021,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Economics","volume":"232 ","pages":"Article 108580"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Decoupling pessimism and the dilemma of growth. A reply to Jackson et al. (2024)\",\"authors\":\"Rikard H. Warlenius\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108580\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Are most degrowth/postgrowth advocates “decoupling pessimists”, in the sense that they are critical about the possibilities to decouple carbon emissions from economic growth quickly and sufficiently? So I have claimed, but to my surprise, Tim Jackson, Jason Hickel, and Giorgos Kallis (2024) denounce that they are and instead claim that “most postgrowth scholars readily accept the need for high levels of decoupling”. Despite what is stated in <span><span>Hickel and Kallis (2020)</span></span> and how the article has been interpreted, they now further claim that there are no “definable limits to decoupling”.</div><div>In this reply to Jackson, Hickel and Kallis commentary, the foundation for why they were interpreted as decoupling pessimists is laid out, while their new and more optimist standpoint is welcomed. Further, my view on “the dilemma of growth” and how it differs from Jackson, Hickel and Kallis is elaborated. The difference revolves around the question of capitalism: can it be expected to stop growing, and is it likely to disappear within short? If the answer to both questions is no, strong decoupling is our best chance to avoid runaway climate change.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51021,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecological Economics\",\"volume\":\"232 \",\"pages\":\"Article 108580\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecological Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800925000631\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800925000631","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

大多数“去增长/后增长”的倡导者都是“脱钩悲观主义者”吗？从某种意义上说，他们对快速、充分地将碳排放与经济增长脱钩的可能性持批评态度。但令我惊讶的是，蒂姆•杰克逊（Tim Jackson）、杰森•希克尔（Jason Hickel）和乔治斯•卡利斯（Giorgos Kallis）（2024年）谴责他们是这样，并声称“大多数后增长学者都欣然接受高度脱钩的必要性”。尽管Hickel和Kallis（2020）中说了什么，以及该文章是如何被解释的，但他们现在进一步声称，“脱钩没有可定义的限制”。在对Jackson， Hickel和Kallis评论的回复中，他们被解释为脱钩悲观主义者的基础被列出，而他们新的和更乐观的观点是受欢迎的。进一步阐述了我对“增长困境”的看法以及与Jackson， Hickel和Kallis的不同之处。两者的区别围绕着资本主义的问题：它能不能停止增长，它有可能在短期内消失？如果这两个问题的答案都是否定的，那么强力脱钩就是我们避免气候变化失控的最佳机会。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Decoupling pessimism and the dilemma of growth. A reply to Jackson et al. (2024)

Are most degrowth/postgrowth advocates “decoupling pessimists”, in the sense that they are critical about the possibilities to decouple carbon emissions from economic growth quickly and sufficiently? So I have claimed, but to my surprise, Tim Jackson, Jason Hickel, and Giorgos Kallis (2024) denounce that they are and instead claim that “most postgrowth scholars readily accept the need for high levels of decoupling”. Despite what is stated in Hickel and Kallis (2020) and how the article has been interpreted, they now further claim that there are no “definable limits to decoupling”.

In this reply to Jackson, Hickel and Kallis commentary, the foundation for why they were interpreted as decoupling pessimists is laid out, while their new and more optimist standpoint is welcomed. Further, my view on “the dilemma of growth” and how it differs from Jackson, Hickel and Kallis is elaborated. The difference revolves around the question of capitalism: can it be expected to stop growing, and is it likely to disappear within short? If the answer to both questions is no, strong decoupling is our best chance to avoid runaway climate change.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Ecological Economics 环境科学-环境科学

CiteScore

12.00

自引率

5.70%

发文量

313

审稿时长

6 months

期刊介绍： Ecological Economics is concerned with extending and integrating the understanding of the interfaces and interplay between "nature''s household" (ecosystems) and "humanity''s household" (the economy). Ecological economics is an interdisciplinary field defined by a set of concrete problems or challenges related to governing economic activity in a way that promotes human well-being, sustainability, and justice. The journal thus emphasizes critical work that draws on and integrates elements of ecological science, economics, and the analysis of values, behaviors, cultural practices, institutional structures, and societal dynamics. The journal is transdisciplinary in spirit and methodologically open, drawing on the insights offered by a variety of intellectual traditions, and appealing to a diverse readership. Specific research areas covered include: valuation of natural resources, sustainable agriculture and development, ecologically integrated technology, integrated ecologic-economic modelling at scales from local to regional to global, implications of thermodynamics for economics and ecology, renewable resource management and conservation, critical assessments of the basic assumptions underlying current economic and ecological paradigms and the implications of alternative assumptions, economic and ecological consequences of genetically engineered organisms, and gene pool inventory and management, alternative principles for valuing natural wealth, integrating natural resources and environmental services into national income and wealth accounts, methods of implementing efficient environmental policies, case studies of economic-ecologic conflict or harmony, etc. New issues in this area are rapidly emerging and will find a ready forum in Ecological Economics.