So glad you invited Erin, one of the clearest 'columnists' on LinkedIn and beyond. Fareed Zakaria's new book "The Age of Revolutions" is important in this context too, and his main message is that we need to be alert to, and prepared for, the inevitable cultural backlash when social change happens quickly. https://www.cbsnews.com/video/fareed-zakaria-on-age-of-revolutions/ (this one only gets to the book at 04:18! There are also some great in-depth long interviews - this one with Max Boot is quite good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNpVv8-pH6A
Unfortunately, the backlash is inevitable. However, by focusing on the elemental nature of the converging crises that confront us, instead of falling back on old largely useless ideologies and tropes, we can help people realize what is actually happening, not some misunderstanding of what we are trying to say.
Independent surveys have demonstrated that when people are asked about the actual substantive issues, denuded of ideological baggage, they are far more reasonable than generally characterized in the media. That is why it is important to talk about what a non-violent 'revolution' would entail than to use the word at all,
Great interview, Rachel. One of the most important things Erin discussed is the nature of complex contagions. Why? Because in the search for tipping points to mobilize REAL climate action, the very nature of social networks is key.
As Erin pointed out, in reference to the work of Damon Centola, the research shows that social movements are not really like disease vectors. To lead to a social movement, 'wide bridges' (multiple strong connections) between strong networks are necessary for complex contagions to occur and grow exponentially. Given the urgency of the need to counter accelerating ecocide, finding ways to initiate a global mobilization for climate/ecological crisis reversal will likely require the application of these principles very soon.
We have historical examples of mobilization, but we do not yet have a clear methodology that can be deployed at scale for accelerating global climate mobilization. Erin's work with ReBiz certainly points in the right direction.
Rather than thousands of organizations struggling with their own problems and being unable to ever break through, everyone needs to realize unless money is out of USA politics nobody will reach their goals of a better world. I see our crony capitalism infecting the whole world while the media covers up for them. We need to connect, focus on the problem every group has (corruption) then, the great people of the world can progress and start to solve problems rather than ignore or fight hard for it to get nowhere. Love your work, so much appreciated! ☮️☝️❤️🌍
Reducing emissions is so much easier when we aren't increasing our energy use, or even better, if we are reducing our energy use. Why would we make the challenge more difficult than it needs to be when we still have so far to go? GHG emissions aren't the planetary boundary we are exceeding either, we must not have 'carbon tunnel vision': https://www.wwf.org.uk/sites/default/files/2021-06/Thriving_within_our_planetary_means_full_report.pdf
Yes, AND the tricky part is to do it globally… The UK was able to achieve that decoupling partially due to moving emissions (from production) offshores. A deeper level of awakening to walk away from unbridled consumerism spawned by racilaized imperialism is also needed.
To say decoupling is possible and we "should just get on with it" is not so very different from saying fusion energy is possible and we should just get on with it. That is, in certain circumstances, it has been shown that it can be achieved, but we are a very long way from being able to make it happen at the scale required, and even if we could it would bring a series other contradictions to the fore - eg, worsening the situation for other global limits. A couple of quotes from Vogel & Hickel (2023), " Is green growth happening? An empirical analysis..." https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2542-5196%2823%2900174-2 :
1) The study shows that the UK, as you suggest, does better than almost all other countries in terms of decoupling but even that is close to nothing in terms of meeting the obligations to stay under 1.5 degrees: "The UK, which combines relatively low per-capita emissions (6•9 Gt/cap in 2022) with relatively fast 2013–19 decoupling of 5•3% per year, would need to more than triple its decoupling rate by 2025 (to 17•4% per year) and accelerate it by a factor of almost five by 2030 (to 23•9% per year)."
2) High income countries in general: "At the achieved rates, these countries would on average take more than 220 years to reduce their emissions by 95%, emitting 27 times their remaining 1•5°C fair-shares in the process. To meet their 1•5°C fair-shares alongside continued economic growth, decoupling rates would on average need to increase by a factor of ten by 2025."
3) "Interpretation: The decoupling rates achieved in high-income countries are inadequate for meeting the climate and equity commitments of the Paris Agreement and cannot legitimately be considered green. If green is to be consistent with the Paris Agreement, then high-income countries have not achieved green growth, and are very unlikely to be able to achieve it in the future. To achieve Paris-compliant emission reductions, high-income countries will need to pursue post-growth demand-reduction strategies, reorienting the economy towards sufficiency, equity, and human wellbeing, while also accelerating technological change and efficiency improvements."
We have to consider the emissions embedded in trade: our consumption causes emissions in other parts of the world , with less production and social regulation, to increase. So a fair comparison with GDP needs to assessed against trade emissions. Again, it’s not only about emissions but about our ecological footprint. Since CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over a thousand years (40% still there after 100 years) it’s fair to say that a country should also include its historic emissions including those by colonisation. If we do that, UK, France, Belgium, all have a huge debt in emissions to capture.
You got to a really true and important place in this interview, particularly when you talked about the infiltration of the environmentalist movement by the CIA. As you know, the documents exist, but it's more than that. Environmentalism itself came out of the same Anticommunism that motivated the CIA. It was created by the ruling class, and so it was created to fail.
I enjoyed this conversation, agree with loads of it, and like the framing of information and tipping points.
However I came to comment on my frustration when asked about how to push towards change, Erin's suggestion seemed to be to hope for slow and incremental change via our existing political systems by creeping up the numbers of green politicians!? Might be (a tiny bit) more relevant in Oz, but in the UK with our FPTP system, lobbyng money, and elitist leadship class, this really doesn't cut it as a outline of action.
I think this points to a broader issue around inaction in this space. There is a huge number of people out there talking a lot of sense, but one suspects spend an awful amount of their time and energy talking to already like-minded people (or each other) on the internet. I get disheartened when I see yet another $1,000 online course to learn about what needs to change - even though I'm sure I broadly agree with the contents. Not specifically snarky towards Erin, as in and of itself I'm sure it's all good stuff. But cumulatively online courses and essays on substack and linkedin do not really feel like precursors to meaningful change.
Project tipping point is $165 with code LAUNCH65, but entirely voluntary and if that’s not what you deem to be effective, please, you do you. No one is forcing you run an online course, or write on substack or LinkedIn (funny how doing these things is ineffective, but seemingly criticising the people doing them is somehow “effective”).
Hello - apologies! In my head I wasn't criticising anyone specifically, and certainly not you personally. Everyone needs to make a living in this bonkers system, and hats off to you for making it work combined with fighting the good fight.
What I wastrying to articulate was more of a general frustration that the types of knowledge and perspectives in your work, and I'd include Planet Critical in this, is still SO niche in terms of mainstream social / cultural / political discourse. And often set behind rather high paywalls. But tbf I hadn't clocked the free course, so consider me corrected.
It's just not on the table in UK politics. Worse than that, the Tories are doing their best to draw environmental awareness into the culture wars, and the incoming Labour government and their obsession with their bullshit "Green Growth" agenda really don't inspire much hope either. So, unlike you, I guess I don't have much faith in the existing structures of power acknowledging these issues, let alone addressing them. And I'm intrigued, but also extrememly nervous of your thing about maybe having to get to Trump before we realise how bad things are. Feels extrememly dangerous.
Nor do I think that commenting on substack is effective in any way, FWIW.
However, the whole point is that "niche" must be put "on the table." The mainstream is business as usual and is, as Erin put it, "...a death march." I know that is hard to accept, but all you have to do is look at the trajectory of the data, even the longstanding underestimates of the IPCC. It all points to collapse of the mainstream political economy. Only extreme collective and comprehensive action to "shrink the technosphere" (Orlov) offers a viable (though not guaranteed) path foward.
Absolutely it needs to be put on the table. Quite how this happens is another question.
XR had a promising moment in 2019/2020, but with the energy diffused by Covid and some questionable campaign strategy decisions, it's really hard to see how this stuff can break into the mainstream again.
Waiting for it all to go to shit is not a strategy as it will a) result in a lot more mainstream noise around the various resulting chaos, which will crowd out the more nuanced "shrinking the technosphere" perspective and b) massively increases the potential for other forces who are better organised, better funded, and have simpler answers to seize the moment and grab hold of the narrative.
My goodness. It seems that there is a strand of people who seem to believe that we can all live a beautiful life, using a bit less energy, if only we can stop the addiction with growth. I know it's hard to come to terms with reality but surely that is the best approach for how we deal with living in an unsustainable society that is causing so much damage?
How on earth can we have more free time in a sustainable future? For sustainability, we need to consume resources only at or, preferably, below the renewal rates for those resources and not do damage to the environment that it can't recover from. Degrowth, as imagined by people like Jason Hickel, can't give us a sustainable society. As far as I can tell, that is a fantasy. If you want to fashion a society that could last for, say, a couple of centuries, then maybe degrowth can get you there (though those centuries would eventually end). But an idyllic life where you have loads of free time with very little work and universal basic services is not sustainable. Stuff fails and deteriorates. Your affordable home needs repair. Recycling can never be close to 100% for all the materials a steady state economy would require, so you'd still be mining stuff and processing stuff, polluting the environment and removing habitat. For sustainability, we would almost all be involved in getting food onto the table, or the log. Every day, probably.
I'd love for Erin and Rachael to be right, I really would. But I've never seen anything to convince me that their visions, as espoused in this episode, are possible. I haven't even seen the practical side of a planned degrowth economy (how it works, day to day). Degrowth will happen but it is not likely to be planned.
Degrowth WILL happen, whether planned or chaotic. We don't need to dismiss presumed projections of utopia on to those who seek strategies out of the greatest predicament to ever confront humanity... Entropy is always lurking in the shadows or right up front. However, in stable ecosystems it is at least delayed for an indeterminate time. That is why the hopeful realism Erin and Rachel express is so VALUABLE. They point to optimizing what is to be done, even knowing that the path is difficult in the extreme and the outcome will never be perfect, but that some humans and other species may survive and flourish. All sorts of possibilities are yet to be fully explored, but most are beyond the vision of the modern suburban mind. That is why we need more Erins and Rachels.
I would just like thinkers to explore what is actually possible and sustainable. A dream of everyone living a comfortable life seems to be just a dream, though, as I say, I'd love to be proven wrong. When people espouse such possible futures, I wish they could point to detailed research or analysis showing that such a future is even technically possible.
Interesting your comment that "a society that could last for a couple of centuries" could conceivably be possible via degrowth, but then "that time would end", basically because, as you assert, no economy is truly circular and we will go on drawing down the Earth's ecological capital. It's a valid point, but I think that if we are able to make that big change, turn society around and become degrowth-oriented (extremely difficult task!), the very long term perspectives will become more important in our individual and collective outlooks, and one of those aspects is (and your figure of two centuries is a comfortable time to apply it) to get to a human population level on the planet which will indeed be sustainable for thousands of years. Once we allow human population to fall to about one billion globally (to use an often quoted figure) then many of the objections that you make tend to disappear, because with far fewer humans, and each one consuming much less, there is less mess and more planet and more other life to reabsorb it.
Sustainability, though, is more than just numbers of people. It is actually more about what those people do. 1 billion living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle may be sustainable (for the sake of argument) but 1 billion living at a standard that's similar to, say, the US current average, would not be sustainable. If what we do is, itself, unsustainable then it doesn't matter how many of us there are, the result is still unsustainable. A sustainable way of life means not consuming any resource beyond its renewal rate (which includes not consuming any non-renewable resource) and not damaging the environment beyond its ability to assimilate that damage.
Yes, a change to a sustainable way of living may lead to a change of perspective, generally, as a path to that change is followed. However, humans being humans, if we manage to achieve such a thing, it would probably only be a matter of time before groups start to try to gain some advantage by living unsustainably.
By the way, a circular economy could be sustainable but only if all resources were 100% recycled and all energy for that economy, including the recycling, could be provided only with recycled resources and never increased. Sadly, 100% recycling is impossible. Even 99% would be extremely difficult and would require unsustainable mining.
I don't know how many Mike Robertses there are but I'd like to think I'm one of them! I took a glance at that site and it certainly seems like it's worth exploring. Thanks, for that.
So glad you invited Erin, one of the clearest 'columnists' on LinkedIn and beyond. Fareed Zakaria's new book "The Age of Revolutions" is important in this context too, and his main message is that we need to be alert to, and prepared for, the inevitable cultural backlash when social change happens quickly. https://www.cbsnews.com/video/fareed-zakaria-on-age-of-revolutions/ (this one only gets to the book at 04:18! There are also some great in-depth long interviews - this one with Max Boot is quite good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNpVv8-pH6A
Unfortunately, the backlash is inevitable. However, by focusing on the elemental nature of the converging crises that confront us, instead of falling back on old largely useless ideologies and tropes, we can help people realize what is actually happening, not some misunderstanding of what we are trying to say.
Independent surveys have demonstrated that when people are asked about the actual substantive issues, denuded of ideological baggage, they are far more reasonable than generally characterized in the media. That is why it is important to talk about what a non-violent 'revolution' would entail than to use the word at all,
Great interview, Rachel. One of the most important things Erin discussed is the nature of complex contagions. Why? Because in the search for tipping points to mobilize REAL climate action, the very nature of social networks is key.
As Erin pointed out, in reference to the work of Damon Centola, the research shows that social movements are not really like disease vectors. To lead to a social movement, 'wide bridges' (multiple strong connections) between strong networks are necessary for complex contagions to occur and grow exponentially. Given the urgency of the need to counter accelerating ecocide, finding ways to initiate a global mobilization for climate/ecological crisis reversal will likely require the application of these principles very soon.
We have historical examples of mobilization, but we do not yet have a clear methodology that can be deployed at scale for accelerating global climate mobilization. Erin's work with ReBiz certainly points in the right direction.
Both of you inspire!
Thank you Robert!
Rather than thousands of organizations struggling with their own problems and being unable to ever break through, everyone needs to realize unless money is out of USA politics nobody will reach their goals of a better world. I see our crony capitalism infecting the whole world while the media covers up for them. We need to connect, focus on the problem every group has (corruption) then, the great people of the world can progress and start to solve problems rather than ignore or fight hard for it to get nowhere. Love your work, so much appreciated! ☮️☝️❤️🌍
I'm currently taking the reBiz course and it's honestly evolved me already.
The UK has quadrupled GDP since 1980 and halved emissions. So decoupling emissions from GDP is possible, we just need to get on with it!
Reducing emissions is so much easier when we aren't increasing our energy use, or even better, if we are reducing our energy use. Why would we make the challenge more difficult than it needs to be when we still have so far to go? GHG emissions aren't the planetary boundary we are exceeding either, we must not have 'carbon tunnel vision': https://www.wwf.org.uk/sites/default/files/2021-06/Thriving_within_our_planetary_means_full_report.pdf
Yes, AND the tricky part is to do it globally… The UK was able to achieve that decoupling partially due to moving emissions (from production) offshores. A deeper level of awakening to walk away from unbridled consumerism spawned by racilaized imperialism is also needed.
To say decoupling is possible and we "should just get on with it" is not so very different from saying fusion energy is possible and we should just get on with it. That is, in certain circumstances, it has been shown that it can be achieved, but we are a very long way from being able to make it happen at the scale required, and even if we could it would bring a series other contradictions to the fore - eg, worsening the situation for other global limits. A couple of quotes from Vogel & Hickel (2023), " Is green growth happening? An empirical analysis..." https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2542-5196%2823%2900174-2 :
1) The study shows that the UK, as you suggest, does better than almost all other countries in terms of decoupling but even that is close to nothing in terms of meeting the obligations to stay under 1.5 degrees: "The UK, which combines relatively low per-capita emissions (6•9 Gt/cap in 2022) with relatively fast 2013–19 decoupling of 5•3% per year, would need to more than triple its decoupling rate by 2025 (to 17•4% per year) and accelerate it by a factor of almost five by 2030 (to 23•9% per year)."
2) High income countries in general: "At the achieved rates, these countries would on average take more than 220 years to reduce their emissions by 95%, emitting 27 times their remaining 1•5°C fair-shares in the process. To meet their 1•5°C fair-shares alongside continued economic growth, decoupling rates would on average need to increase by a factor of ten by 2025."
3) "Interpretation: The decoupling rates achieved in high-income countries are inadequate for meeting the climate and equity commitments of the Paris Agreement and cannot legitimately be considered green. If green is to be consistent with the Paris Agreement, then high-income countries have not achieved green growth, and are very unlikely to be able to achieve it in the future. To achieve Paris-compliant emission reductions, high-income countries will need to pursue post-growth demand-reduction strategies, reorienting the economy towards sufficiency, equity, and human wellbeing, while also accelerating technological change and efficiency improvements."
We have to consider the emissions embedded in trade: our consumption causes emissions in other parts of the world , with less production and social regulation, to increase. So a fair comparison with GDP needs to assessed against trade emissions. Again, it’s not only about emissions but about our ecological footprint. Since CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over a thousand years (40% still there after 100 years) it’s fair to say that a country should also include its historic emissions including those by colonisation. If we do that, UK, France, Belgium, all have a huge debt in emissions to capture.
You might want to read this article: https://eciu.net/insights/2021/why-the-uks-1-of-global-emissions-is-a-big-deal
So yes we need to get on with it and at a much faster pace.
You got to a really true and important place in this interview, particularly when you talked about the infiltration of the environmentalist movement by the CIA. As you know, the documents exist, but it's more than that. Environmentalism itself came out of the same Anticommunism that motivated the CIA. It was created by the ruling class, and so it was created to fail.
I enjoyed this conversation, agree with loads of it, and like the framing of information and tipping points.
However I came to comment on my frustration when asked about how to push towards change, Erin's suggestion seemed to be to hope for slow and incremental change via our existing political systems by creeping up the numbers of green politicians!? Might be (a tiny bit) more relevant in Oz, but in the UK with our FPTP system, lobbyng money, and elitist leadship class, this really doesn't cut it as a outline of action.
I think this points to a broader issue around inaction in this space. There is a huge number of people out there talking a lot of sense, but one suspects spend an awful amount of their time and energy talking to already like-minded people (or each other) on the internet. I get disheartened when I see yet another $1,000 online course to learn about what needs to change - even though I'm sure I broadly agree with the contents. Not specifically snarky towards Erin, as in and of itself I'm sure it's all good stuff. But cumulatively online courses and essays on substack and linkedin do not really feel like precursors to meaningful change.
Have a read of this & see how the greens & Independents in Australia managed to secure more seats. We too have lobbyists & Murdoch.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2022-07-20/how-change-happens-lessons-from-australias-bombshell-election/
Project tipping point is $165 with code LAUNCH65, but entirely voluntary and if that’s not what you deem to be effective, please, you do you. No one is forcing you run an online course, or write on substack or LinkedIn (funny how doing these things is ineffective, but seemingly criticising the people doing them is somehow “effective”).
Hello - apologies! In my head I wasn't criticising anyone specifically, and certainly not you personally. Everyone needs to make a living in this bonkers system, and hats off to you for making it work combined with fighting the good fight.
What I wastrying to articulate was more of a general frustration that the types of knowledge and perspectives in your work, and I'd include Planet Critical in this, is still SO niche in terms of mainstream social / cultural / political discourse. And often set behind rather high paywalls. But tbf I hadn't clocked the free course, so consider me corrected.
It's just not on the table in UK politics. Worse than that, the Tories are doing their best to draw environmental awareness into the culture wars, and the incoming Labour government and their obsession with their bullshit "Green Growth" agenda really don't inspire much hope either. So, unlike you, I guess I don't have much faith in the existing structures of power acknowledging these issues, let alone addressing them. And I'm intrigued, but also extrememly nervous of your thing about maybe having to get to Trump before we realise how bad things are. Feels extrememly dangerous.
Nor do I think that commenting on substack is effective in any way, FWIW.
All the best
However, the whole point is that "niche" must be put "on the table." The mainstream is business as usual and is, as Erin put it, "...a death march." I know that is hard to accept, but all you have to do is look at the trajectory of the data, even the longstanding underestimates of the IPCC. It all points to collapse of the mainstream political economy. Only extreme collective and comprehensive action to "shrink the technosphere" (Orlov) offers a viable (though not guaranteed) path foward.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-12-29/review-shrinking-the-technosphere-by-dmitry-orlov/
Absolutely it needs to be put on the table. Quite how this happens is another question.
XR had a promising moment in 2019/2020, but with the energy diffused by Covid and some questionable campaign strategy decisions, it's really hard to see how this stuff can break into the mainstream again.
Waiting for it all to go to shit is not a strategy as it will a) result in a lot more mainstream noise around the various resulting chaos, which will crowd out the more nuanced "shrinking the technosphere" perspective and b) massively increases the potential for other forces who are better organised, better funded, and have simpler answers to seize the moment and grab hold of the narrative.
Thank you Rachel. Great to hear more from Erin. This article is also interesting to add to the content and insights available to bring about change - see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162523003244
Steffi might also be an interesting guest for a podcast - see https://www.climatepsychologyandchange.com/
My goodness. It seems that there is a strand of people who seem to believe that we can all live a beautiful life, using a bit less energy, if only we can stop the addiction with growth. I know it's hard to come to terms with reality but surely that is the best approach for how we deal with living in an unsustainable society that is causing so much damage?
How on earth can we have more free time in a sustainable future? For sustainability, we need to consume resources only at or, preferably, below the renewal rates for those resources and not do damage to the environment that it can't recover from. Degrowth, as imagined by people like Jason Hickel, can't give us a sustainable society. As far as I can tell, that is a fantasy. If you want to fashion a society that could last for, say, a couple of centuries, then maybe degrowth can get you there (though those centuries would eventually end). But an idyllic life where you have loads of free time with very little work and universal basic services is not sustainable. Stuff fails and deteriorates. Your affordable home needs repair. Recycling can never be close to 100% for all the materials a steady state economy would require, so you'd still be mining stuff and processing stuff, polluting the environment and removing habitat. For sustainability, we would almost all be involved in getting food onto the table, or the log. Every day, probably.
I'd love for Erin and Rachael to be right, I really would. But I've never seen anything to convince me that their visions, as espoused in this episode, are possible. I haven't even seen the practical side of a planned degrowth economy (how it works, day to day). Degrowth will happen but it is not likely to be planned.
Degrowth WILL happen, whether planned or chaotic. We don't need to dismiss presumed projections of utopia on to those who seek strategies out of the greatest predicament to ever confront humanity... Entropy is always lurking in the shadows or right up front. However, in stable ecosystems it is at least delayed for an indeterminate time. That is why the hopeful realism Erin and Rachel express is so VALUABLE. They point to optimizing what is to be done, even knowing that the path is difficult in the extreme and the outcome will never be perfect, but that some humans and other species may survive and flourish. All sorts of possibilities are yet to be fully explored, but most are beyond the vision of the modern suburban mind. That is why we need more Erins and Rachels.
I would just like thinkers to explore what is actually possible and sustainable. A dream of everyone living a comfortable life seems to be just a dream, though, as I say, I'd love to be proven wrong. When people espouse such possible futures, I wish they could point to detailed research or analysis showing that such a future is even technically possible.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652624008953
Thanks. I'll take a look, though it may take some time as I'm just starting something else which will take most of my time for the next month or so.
https://www.frontiersin.org/news/2023/06/26/kate-soper-the-growth-agenda-is-no-longer-feasible-what-is-the-alternative/
Interesting your comment that "a society that could last for a couple of centuries" could conceivably be possible via degrowth, but then "that time would end", basically because, as you assert, no economy is truly circular and we will go on drawing down the Earth's ecological capital. It's a valid point, but I think that if we are able to make that big change, turn society around and become degrowth-oriented (extremely difficult task!), the very long term perspectives will become more important in our individual and collective outlooks, and one of those aspects is (and your figure of two centuries is a comfortable time to apply it) to get to a human population level on the planet which will indeed be sustainable for thousands of years. Once we allow human population to fall to about one billion globally (to use an often quoted figure) then many of the objections that you make tend to disappear, because with far fewer humans, and each one consuming much less, there is less mess and more planet and more other life to reabsorb it.
Sustainability, though, is more than just numbers of people. It is actually more about what those people do. 1 billion living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle may be sustainable (for the sake of argument) but 1 billion living at a standard that's similar to, say, the US current average, would not be sustainable. If what we do is, itself, unsustainable then it doesn't matter how many of us there are, the result is still unsustainable. A sustainable way of life means not consuming any resource beyond its renewal rate (which includes not consuming any non-renewable resource) and not damaging the environment beyond its ability to assimilate that damage.
Yes, a change to a sustainable way of living may lead to a change of perspective, generally, as a path to that change is followed. However, humans being humans, if we manage to achieve such a thing, it would probably only be a matter of time before groups start to try to gain some advantage by living unsustainably.
By the way, a circular economy could be sustainable but only if all resources were 100% recycled and all energy for that economy, including the recycling, could be provided only with recycled resources and never increased. Sadly, 100% recycling is impossible. Even 99% would be extremely difficult and would require unsustainable mining.
Wowsers, is this THE Mike Roberts?!
Have you come across https://chrissmaje.com? I think you and he would agree on some fundamentals….
I don't know how many Mike Robertses there are but I'd like to think I'm one of them! I took a glance at that site and it certainly seems like it's worth exploring. Thanks, for that.