De-growth: Do you realise what it means?

Trainer, Ted

doi:10.1016/j.futures.2012.03.020

Cited by 91 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Appendix A Philippe (2008) 19 Johanisova and Wolf (2012) 37 Domènech et al (2013) 2 Huppes and Ishikawa (2009) 20 Kallis et al (2012) 38 Garver (2013) 3 Cattaneo and Gavaldà (2010) 21 Klitgaard and Krall (2012) 39 Infante Amate and González de Molina (2013) 4 Hueting (2010) 22 Muraca (2012) 40 Jarvensivu (2013) 5 Kallis and Martínez-Alier (2010) 23 Nierling (2012) 41 Johanisova et al (2013) 6 Latouche (2010) 24 Speth (2012) 42 Kallis et al (2013) 7 Lietaert (2010) 25 Tokic (2012) 43 Kallis (2013) 8 Martínez-Alier et al (2010) 26 Trainer (2012) 44 Karlsson (2013) 9 Matthey (2010) 27 van den Bergh and 45 Lorek and Fuchs (2013) 10 Schneider et al (2010) 28 van Griethuysen (2012) 46 Mauerhofer (2013) 11 Berg and Hukkinen (2011) 29 Xue et al (2012) 47 Nørgård (2013) 12 Hall (2011) 30 Alcott (2013) 48 Sekulova et al (2013) 13 Kallis (2011) 31 Alexander (2013) 49 Sorman and Giampietro (2013) 14 Schneider et al (2011) 32 Boonstra and Joose (2013) 50 Andreoni and Galmarini (2014) 15 Alexander (2012) 33 Borowy (2013) 51 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the degrowth discourse: A review and analysis of academic degrowth policy proposals

Cosme

Santos

O'Neill

2017

Journal of Cleaner Production

208

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights We present a review of a selection of peer-reviewed degrowth articles. We identify inconsistencies between the degrowth discourse and proposals for action. Identified degrowth proposals are mainly national top-down approaches not local bottom-up ones. Proposals aim for sustainable scale and fair distribution over efficient allocation. Proposals should be analysed in combination to arrive at a degrowth policy mix. ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTand analysing a set of proposals for action retrieved from a selection of articles. total of 128 peerreviewed articles focused on degrowth were reviewed, and 54 that include proposals for action were analysed. The proposals identified align with three broad goals: (1) Reduce the environmental impact of human activities; (2) Redistribute income and wealth both within and between countries; and (3) Promote the transition from a materialistic to a convivial and participatory society. The findings indicate that the majority of degrowth proposals are national top-down approaches, focusing on government as a major driver of change, rather than local bottom-up approaches, as advocated by many degrowth proponents. The most emphasised aspects in the degrowth literature are related to social equity, closely followed by environmental sustainability. Topics such as population growth and the implications of degrowth for developing nations are largely neglected, and represent an important area for future research. Moreover, there is a need for a deeper analysis of how degrowth proposals would act in combination.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the degrowth discourse: A review and analysis of academic degrowth policy proposals

Cosme

Santos

O'Neill

2017

Journal of Cleaner Production

208

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is usually argued for along three lines of reasoning: (i) natural limits to growth and the planet's carrying capacity have already been surpassed so a reduction in economic activities is needed to re-establish balance; (ii) natural limits may not have been surpassed yet, but inevitably soon they will and a planned and conscious de-growth is more desirable than an unplanned costly decline or collapse [103] and (iii) currently the cost of maintaining the status-quo far overweighs the benefits in terms of quality of life [98,99,[104][105][106]. The implications of aiming at de-growth are far reaching [100,[107][108][109] and often associated with vast societal transformation towards more democratic, locally focussed communities and a rejection of capitalist beliefs. As a result, this narrative is often seen as utopian and so extreme to lie largely beyond the mainstream political discourse.…”

Section: Analysis: Interpreting Our Results Within Common Narratives mentioning

confidence: 99%

Citizens’ Views of Australia’s Future to 2050

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In four focus group exercises involving both forecasting and backcasting approaches, we gave approximately 100 Australian citizens the opportunity to discuss likely, desirable and feared futures to 2050. The image they paint is both coherent and consistent. Education, governance, personal attitudes and societal trends, rather than specific events, are drivers of a future which is perceived as being largely shaped by human choices. Innovation is believed to be more necessary in novel social arrangements than in further technology. The most feared futures arise from an amplification of trends already at play in the present: economic growth at the expense of the environment and quality of life, lack of equity, poor government, corporate greed, commercialism and erosion of social values. Economic and material growth does not feature in the most desired futures which are local, inclusive, peaceful, equitable and in some cases frugal. The visions and scenarios developed find a place within established foresight frameworks and global political narratives, but seem to lie at the fringe of current media and short-term political discourse. These results should not be interpreted as representative of the overall Australian population, but suggest that extending the analysis to the broader community could provide significant insights and enrich the discussion of important societal choices. OPEN ACCESSSustainability 2015, 7 223

show abstract

“…Hueting (2010), along with an increasing number of researchers (see for example, Schneider et al, 2010;Kallis, 2011;Trainer, 2012; the contributors to two recent Special Issues in The Journal of Cleaner Production in 2010 and 2013), doubt that environmental sustainability can be attained if production, and thus GDP, continues to grow. Degrowth will therefore be necessary, they argue.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A degrowth policy, and with it the need for deep cuts in both energy and GHGs, would evidently affect all sectors, not just transport. Indeed, Trainer (2012) has argued that it cannot be achieved 'without replacing several of the fundamental structures and systems of consumer-capitalist society.' Energy use and CO 2 emissions are unlikely to decline 'naturally' in growing economies: the decrease in national CO 2 emissions observed in many OECD countries from 1990 to 2008 was largely caused by a rise in imports of energy and CO 2 intensive manufactured imports from Asia (Peters et al, 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%