Re: Re: NYT on "No More Industrial Revoutions"

It depends how you define growth. If we were looking at growth of well-being rather than consumption, then obviously we could achieve it with less energy use. If we wish to continue seeing GDP grow, then we need to keep burning fuel despite the consequences (and likely impossibility). So it would be good if we agreed that we want growth in walking, cycling, public transit, friendliness, strong communities, healthy interactions, fun.......


________________________________
 From: eriksandblom <eriksandblom-/[email protected]>
To: [email protected] 
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 5:05 PM
Subject: [carfree_cities] Re: NYT on "No More Industrial Revoutions"
 

  


--- In [email protected], Richard Risemberg <rickrise@...> wrote:
> What do y'all think of Gordon's hypothesis?

I think peak oil is upon us but I'm not convinced of the energy=growth equation. I think growth is partly dependent on trust and human interactions such as described by Jane Jacobs. A lot of cities are moving to curb car traffic, and the price of suburban real estate appears to be falling. This could be taken as an example of society voluntarily moving away from energy use and toward filling economic growth with other values.

Predicting the future is notoriously difficult. The past is not always a reliable predictor, which Gordon's graphs clearly illustrate.


 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]