Articles

La course effrénée à la croissance ne convainc pas tous les entrepreneurs. Les sceptiques ? Les micro-entreprises, cœur du tissu économique français. Une étude met en lumière les raisons qui poussent certaines entreprises à ne pas croître.

Exclusive: As wildfires rage, Frank Elderson says more work needed to assess risk from collapse of ecosystem services

The concepts of Green Growth and Degrowth represent two major narratives in the public and academic debate on socio-ecological transformation. . . Using a comparative analysis of the two research fields, we confirm several findings from previous reviews, including that Green Growth research is highly policy oriented, focuses on practical implementation and builds on empirical research methods, while Degrowth research is highly theory-driven, focuses on the analysis of complex human-nature interrelationships and builds on a sound theoretical and conceptual foundation. Our analysis further reveals that Green Growth and Degrowth are two rather isolated fields of research with little exchange and mutual reference on related topics. However, the topic of social change and transition represents an intersecting and promising future research area. . . .

New research shows major lenders are accelerating their investment in Big Oil as the industry turns toward plastics and petrochemicals.

For most of the modern era, capitalism justified itself through growth. Industrial societies converted vast amounts of fossil energy into production, wealth, and rising living standards. Roads, bridges, power grids, schools, and public institutions expanded alongside the economy. Inequality and exploitation remained deeply embedded in the system, but they were partly obscured by a broader story of material progress.

Our roadmap has been shaped by experts across the world, from UN agencies to grassroots movements. We call on political leaders at all levels to use it

The ecological concept of human carrying capacity is necessarily complicated because human beings are the ‘ultimate ecosystem engineers’ who moderate the environment for their benefit. For at least the last few hundred years, human ingenuity, access to massive stocks of fossil fuels, and technological development have driven facilitation whereby increasing human abundance has promoted higher population growth rates. However, this positive relationship broke down during the 1950s, and by 1962, the global human population entered a phase where the growth rate consistently declined as population increased. The onset of this negative phase occurred 8 years before a global biocapacity deficit began in 1970. The onset of the negative phase also varies regionally, with the lowest-income and highest fertility regions entering this phase later than higher-income regions. A Ricker logistic model fitted to the negative phase predicts that the global population could reach 11.7–12.4 billion people between 2067 and 2076.

Children’s developing lungs make them vulnerable to air pollution.

Voici un article véritablement fascinant sur les origines physiques de la crise au Venezuela et une explication des raisons pour lesquelles il était dans l’intérêt des États-Unis de mener une guerre économique afin de prendre le contrôle des réserves pétrolières vénézuéliennes, à un moment où la rentabilité du pétrole américain était en déclin.

Much of today's sustainability discourse emphasizes efficiency, clean technologies, and smart systems, but largely underestimates fundamental physical constraints relating to energy-matter interactions. These constraints stem from the fact that Earth is a materially closed yet energetically open system, driven by the sustained but low power-density flux of solar radiation. This Perspective reframes sustainability within these axiomatic limits, integrating relevant timescales and orders of magnitude. We argue that fossil-fueled industrial metabolism is inherently incompatible with long-term viability, while post-fossil systems are surface-, materials-, and power-intensive. Long-term sustainability must therefore be defined not only by how much energy or material is used, but also by how it is used: favoring organic, carbon-based chemistry with limited reliance on purified metals, operating at low power density, and maintaining low throughput rates. Achieving this requires radical technological shifts toward l

Rights-based, post-growth policies that make poverty eradication a deliberate outcome of restructured economies — not a trickle-down side effect of destructive growth.

The growth rate of greenhouse gas (GHG) climate forcing increased rapidly in the last 15 years to about 0.5 W/m2 per decade, as shown by the “colorful chart” for GHG climate forcing that we have been publishing for 25 years (Fig. 1).[1] The chart is not in IPCC reports, perhaps because it reveals inconvenient facts. Although growth of GHG climate forcing declined rapidly after the 1987 Montreal Protocol, other opportunities to decrease climate forcing were missed. If policymakers do not appreciate the significance of present data on changing climate forcings, we scientists must share the blame.

Politici ratelen tijdens verkiezingsbijeenkomsten of in interviews vaak over het belang van economische groei voor onze welvaartsstaat. Maar, voor wie groeit onze economie precies? Deze complexe vraag proberen Anuna De Wever en Lena Hartog te beantwoorden in hun nieuwe film ‘The Cost of Growth’.

Four Prime Ministers in twelve months. Social protests in the streets. Extreme parties rising in the polls. President Macron, once seen as Europe's great reformer, seems politically finished. But what if France's paralysis is not an exception - what if it shows Europe's future?

The criminalization and repression of climate and environmental activists have intensified globally in the past few years.1 These are forms of backlash against often impactful social movements. The repressive wave has sparked major concerns in many quarters, with the UN secretary general, the UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders, and many nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), politicians, and social movements speaking out against it.2 In this article I will draw on findings from a University of Bristol project that I led on this topic.3 Driven by a combination of state and corporate actors, the repression of climate and environmental protest is a truly worldwide phenomenon that takes place across the Global North and South.

Je n’aurais jamais pensé écrire une réponse à Serge Latouche, l’un des pionniers de la décroissance.[1] Et pourtant, cela me parait nécessaire tant ses propos envers les degrowth studies sont problématiques.[2] Celui que l’on surnomme « le pape de la décroissance » n’aime pas la littérature anglophone (assez paradoxal d’ailleurs pour quelqu’un qui ne lit presque pas l’anglais). Un « recyclage médiatique » par des « universitaires opportunistes », un « vocable globish discutable » par des jeunes qui « n’ont pas la radicalité de la décroissance » et qui inventent des « monstruosité conceptuelles ». Dans son dernier texte, je suis personnellement attaqué, décrit comme un « rénovateur de la seconde génération », un économiste à la pensée étroite cherchant la célébrité en dénaturant la décroissance.

The growth in US power demand is surging to its highest rate in decades, driven first by the electrification of oil and gas production and then by the build out of data centers. While still below the 5-10% growth seen in China, the world’s first “electrostate," the US power sector is experiencing rapid structural growth. The country is delivering more than a 3.5% annual power demand growth rate for the first time in several decades, potentially positioning the US as the world’s next “electrostate,” despite the strong oil and gas focus of the Trump administration.

J’ai l’habitude de voir les écologistes et les futurologues parler des limites de la croissance (« The Limits to Growth »). Je suis moins habitué à voir des spécialistes de l’investissement mentionner des recherches liées aux limites de la croissance. C’est pourtant ce qu’a fait récemment Joachim Klement dans sa lettre d’information quotidienne. Bien entendu, quiconque écrit sur les limites de la croissance doit d’abord procéder à toutes les vérifications d’usage. En effet, la combinaison des mots « limites » et « croissance » dans le titre a suscité un grand nombre de réactions critiques, allant de la déformation pure et simple de l’ouvrage à l’incompréhension du modèle de dynamique des systèmes qui le sous-tend.

I’m used to environmentalists and futurists writing about The Limits to Growth. I’m less used to seeing investment writers mention research that’s linked to The Limits of Growth. But that’s what Joachim Klement did in his daily newsletter recently.

I’m used to environmentalists and futurists writing about The Limits to Growth. I’m less used to seeing investment writers mention research that’s linked to The Limits of Growth. But that’s what Joachim Klement did in his daily newsletter recently. Of course, anyone who writes about Limits of Growth has to do all the usual disclaimers first. This is because the combination of the words “limits” and “growth” in the title produced a lot of critical responses, on a range from straight-up hatchet jobs which misrepresented the book, to people who didn’t appear to understand the systems dynamics model that sat behind it.