Do we shrink our way out of the climate problem, or grow our way out?
Everyone on this page agrees the emissions have to come down and nobody here agrees about what that costs. One argument does the arithmetic of a fixed global output and finds that it means a quarter of humanity stays poor, or that everyone above the world average loses two thirds of their income. Another says the trade-off has already broken, because clean energy got cheap, and that prosperity and lower impact stopped being opposites some time in the last decade. A third accepts that and insists it is an opportunity rather than a law. A fourth doubts the bill was ever worth paying.
16 dated claims from 7 people · 4 views · most recent 3 Sept 2026. Every line below links to the person’s own words.
The views
What is a view?
Our reading of what a group of claims have in common, one level
above a korrent: a korrent is our reading of what somebody said, a view is our
reading of what several korrents share. The claims are printed under it, so the
sentence can be checked against them.
Nobody is filed under a view — claims are. A person is named here because a dated
claim of theirs sits under it, and somebody whose claims sit under two views
appears under both.
CHCasey HandmerThe default climate discourse in recent years has been congruent to an acceptance that curtailing CO2 emissions would require the regrettable but ultimately impersonal de-industrialization and re-impoverishment of most of the world, which is both morally repugnant and politically impossible to achieve without first use of nuclear weapons.caseyhandmer.wordpress.com
Physicist, formerly at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Their wordsThe default climate discourse in recent years has been congruent to an acceptance that curtailing CO2 emissions would require the regrettable but ultimately impersonal de-industrialization and re-impoverishment of most of the world, which is both morally repugnant and politically impossible to achieve without first use of nuclear weapons.
BMBranko MilanovicKeeping so many people in abject poverty so that the rich can continue to enjoy their current standard of living is obviously something that the proponents of degrowth would not condone.glineq.blogspot.com
Economist specialising in global income inequality
Their wordsKeeping so many people in abject poverty so that the rich can continue to enjoy their current standard of living is obviously something that the proponents of degrowth would not condone.
BMBranko MilanovicThen, unless we change the distribution of income, we are condemning to permanent abject poverty some 15 percent of world population that currently earn less than $1.90 per day and some quarter of humankind who earn less than $2.50 per day.glineq.blogspot.com
Economist specialising in global income inequality
Their wordsThen, unless we change the distribution of income, we are condemning to permanent abject poverty some 15 percent of world population that currently earn less than $1.90 per day and some quarter of humankind who earn less than $2.50 per day.
BMBranko MilanovicHow much of a reduction would this imply for the global top 27% (those with incomes above the global mean)? Their incomes would have to be cut by almost two-thirds.glineq.blogspot.com
Economist specialising in global income inequality
Their wordsHow much of a reduction would this imply for the global top 27% (those with incomes above the global mean)? Their incomes would have to be cut by almost two-thirds.
BMBranko MilanovicThe world would have to move from an inequality level that is higher than that of South Africa to complete equality that has never existed in any recorded society.glineq.blogspot.com
Economist specialising in global income inequality
Their wordsThe world would have to move from an inequality level that is higher than that of South Africa to complete equality that has never existed in any recorded society.
HRHannah RitchieMy argument is simple: for the first time in history, we can improve human wellbeing while reducing our environmental impact.sustainabilitybynumbers.com
Data scientist at Our World in Data and author of Not the End of the World
Their wordsMy argument is simple: for the first time in history, we can improve human wellbeing while reducing our environmental impact.
HRHannah RitchieThe rapid drop in renewable energy costs in the last decade (alongside huge improvements in battery technologies) has started to break this deadlock.sustainabilitybynumbers.com
Data scientist at Our World in Data and author of Not the End of the World
Their wordsThe rapid drop in renewable energy costs in the last decade (alongside huge improvements in battery technologies) has started to break this deadlock.
CHCasey HandmerCheap solar is the unlock that brings human progress and climate action from the realm of fundamental incompatibility to complimentary inevitability.caseyhandmer.wordpress.com
Physicist, formerly at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Their wordsCheap solar is the unlock that brings human progress and climate action from the realm of fundamental incompatibility to complimentary inevitability.
HRHannah RitchieHere, I always emphasise that it is an opportunity, not an inevitability. There’s no law that says this will happen.sustainabilitybynumbers.com
Data scientist at Our World in Data and author of Not the End of the World
Their wordsHere, I always emphasise that it is an opportunity, not an inevitability. There’s no law that says this will happen.
TCTyler CowenA very dynamic economy probably will be very good at building lots of robots cheaply, which may make us more rather than less likely to end up in Malthusian dilemmas.tylercowen.com
Economist at George Mason University
Their wordsA very dynamic economy probably will be very good at building lots of robots cheaply, which may make us more rather than less likely to end up in Malthusian dilemmas.
JCJohn H. Cochraneclimate change though real is not the civilization-threatening disaster pitched at Davos, Paris, and the media, that hugely expensive climate policies do no goodgrumpy-economist.com
Economist at the Hoover Institution
Their wordsclimate change though real is not the civilization-threatening disaster pitched at Davos, Paris, and the media, that hugely expensive climate policies do no good
JCJohn H. CochraneHe documents just how climate became a political and moral cause, not a scientific or technical one, and thus sowed the seeds of its demise once people figured that out.grumpy-economist.com
Economist at the Hoover Institution
Their wordsHe documents just how climate became a political and moral cause, not a scientific or technical one, and thus sowed the seeds of its demise once people figured that out.
CHCasey Handmerit is quite obviously impossible to enforce universal adoption of more expensive carbon-free energy through, eg, mandatory carbon offsets, as higher gas prices are political suicide regardless of system of government.caseyhandmer.wordpress.com
Physicist, formerly at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Their wordsit is quite obviously impossible to enforce universal adoption of more expensive carbon-free energy through, eg, mandatory carbon offsets, as higher gas prices are political suicide regardless of system of government.
BMBranko MilanovicIt would make more sense, if we want to think seriously about how to reduce emissions, not to engage in the illusions of degrowth in a very poor and unequal world but to think how the most emission-intensive goods and services could be taxed in order to reduce their consumption.glineq.blogspot.com
Economist specialising in global income inequality
Their wordsIt would make more sense, if we want to think seriously about how to reduce emissions, not to engage in the illusions of degrowth in a very poor and unequal world but to think how the most emission-intensive goods and services could be taxed in order to reduce their consumption.
Milanovic’s alternative to degrowth is to tax emission-intensive goods and services so people consume less of them. Handmer says it is obviously impossible to make anyone adopt more expensive carbon-free energy, because higher fuel prices are political suicide under any system of government. Milanovic’s remedy is the thing Handmer says cannot be done.
These are the two halves of Ritchie’s own argument and they pull against each other on purpose: the deadlock has started to break, and there is no law that says it will keep breaking. She holds both, and the second is the sentence she says she always adds.
Handmer and Ritchie both hold that cheap clean energy has broken the old trade-off, and they disagree about what follows. Handmer treats the outcome as an inevitability that the default climate discourse is too pessimistic to see; Ritchie insists in the same breath that it is an opportunity and not an inevitability. Agreement about the fact and disagreement about the modality is the more interesting half.
Handmer expects cheap energy to double global growth and triple the world economy by 2042. Cowen warns that an economy which cheaply mass-produces robots may raise rather than lower the risk of Malthusian resource dilemmas. Faster growth is the premise of both, and they disagree about whether abundance is the escape from scarcity or the thing that runs into it.
Milanovic wants emission taxes rather than degrowth, which assumes emissions are worth paying to cut. Cochrane says climate change, though real, is not the civilisation-threatening disaster it was sold as and that expensive climate policies do no good. They agree degrowth is the wrong answer and disagree about whether there is a bill worth paying at all.
The claim about the Gini is the arithmetic of the claim about incomes: getting everybody to the global mean is what takes world inequality from worse-than-South-Africa to a flat distribution no society has recorded.
On this topic, not yet placed
Matched by wording, not yet read into a view. The archive grows on its own,
so this is where new claims wait for somebody to read them.