Thomas Homer-Dixon takes on fossil fuels as a symbol of uncontrolled economic growth in his piece for "Foreign Policy." This growth increases climate change which will, as he says, halt growth. Homer-Dixon places himself in the camp social greens, as described by Jennifer Clapp and Peter Dauvergne in their book Paths to a Green World, focused on the harm of over-consumption
We are, in Homer-Dixon's mind, a stubborn population, set on continual growth, and hurtling ourselves towards self-destruction. Without a fundamental change of mind, we will continue to wreak havoc on our world, until the world will force us to stop.
Worse still, Homer-Dixon argues that the first world unfairly puts the burden of environmental change on the residents of third world countries. He points out that 2.7 billion people live on under $2 a day, and need economic growth to survive. But, as he also mentions, first-worlders need economic growth to escape debt and maintain peace. So who do we ask to cut back first?
sorry, i still dont know how to use this blog, so i'll just post my comment under someone's :p
ReplyDeleteAs she said, I also think that Thomas Homer-Dixon can be considered as social green. He addresses a very interesting point that how environement affects development vise-versa (which I brought it up in the comment last week).
I personally place myself in between market liberal and social green because I think that technology can improve the global environment, and it has a hope to solve the problem of global warming by using technology. But technology can also be threat for the environment. I just can't decide which because I agree with both perspectives. What do you guys think? Do you guys classify yourself in Market liberals, social greens, or any other perspectives that Clapp and Deuvergne described in their reading?