Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

John Gage: There is a systemic ecological limit to the amount of energy use. Now, energy use is not the same as economic growth. There are ever more efficient ways of converting energy into the materials, the substances, the objects, the products, the staples that we as an industrial or post industrial civilization use in daily life. So, efficiency can substitute for increased energy use because there is a limit to the tolerance of the Earth for ever-greater expenditures of heat. If we have a way that allows each object that we create to carry with it a trail of information about the energy used, to create energy that will be used to dispose off it, so that it becomes part of a cycle, hopefully a sustainable cycle of material and energy through this economic system. Then, we may be able to keep the ecological limits, that is to say the sustainability limits for energy to use and balance in our overall ecosphere in the entire terrestrial energy balance, in energy exchange and that would allow economic growth within boundaries of today’s energy use. First and fundamental lesson to be learned from the currently economically developed countries is the immense waste inherent in the structures we build, in the operational budgets for both energy and for maintenance of these buildings, these automobiles, these trucks, these vehicles, these streets, the design errors that lead to immense waste of water, waste of energy and waste of the substance of the Earth must be rectified and [audio ends].

by John Gage

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Jonathan Granoff: Of course there's an economic limit to economic growth. Up to seventy percent of the fishing stocks are at risk, because the economic growth has not taken into consideration the capacity of replenishment of the fishing stocks. It's the tragedy of the commons, clearly manifest in the modern age. The tragedy of the commons is when a sheepherder rationally decides to maximize their self-interest and overgrazes, thus causing others to overgraze, ultimately destroying the commons. Well we now know that the earth has living systems that are like that commons, that simply cannot be overgrazed. The rainforests are like that, the oceans are like that. So, when we set up - or, in the evolution of the kind of modern nation-state and the multinational corporation, we didn't have this awareness of the limits of the biological systems of the planet. And we simply cannot ignore them. We can't create economic systems that are not beholden, and obligated, institutionally, through law, to work in harmony with the living systems. Indeed, there is an ecological limit to the amount and the kind of growth that we have.

by Jonathan Granoff

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Jonathan Meese: There are no limits neither of growth nor of economics nor of ecology nor of any other things that lie beyong the human consciousness and are themselves. At least we are not able to define these limits. We are the limits passing us. Nobody knows what ecology really is, nobody knows where it began and where it ends. Furthermore nobody knows what the economic growth is. Economics grows as it itself wants to, if we leave it on its own. It will become a natural cover beginning a new game. Nothing is limited. Man cannot create any limits. Limits create themselves and have to be eyed so. There are forbidden areas and this is good. In these forbidden areas paradises do exist, paradises unknown to us exist for others, but not us. There are the paradise of animals, paradise of plants, paradise of elements, paradise of systems, paradise of paradises.

by Jonathan Meese

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Jonathan Stack: No, there is no an ecological limit to economic growth. There is ecological limit to unconscious destruction of economic growth. Economy is going to grow. As long as there are people, the economy is going to grow, but it can't grow without there being an awareness and a consciousness about its effect on the environment. So, it is obvious that there is not going to be -- you just can't keep consuming oil. I am sure oil will disappear. You can't keep polluting the water. Eventually, we won't be able to drink. But, where there are problems, there is opportunities. And there is no doubt that the economy grows also when the ecology is challenged and the growth that's going to have to happen, the radical one is how are we going to counter the ecological destruction that has been going on. If we don't figure that one out, then obviously the economy is going to go down because the numbers of humans will reduce because we won't be able to sustain ourselves. For the time being, I don't see the ecological challenges so severe that there isn't still a solution and if there is a solution, then there is an economic opportunity and for the time being, the economic opportunity seems to be the engine that's moving this planet. Is that dangerous? I guess. But, is it human? Yes.

by Jonathan Stack

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

José Manuel Prieto: Is there an ecological limit to economic growth? I think there isn’t. I believe there could be a tenable and from the ecological point of view conscious and coherent development, in order that the ecological challenges that would emerge, would be resolved by the same technology. There may always be changes. I believe that the important thing is to become aware of that and to apply from the beginning [] strategies that have the ecological element in mind. In the case of Mexico, e.g., where I have been living some years, air pollution is an enourmous problem. Nevertheless, during the last years an improvement could be observed, due to the creation of awareness of the programs that have been implemented and carried out. I believe, what has to be done is to introduce the variable ecology into the economic cohesiveness, so that it will be an element that we should always have in mind and that should we should always consider. The citizens are the ones, who most of all become aware of the negative impact of those technologies, at the level of their areas, regions and their own cities, and who have it in their hands to promote agendas that clearly show the impact, and also to tackle possible solutions as they see them from their perspective as citizens. I think this is important....

by José Manuel Prieto

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Jwan M. Aziz: David, I believe there are no ecological limits because it regenerates itself by itself. But it depends on us and on you how to use this ecosystem and help in economizing it in the right way. That is what I believe.

by Jwan M. Aziz

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Kailash Satyarthi: Definitely, because we must not forget that this planet has limited resources. If the water is limited, if the coal is limited, if the gases are limited, if the petroleum is limited then there is always a limit to economic growth. Because today’s economic growth is interpreted in a manner where you talk of per capita energy consumption, when you talk of per capita income and those things eventually harm the nature. Because if we look at the equation between the energy consumption or wastage of energy as well as the energy reproduction, it’s minimal. So, we must know that there is always a limit of uses of energy and human -- and natural resources on one hand that will definitely result in limiting our economic growth. You can go to certain extent, but when the coal is exhausted, when the petroleum is exhausted, when other natural resources are exhausted, when water is polluted in such a high quantity then suddenly you have to stop it. So, that’s why we have to bear in mind that there is a limit to economic growth; you cannot keep on growing yourself economically until and unless you preserve your resources, your energy, and your earth planet.

by Kailash Satyarthi

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Kamal Boullata:

by Kamal Boullata

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Kigge Hvid: Hi David. Yes, there absolutely is. And it is visible now. The way it is visible, actually is that our icebergs melts. The human race is more and more affected by allergies, more and more people are getting ill, more and more natural disasters occur. We still are not absolutely sure that the natural disasters, the flooding, the storms, have anything to do with the ecology. If it does have anything to do with it, we now have visible evidence. Then you can ask - what do we do about it? How do we respond, when we see that there actually is an ecological limit to economical growth? Again it is all about new solutions, we need to think differently. I believe it is absolutely impossible to convince humans to decrease their welfare, to decrease their wealth. Actually there are too many advantages in great economical wealth to convince the human population to not wanting to have it. One neither can convince the ones who have not got it, to never getting it. It is hard to convince people to not having a car, when they really would like a car. This is one thing which is important, to accept that we need to find other solutions, instead of expecting a fall in living standards. The other thing which is super important right now, is making sure history does not repeat it self. At the moment a long list of very, very large countries is being industrialised, countries that have not previously been industrialised. What we can do is to make sure that this industrialisation does not affect the environment in the same way the environment have been affected by the western world’s industrialisation, those things of course must be done. That is a question about influencing governments, the United Nations, supranational units, organisations, companies etc. etc. And sharing knowledge besides.

by Kigge Hvid

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Lesego Rampolokeng: Economic growth necessarily carries with it the potential to reduce the space in which we live. Economic growth calls upon them who stand to profit by it, the destruction of entire forests, the cramping out of living space, the reduction of what is available to breathing, living beings on this planet, that’s what economic growth is all about. And pushed to breathe beyond itself, indeed the earth will collapse, the earth will come to an end because there will be no air to breathe. There will be absolute no place to stand. All these buildings, all these metallic structures, all these non-organic, non-breathers will cramp life, human or otherwise out. So, what that then means? Pure arithmetic is the fact that the entire earth will collapse under the weight of money. There is a limit; there is an end to which ecologically we can be sustained. The major negativity of all this is that human beings need profit-making at whatever expense.

by Lesego Rampolokeng

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Leung Ping-Kwan: Yes, yes, of course, there is ecological limit to economic growth. A lot of people have [inaudible] and alerted us to these problems, but they’re worrying this ecological development, economic development always says no to ecological limits. So, I think this is the time for people to listen to this alarm and it's better to be alert. And actually yes, there is ecological limit and we cannot go on forever without limits, I mean there will be all kind of alarms, warnings already and we better listen to them.

by Leung Ping-Kwan

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Lijun Fang: Human beings have been seeking infinity of lives and have wished to be rejuvenated perpetually since the very beginning. However, people are still unable to find such a way for eternal life after thousands of years. Speaking of the economic growth, people seem to have the same extravagant wish that economic can grow endlessly. Is it possible? Can economic really grow without limit? Is the speed of finding energy really going to meet the need for economic growth?

by Lijun Fang

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Lillian Holt: Yes, in my opinion there is, obviously, there appears to me. I’m not an ecologist or anything like that. But I think common sense would tell us that the earth can only be squeezed so much. It’s just like an orange. After a while, the juice stops running, it runs out. And I just don’t think that you can tame, you can rape, you can pillage the earth and not have repercussions. There’s evidence of it in Australia, the drying up of rivers, the climate change, which is worldwide. In the 61 years that I’ve been on this earth, I’ve seen tremendous change just in Australia in terms of drought and rivers and creeks and other areas of water being tried up. And in some places now there are huge, huge restrictions on water usage, in big cities like Sydney. And so there is definitely a limit. I just don’t think that you can, as I said, rape, pillage, kick and tame the earth in that sense and not have repercussions and limits on what it can in turn produce.

by Lillian Holt

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Livingstone Maluleke: There is, of course, an ecological limits to economy growth. This is witnessed by the pollution and the forest destruction which is taking place in many areas where there is forestation and the presence of other environmental resources. Hence, the environmental has the potential for self-regulating. This environment has got the potential to, can grow on its own as long as there is no destruction or deforestation; and hence we speak of the ecology, the ecology of the plants, the plants’ family growing on its own; and, therefore, the geology and the ecology need to be respected so that there should be an economy growth. As long as there will be the geology and the ecology which will be preserved, then we shall be economizing what you call the economy growth.

by Livingstone Maluleke

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Mae-Wan Ho: Definitely yes, which is why we are now in trouble because our economic system has been operating as though there is no limit to, no ecological limit to growth, and we have been devastating the earth’s resources and bringing on climate change. However, the limit is not a hard physical one that says you can support say ‘five people per hector or something like that.’ In fact, it depends on how you organize that piece of land. That piece of land can be 10 times -- can support 10 times as many people and this is where the notion of circular economics come in. That if you regard the economic system as though it’s an organism, then you organize it very differently, maximize internal input, minimize waste, minimize turning waste into resources. And in that way you can reduce energy, you can reduce the use of energy, you can make energy go round many more times and resources go round many more times and you can minimize polluting the environment, sending waste out into the environment. In that way, we can actually support 10 times as many people and this is where we need a real change in the way we organize our economic system. There is a model of sustainable balanced growth, sustainable development and growth. And this again disposes of a myth of critics of globalization, critics of the dominant model very often saying that sustainable development is a contradiction in terms, because the alternative is to have no development on growth at all. I didn’t quite finish!

by Mae-Wan Ho

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Mahsa Shekarloo:

by Mahsa Shekarloo

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Martin Almada: Yes, there is an ecological limit to economic growth. We cannot continue permitting that the environment is destroyed to profit excessively. At the moment, there is a fight between the governments of Argentina and Uruguay about the installation of a paper factory from a First World country in the Uruguayan territory. This installation can provoke the contamination of the waters of both countries and of the region, and have unforeseeable consequences. It is necessary to establish an economic limit in order to protect the ecology. This role corresponds to the United Nations and to its specialized agencies. And each government should have the courage to comply with what has been agreed by the United Nations through the regional organizations.

by Martin Almada

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Masami Saionji: Planet earth is limited and its resources are also limited. If the economic growth is continued, the planet earth achieved its limit and this fact affected our earth and our environment. In order to avoid this catastrophic situation, we should try to use the finite resources as little as we can. Instead of using them, we should use our wisdom. Moreover, corporations should be focus on this problem, as well. Each of us should also take an eco-friendly behavior and lifestyle. Because all mankind depends on the thing limited (or limited resources), all problems of them come back to them someday. In case people of today run out at the end of resources on the earth, we cannot produce anything anymore. Then, the children in the next generation must live with no resources. Considering our next generation, each of us must change our thinking.

by Masami Saionji

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Masuma Bibi Russel: Of course, absolutely, there is a limit. Everything, there is a limit, and you know how you should go past the border line, you know. So, you know, economical growth is very important, but respecting the nation, respecting the people, respecting the culture and everything, and of course absolutely, absolutely, there is a limit, ecological limit.

by Masuma Bibi Russel