I would say most of the time Leigh’s takes are correct, but some of his opinions are definitely questionable (particularly on Palestine as you’ve pointed out). He is very, very well read, and his book Austerity Ecology is pretty much the definitive guide for eco-modernism. He’s highly educated, and presents some unorthodox opinions on climate change (he is - strangely - quite optimistic about our ability to curb it, and backs up everything he says with evidence, which I appreciate)
Phillips wears his antagonism on his sleeve throughout, referring to Transition folk, degrowthers and the wide spectrum of the Green/alternative economics world as “anti-packaging jihadis”, “degrowth militants”, “green Mr Magoos”, and "an army of tattooed-and-bearded, twelve-dollar-farmers’-market-marmalade-smearing, kale-bothering, latter-day Lady Bracknells"
I’m gonna go with a thanks but no thanks on Austerity Ecology
Hard to see an alternative to degrowth when its opponents feel the need to write articles with the thesis “actually, extinction isn’t so bad”
Based on the review, it doesn’t seem like he has much of a handle on what proponents of degrowth are actually arguing. The idea isn’t to stop technological progress in its tracks, it’s to orient the economy away from emphasis on productivity per se to meet everyone’s needs at a lower resource intensity.
it doesn’t seem like he has much of a handle on what proponents of degrowth are actually arguing
His argument is actually that the degrowthers don’t understand what their own position actually is:
degrowth unwittingly endorses what would be an imposition of austerity on the Western working class far beyond anything a Thatcher, Cameron or May could imagine, this time in the name of the planet.
That article doesn’t do anything to dispel my suspicions that he has no idea what he’s talking about.
The most egregious aspects of the article were addressed in Jason Hickel’s response to Milanovic. I think it’s funny that he’s citing a World Bank economist for a major chunk of his article given that the World Bank’s position is that we can grow our way out of global poverty (it’ll only take 200 more years!) and currently defines the threshold of extreme poverty at $770 per year, so it’s a little bit hard to take the argument that $5,500 is unacceptable (even if that were the degrowth position, which it is not) with a straight face.
we literally have to pull back our production amount. I am not saying this because I’m a hippie, I’m saying it because I’m a Marxist and a literal defining feature of capital is its tendency towards creating exponential and endless industrial growth. Said growth has to be pulled back eventually because otherwise it sucks. I don’t have a problem with people enjoying things or having luxury- Quite the opposite in fact. I just think capitalism is incapable of doing it sustainably and a TRANSITIONAL SOCIALIST ECONOMY THAT INVENTS SUSTAINABLY SOURCES FOR THE SAME LUXURY is necessary for humanity to survive ,
let me guess. he rips on veganism too? I wouldn’t be surprised, what an unserious fool
I mean yeah, I agree of course. Capitalism is of course incapable of doing it sustainably, this is all too obvious. We need to take control of the machine.
Just take transportation as an example. There’s no need for everyone to be driving around in single occupancy vehicles when we could just have trains instead, I think everyone on this website would agree with that. It would reduce production overall, reduce GHG emissions, and improve everyone’s lives. But it would still require building more things (train tracks, trains, etc).
I don’t know what his opinions on veganism are but I can almost guarantee you he is not a vegan lol.
Like I said, overall I agree with most of what he says (mostly regarding the environment and modernism, which is the primary subject that he writes and talks about), but there are other times that I’m fundamentally at disagreement with him.
He is - strangely - quite optimistic about our ability to curb it, and backs up everything he says with evidence.
That’s one of the strangest sentences I’ve ever heard from a rational Hexbear. I’m not against contrarianism. But you’re going to have to explain yourself. I have a couple questions.
Strangely? C’mon. This isn’t rocket science. He’s an obnoxious turd who surely wants some sugar-daddy billionaire to fund him the rest of his life. And being quite optimistic and dismissive douchebag is a possible ticket to Cash City.
Evidence? What is this “evidence”? I really want to know.
surely wants some sugar-daddy billionaire to fund him the rest of his life
I do not see any indication of this at all.
What is this “evidence”?
Pretty much everything he writes is very well sourced, citing studies etc etc. His seminal piece on anti-degrowth is here if you want to give it a read
I would say most of the time Leigh’s takes are correct, but some of his opinions are definitely questionable (particularly on Palestine as you’ve pointed out). He is very, very well read, and his book Austerity Ecology is pretty much the definitive guide for eco-modernism. He’s highly educated, and presents some unorthodox opinions on climate change (he is - strangely - quite optimistic about our ability to curb it, and backs up everything he says with evidence, which I appreciate)
On the other hand, there’s shit like this lol.
I’m gonna go with a thanks but no thanks on Austerity Ecology
It’s a fantastic book. But if you’re pro-degrowth you’ll absolutely hate everything he says.
Hard to see an alternative to degrowth when its opponents feel the need to write articles with the thesis “actually, extinction isn’t so bad”
Based on the review, it doesn’t seem like he has much of a handle on what proponents of degrowth are actually arguing. The idea isn’t to stop technological progress in its tracks, it’s to orient the economy away from emphasis on productivity per se to meet everyone’s needs at a lower resource intensity.
His argument is actually that the degrowthers don’t understand what their own position actually is:
That article doesn’t do anything to dispel my suspicions that he has no idea what he’s talking about.
The most egregious aspects of the article were addressed in Jason Hickel’s response to Milanovic. I think it’s funny that he’s citing a World Bank economist for a major chunk of his article given that the World Bank’s position is that we can grow our way out of global poverty (it’ll only take 200 more years!) and currently defines the threshold of extreme poverty at $770 per year, so it’s a little bit hard to take the argument that $5,500 is unacceptable (even if that were the degrowth position, which it is not) with a straight face.
As far as the argument for decoupling goes, the evidence is that to the extent that it’s happening, it isn’t fast enough.
we literally have to pull back our production amount. I am not saying this because I’m a hippie, I’m saying it because I’m a Marxist and a literal defining feature of capital is its tendency towards creating exponential and endless industrial growth. Said growth has to be pulled back eventually because otherwise it sucks. I don’t have a problem with people enjoying things or having luxury- Quite the opposite in fact. I just think capitalism is incapable of doing it sustainably and a TRANSITIONAL SOCIALIST ECONOMY THAT INVENTS SUSTAINABLY SOURCES FOR THE SAME LUXURY is necessary for humanity to survive ,
let me guess. he rips on veganism too? I wouldn’t be surprised, what an unserious fool
I mean yeah, I agree of course. Capitalism is of course incapable of doing it sustainably, this is all too obvious. We need to take control of the machine.
Just take transportation as an example. There’s no need for everyone to be driving around in single occupancy vehicles when we could just have trains instead, I think everyone on this website would agree with that. It would reduce production overall, reduce GHG emissions, and improve everyone’s lives. But it would still require building more things (train tracks, trains, etc).
I don’t know what his opinions on veganism are but I can almost guarantee you he is not a vegan lol.
If you’re doing a bit I have admit - whoosh - it went straight over my head.
Not at all.
Like I said, overall I agree with most of what he says (mostly regarding the environment and modernism, which is the primary subject that he writes and talks about), but there are other times that I’m fundamentally at disagreement with him.
That’s one of the strangest sentences I’ve ever heard from a rational Hexbear. I’m not against contrarianism. But you’re going to have to explain yourself. I have a couple questions.
Strangely? C’mon. This isn’t rocket science. He’s an obnoxious turd who surely wants some sugar-daddy billionaire to fund him the rest of his life. And being quite optimistic and dismissive douchebag is a possible ticket to Cash City.
Evidence? What is this “evidence”? I really want to know.
I do not see any indication of this at all.
Pretty much everything he writes is very well sourced, citing studies etc etc. His seminal piece on anti-degrowth is here if you want to give it a read