Green political thoughtconcluded that only if these arrangements are radically transformed can
environmental apocalypse be averted.
Subsequently, the ‘limits to growth’ thesis has been subjected to
widespread criticism (Cole et al. 1973 ; Martell 1994 ;Beckerman 1995 ,inter
alia). The easiest target has been its empirical claims, particularly about
resource depletion, most of which have proven inaccurate because new
reserves of oil, gas, coal and other minerals have been discovered (Beck-
erman 1995 , 2002). In short, many indicators suggest that the state of the
environment is healthier than predicted inLimits to Growth.Itisnowcom-
monly agreed that the prediction of crisis by 2100 was overly pessimistic.
The computer modelling used was very primitive, many of the assumptions
were inaccurate and much of the data was flawed. Although updated ver-
sions of theLimits to Growthreport try to meet some of these criticisms
(Meadows et al. 1992 , 2004), these are serious weaknesses. They show that
the sense of urgency thatLimits to Growthprovoked, along with later pub-
lications in a similar survivalist vein such as theGlobal 2000 Report to the
Presidentpublished in 1980 and the annual Worldwatch InstituteState of
the Worldreports, may have been misplaced. These survivalist publications
have also been fiercely attacked for underestimating the technological and
political capacity of humans to adapt. This Promethean assault, once spear-
headed by the economist Julian Simon ( 1981 ), has been reinvigorated since
his death by Bjørn Lomborg ( 2001 ), a Danish statistician and political scien-
tist (Dryzek 2005 : 52–6) (see Box3.3). Overall, their message is that broad
trends show that economic growth ultimately improves environmental qual-
ity so we must do nothing that might hamper the operation of markets and
free trade (see Chapter 10 )and we can be confident that humans will find
ways to solve any environmental problems that do emerge.
Nevertheless, the basic idea that there are ecological limits to growth
remains potent, particularly with the emergence since the 1970s of a new
range of global problems such as climate change and ozone depletion.
Indeed, in 1995 a group of leading economists joined the fray by declaring
that economic growth must sooner or later encounter limits imposed by the
Earth’s environmental carrying capacity (Arrow et al. 1995 ). If the great and
the good of a discipline known more for its hostility to environmentalism
are calling for institutional redesign to deal with pending ecological crisis,
then there must be something in the idea (Dryzek 2005 : 34). Perhaps greens
need not be too defensive about drawing lessons from the ‘limits to growth’
thesis.
Finally, the ‘limits to growth’ debate also acted as a catalyst for an impor-
tant debate in political philosophy about intergenerational justice, for it
suggested that our actions now are likely to have a dramatic impact on the
kind of world that we pass on to future generations of people not yet born.
If so, do we have an obligation to future generations to protect the envi-
ronment – to conserve resources, prevent pollution, avoid environmental
degradation – so that the world they inherit is no worse (or even better) than