In this paper, I have argued that accepting substantial
reductions in the future rate of economic growth
may be unnecessary to safeguard and sustain the biophysical
systems that provide the basis and underpinnings
for human livelihoods and well-being. In the
long run, the growth of material production and consumption
is limited by natural resource constraints,
and achieving a sustainable future will require policies
and institutions that maintain the economy within
the bounds set by nature. But significant growth of
GDP—a measure of the subjective value of goods and
services—can nonetheless be achieved in the interim
through a move to technologies and consumption patterns
sufficient to sharply reduce the economy’s “ecological
footprint. This finding is in one sense good news for environmentalists.
In a growth-oriented society, it provides
an answer to critics who warn that the costs of achieving
ecological sustainability would put the economy
at risk. On the contrary, authors such as Stern conclude
that the benefits of stabilizing the earth’s climate
will exceed the costs by a factor of five to twenty, even
when the focus is on narrow economic benefits.