I think the meaning of poor differs between degrowthers and its critics. Poor to me means something like "not being able to obtain the basic necessities and being unable to live a happy fulfilling life due to systemic external circumstances." To critics of degrowth, like the author of the Vox article you posted, poor seems to mean not having excessive luxuries.
Unlike what was pointed out in the Vox article, degrowth isn't trying to take away air conditioning or washing machines. On the contrary, products like those and even other luxuries can still exist but should be improved by doing away with planned obsolescence, having the right to repair, and increasing product lifetimes.
The biggest shortfall of degrowth is the name "degrowth" itself.
Nice rebuttal to critiques of degrowth! The number crunching about ending world hunger is particularly powerful.
Regarding decoupling, I wasn't able to access the Vox citation due a paywall, but I wonder if this "absolute decoupling" refers to consumption-based or territorial emissions. For example, Our World in Data notes of US annual emissions, "This data is based on territorial emissions, which do not account for emissions embedded in traded goods." So the apparent fall in US emissions basically means its manufacturing sector has been outsourced, most likely with a corresponding rise in territorial emissions for countries supplying US consumerism. Not much real decoupling at all from what I gather.
Thank you for reading and for your comment Arwen! :D
I don't have access to Vox either, but did a quick select all/copy/turn off the internet trick/paste. The Vox article uses information from World of Data. It's probably the same page you found, but you are absolutely right!
I think the meaning of poor differs between degrowthers and its critics. Poor to me means something like "not being able to obtain the basic necessities and being unable to live a happy fulfilling life due to systemic external circumstances." To critics of degrowth, like the author of the Vox article you posted, poor seems to mean not having excessive luxuries.
Unlike what was pointed out in the Vox article, degrowth isn't trying to take away air conditioning or washing machines. On the contrary, products like those and even other luxuries can still exist but should be improved by doing away with planned obsolescence, having the right to repair, and increasing product lifetimes.
The biggest shortfall of degrowth is the name "degrowth" itself.
Nice rebuttal to critiques of degrowth! The number crunching about ending world hunger is particularly powerful.
Regarding decoupling, I wasn't able to access the Vox citation due a paywall, but I wonder if this "absolute decoupling" refers to consumption-based or territorial emissions. For example, Our World in Data notes of US annual emissions, "This data is based on territorial emissions, which do not account for emissions embedded in traded goods." So the apparent fall in US emissions basically means its manufacturing sector has been outsourced, most likely with a corresponding rise in territorial emissions for countries supplying US consumerism. Not much real decoupling at all from what I gather.
Thank you for reading and for your comment Arwen! :D
I don't have access to Vox either, but did a quick select all/copy/turn off the internet trick/paste. The Vox article uses information from World of Data. It's probably the same page you found, but you are absolutely right!