[leccine]

I am arguing that for an average person there is no difference between 3% growth and 15% growth, but for mother Earth there is and I don't care about corporate CEOs (less than 1% of the global population) and the Rokafela bros. Sorry for my ignorance but I think an average person and our planet is more important than few fat bankers and their CEO friends. I know, I am a bad person.

[avz]

Economic growth does not necessarily imply destruction of the environment. The growth rate refers to the rate at which value of products and services in an economy grows. The aggregate environmental footprint may in fact shrink or grow slower than the GDP. I can think of three reasons why there could be a gap between GDP growth and environmental footprint growth:

Services. Most of the value in a modern economy lies in services whose footprint is a lot lower than manufacturing.

Software. Even in manufacturing increasing part of the value comes from non-material components like software and network services.

Recycling. Recycling and downcycling lower environmental footprint by reducing our need for raw materials.

[PythonicAlpha]

That is just a theory. What do we have in practice:

- Some years ago, you could (yourself) exchange the battery of your mobile phone -- today, many mobile phones will be thrown away, when the battery is finished or any other part does not work any more. Todays "highest tech" industries are environmental nightmares. And now they even build tablet PCs that way, that should replace normal computers (see MS Surface).

- A lot more products are just build for fast consumption and recycling is still not in focus of most manufacturers. Instead, the waste from Europe is exported to Africa.

What I say: I am sure, that it would be possible, but with our todays ideology of growth for the sake of more and more profits and less and less regulation, that is just not "compatible".