n August 10-11, 2019 Green Party members in St. Louis joined others from across the state to hear from the leading contenders for the party’s nomination for President: Dennis Lambert, Dario Hunter, David Rolde, and Howie Hawkins. All had a very clear understanding that it would be futile to support a Democrat, because, even though they often use sweet-sounding words, once they are in office their actions have little, if any, difference from Republicans.

The four GP candidates who came to Missouri are all progressives with very few political disagreements between them. But Dario Hunter and Howie Hawkins stood out as the two with the best ability to verbalize a wide variety of Green policies for national and international audiences. Of these two, Hawkins has the best understanding of the subtleties of Green outlooks and a history of being with the organization for the long run.

Hawkins, a Green for over 30 years, was a member of the Green Party USA years before the Green Party of the US (GPUS) existed. When forerunners of GPUS were having their first meetings, they tried to exclude Hawkins from their discussions. But he insisted on his democratic rights, was finally accepted, and gained a strong appreciation for the rights of political minorities which he continues through today.

Hawkins has participated in writing multiple proposals that are now accepted Green Party perspectives. He engages in vigorous debate on various Green perspectives, paying close attention to views he disagrees with. His lifelong dedication to labor, social justice and anti-war causes means that he does not vacillate on issues such as funding military adventures, unlike politicians such as Bernie Sanders.

However, Hawkins’ deep ties to the traditional progressive outlooks have not left him well-prepared to cope with environmental problems. Thus, he developed ideas for the Green New Deal (GND) even before the Democrats did. But like the Democrats and other Green Party candidates, Hawkins’ support for a GND fails to understand the limits to economic growth on a finite planet. The GND is based on the false idea that the only way to provide job security is by expanding production and does not consider shortening the work week.

The GND does not consider the extremely damaging consequences of infinite expansion of solar, wind, and hydro-electric power, including water contamination, toxic poisons, driving indigenous people off their land, species extinction, and, ironically, massive production of CO2. A realistic approach to a warming earth would recognize that solar and wind power can be a viable alternative to fossil fuels only if they are part of a massive decrease in the overall use of energy.

Hawkins and other GP candidates have very similar views of the GND and they all stand head and shoulders above Democrats who collaborate with the same corporations that cause environmental devastation. Howie Hawkins is the candidate for president who is our best hope for looking beyond narrow vote-getting to develop a genuinely environmental approach to climate catastrophe.

“Our goals need to shift from GDP growth and the pursuit of affluence toward sustaining ecosystems and improving human well-being by prioritizing basic needs and reducing inequality.”

Nature loss is accelerating worldwide at an unprecedented rate, with grave impacts for human wellbeing, according to a major report approved by more than 130 of the world’s governments.

The report, launched in Paris, France on Monday, says fundamental changes are needed to everything from farming and fishing to private investment and governance to ensure the benefits continue to flow.

While such warnings have been heard before, this is the most comprehensive assessment to date, and the first that governments have come together to endorse. The findings are set to influence world leaders who are meeting in China next year, aiming to reach a new global agreement on biodiversity.

The recent release of the proposed Green New Deal is a template, an outline identifying some of the most crucial issues facing the nation regarding climate change and a wish list of measures to address those issues.

But there are plenty of legitimate criticisms too, and progressives would be wise not to let their desire to see pro-environmental legislation enacted at last blind them to the very real problems with Ocasio-Cortez and a legislative blueprint that could very easily become as much of a giveaway to multinational corporations as the Affordable Care Act was to insurance companies.

Perhaps the main reason people reject the need for a steady state economy is some form of cornucopianism, the belief that technological progress will overcome all ecological and physical limits, allowing endless economic growth into the indefinite future. Cornucopianism has several flavors, and I will describe three: mainstream economics, eco-modernism, and singularity theory.

How ironic for the Washington Post to opine “Earth may have no tomorrow” and, two pages later, offer up the mini-bios of William Nordhaus and Paul Romer, described as Nobel Prize winners.

Without more rigorous news coverage, few indeed will know that Nordhaus and Romer are epitomes of neoclassical economics, that 20th century occupation isolated from the realities of natural science. Nordhaus and Romer may deserve their prizes for economic modeling, but each gets an F in advanced sustainability.

Why do degrowth scholars use the word “decolonise” to discuss the process of changing the growth imaginary? Isn’t decolonisation about undoing the historical colonisation of land, languages and minds? How do these two uses of the word relate?

This blog post is the result from a discussion held between some participants at a Degrowth Summer School in August 2017. While some parts of this blog post are written to confront degrowth theory, we took the time to write up the discussions around the word “decolonise” because we think of degrowth as a project worth supporting and a community who is open to reflection. We recognise degrowth is an important academic and activist movement, which correctly diagnoses economic growth as a root cause of social and ecological crisis. We would like to see degrowth concepts spread. However, we have a problem with the use of the term decolonisation within degrowth literature.