,
5 tweets,
8 min read
Read on Twitter
@MLiebreich @IFTtweets @BBCWorld @BBCJustinR @ProfTimJackson Will know in 14 minutes. Although, I'm biased towards a pro-growth model as that's how we're working to get to a trillion dollars deployed per year by 2025 to stop and reverse climate change.
@MLiebreich @IFTtweets @BBCWorld @BBCJustinR @ProfTimJackson At the end of it, I have to side with @MLiebreich, primarily for a few points. 1) @ProfTimJackson said that we can't trust capitalism and the financial sector because the legacy financial institutions were bad actors. Like other sectors, future financial actors (eg @climatelink)
@MLiebreich @IFTtweets @BBCWorld @BBCJustinR @ProfTimJackson @climatelink are building their business models around scaled data use and personalization rather than scaled physical footprints. The transition to a post-carbon economy will shift trillions of dollars of capital and it can be shifted away from these legacy bad actors.
@MLiebreich @IFTtweets @BBCWorld @BBCJustinR @ProfTimJackson @climatelink 2) @MLiebreich's point that more industries are switching from goods to services and so we will be able to perform more work and create more economic, creative, and pleasureful growth, than we could have under the old, extractive economy. Outside of those two, I found most other
@MLiebreich @IFTtweets @BBCWorld @BBCJustinR @ProfTimJackson @climatelink points to be agreed upon. Was a surprisingly polite and cheerful debate around a hotly contested topic. These debates, especially on Twitter seem to devolve into tribalism and name-calling. I wish more of these conversations were held to such a standard of civility.
