Andrew Curry

The assumptions that sit behind this are that: consumption drives growth; that cheaper food is good for growth; that markets are the best way to provide cheaper food; that changing diets is not the job of government; and that food safety nets are not needed—or need only to be minimal.

The wider point here is that we’ve now reached a point where climate change has become a fact of life. One of the problems with this is that people in different silos are used to thinking of their climate change problems as being different from other people’s, rather than connected.

Every so often when reading an obituary of someone, or an awards citation, you realise that you have internalised their work into your thinking without having read it directly. So it was with Donald Shoup, the California transport academic who spent his life working on the problem of urban parking, and who died in February.

My suggestion here is that a politics of the future that might make a difference would be about reimagining our relationships, with each other and with nature.

The only question is whether we manage degrowth or just let it happen to us. This isn’t a neutral question. I know which one of these is worse.

I’ve been digesting tariff chat for the past few days, like everyone is, and trying to make sense of the political economy of it. ‘Make sense’ as in trying to piece together the MAGA mindset and then think it through, beyond the economics of it.