Mr. Jones says: “As we grapple with the growing dangers of climate change, we can create fresh models and write different stories. That may mean returning to the field’s origins: a time when ideas of growth and the natural world were intertwined.” Bravo! (Economic) growth and the natural world are intertwined in all my philosophic and economic works (from 120-140 years ago), and Jones hits the nail on the head with the conflating of land as capital, but that did not begin with Solow in the 1950s! That, unfortunately, began in the 1870s with the invention of neoclassical economics, an overturning of classical thought that some say was created to counter my clear thinking on the subject. What Jones and climate warrior Thunberg do not acknowledge is that our purpose on Earth is to progress toward human fulfillment and the end of poverty – yes, totally possible but not without returning resource and locational land rents back to society to make those needed adjustments to how we manage our homes, cities, States, nations, and international affairs. Every new born baby is owed its share of each and all natural opportunities including the air we breathe, the water we drink, the land we walk on, and the near limitless volume of natural materials we use in industry and in power generation; however, not as a result of division by 8 billion, i.e., 8 billion slivers of gold, diamonds, oil, etc. We shouldn’t blindly pursue eternal growth any more than tolerate eternal monopoly ownership of land and resources – those are the sources of wealth for man/womankind to achieve its progress – whether through land value taxation or resource rents (including the so-called carbon tax). As a society, we each should be compensated for our share of the world’s natural opportunities by those in a monopoly position to create wealth on land and with our resources (while keeping their fair share as returns for their labor). But it is each of us who own those opportunities, not private companies. If we are dumb enough to sell off parts of the electromagnetic spectrum for peanuts, it’s our failure to look after our progress. Kate Raworth’s Donut Economics conforms wonderfully with my views, saying that we can overshoot critical thresholds (emissions related to the climate change phenomena) as easily as we can undershoot our social safety net. Only an idiot would ask “but where would the money come from to not undershoot critical social needs.” But ask they will, because many people do not understand the economics of land and resources – including those bent on finding new models. Stop! Re-read my work, then listen to those who give it modern expression.