New Scientist article: We cannot afford economic growth

[Silverblade-T-E]

Very good series of articles in this month's New Scentist, basically proposing that we cannot, as a species, afford continued economic growth, because it's based on limited resources, and with our population to hit 9 billion by mid-century, with catastrophic collapses in food systems (see shut down calls for mediterranean fishery to tuna etc fishing), oil worries, recent bank mayhem etc...we simply have got to ditch the idea that we can have continued economic growth.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...%20the%20Earth

I've got a subscripion so not sure if link will work for others.

Special report: How our economy is killing the Earth

THE graphs climbing across these pages (see graph, right, or explore in more detail)
http://www.newscientist.com/data/ima...000-1_1701.jpg
are a stark reminder of the crisis facing our planet. Consumption of resources is rising rapidly, biodiversity is plummeting and just about every measure shows humans affecting Earth on a vast scale. Most of us accept the need for a more sustainable way to live, by reducing carbon emissions, developing renewable technology and increasing energy efficiency.

But are these efforts to save the planet doomed? A growing band of experts are looking at figures like these and arguing that personal carbon virtue and collective environmentalism are futile as long as our economic system is built on the assumption of growth. The science tells us that if we are serious about saving Earth, we must reshape our economy.

This, of course, is economic heresy. Growth to most economists is as essential as the air we breathe: it is, they claim, the only force capable of lifting the poor out of poverty, feeding the world's growing population, meeting the costs of rising public spending and stimulating technological development - not to mention funding increasingly expensive lifestyles. They see no limits to that growth, ever.

“Economists see no limits to growth - ever”In recent weeks it has become clear just how terrified governments are of anything that threatens growth, as they pour billions of public money into a failing financial system. Amid the confusion, any challenge to the growth dogma needs to be looked at very carefully. This one is built on a long-standing question: how do we square Earth's finite resources with the fact that as the economy grows, the amount of natural resources needed to sustain that activity must grow too? It has taken all of human history for the economy to reach its current size. On current form it will take just two decades to double.

In this special issue, New Scientist brings together key thinkers from politics, economics and philosophy who profoundly disagree with the growth dogma but agree with the scientists monitoring our fragile biosphere. The father of ecological economics, Herman Daly, explains why our economy is blind to the environmental costs of growth ("The World Bank's blind spot"), while Tim Jackson, adviser to the UK government on sustainable development, crunches numbers to show that technological fixes won't compensate for the hair-raising speed at which the economy is expanding ("Why politicians dare not limit economic growth").

Gus Speth, one-time environment adviser to President Jimmy Carter, explains why after four decades working at the highest levels of US policy-making he believes green values have no chance against today's capitalism ("Champion for green growth"), followed by Susan George, a leading thinker of the political left, who argues that only a global government-led effort can shift the destructive course we are on ("We must think big to fight environmental disaster").

For Andrew Simms, policy director of the London-based New Economics Foundation, it is crucial to demolish one of the main justifications for unbridled growth: that it can pull the poor out of poverty ("The poverty myth"). And the broadcaster and activist David Suzuki explains how he inspires business leaders and politicians to change their thinking ("Interview with an environmental activist").

Just what a truly sustainable economy would look like is explored in "Life in a land without growth", when New Scientist uses Daly's blueprint to imagine life in a society that doesn't use up resources faster than the world can replace them. Expect tough decisions on wealth, tax, jobs and birth rates. But as Daly says, shifting from growth to development doesn't have to mean freezing in the dark under communist tyranny. Technological innovation would give us more and more from the resources we have, and as philosopher Kate Soper argues in "Nothing to fear from curbing growth", curbing our addiction to work and profits would in many ways improve our lives.

It is a vision John Stuart Mill, one of the founders of classical economics, would have approved of. In his Principles of Political Economy, published in 1848, he predicted that once the work of economic growth was done, a "stationary" economy would emerge in which we could focus on human improvement: "There would be as much scope as ever for all kinds of mental culture, and moral and social progress... for improving the art of living and much more likelihood of it being improved, when minds cease to be engrossed by the art of getting on."

Today's economists dismiss such ideas as naive and utopian, but with financial markets crashing, food prices spiralling, the world warming and peak oil approaching (or passed), they are becoming harder than ever to ignore.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...ic-growth.html

Special report: Why politicians dare not limit economic growth

SCRATCH the surface of free-market capitalism and you discover something close to visceral fear. Recent events provide a good example: the US treasury's extraordinary $800 billion rescue package was an enormous comfort blanket designed to restore confidence in the ailing financial markets. By forcing the taxpayer to pick up the "toxic debts" that plunged the system into crisis, it aims to protect our ability to go on behaving similarly in the future. This is a short-term and deeply regressive solution, but economic growth must be protected at all costs.

As economics commissioner on the UK's Sustainable Development Commission, I found this response depressingly familiar. At the launch last year of our "Redefining Prosperity" project (which attempts to instil some environmental and social caution into the relentless pursuit of economic growth), a UK treasury official stood up and accused my colleagues and I of wanting to "go back and live in caves". After a recent meeting convened to explore how the UK treasury's financial policies might be made more sustainable, a high-ranking official was heard to mutter: "Well, that is all very interesting, perhaps now we can get back to the real job of growing the economy."

“A UK treasury official accused me of wanting to go back to cave living”The message from all this is clear: any alternative to growth remains unthinkable, even 40 years after the American ecologists Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren made some blindingly obvious points about the arithmetic of relentless consumption.

The Ehrlich equation, I = PAT, says simply that the impact (I) of human activity on the planet is the product of three factors: the size of the population (P), its level of affluence (A) expressed as income per person, and a technology factor (T), which is a measure of the impact on the planet associated with each dollar we spend.

Take climate change, for example. The global population is just under 7 billion and the average level of affluence is around $8000 per person. The T factor is just over 0.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide per thousand dollars of GDP - in other words, every $1000 worth of goods and services produced using today's technology releases 0.5 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. So today's global CO2 emissions work out at 7 billion × 8 × 0.5 = 28 billion tonnes per year.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated that to stabilise greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere at a reasonably safe 450 parts per million, we need to reduce annual global CO2 emissions to less than 5 billion tonnes by 2050. With a global population of 9 billion thought inevitable by the middle of this century, that works out at an average carbon footprint of less than 0.6 tonnes per person - considerably lower than in India today. The conventional view is that we will achieve this by increasing energy efficiency and developing green technology without economic growth taking a serious hit. Can this really work?

With today's global income, achieving the necessary carbon footprint would mean getting the T factor for CO2 down to 0.1 tonnes of CO2 per thousand US dollars - a fivefold improvement. While that is no walk in the park, it is probably doable with state-of-the-art technology and a robust policy commitment. There is one big thing missing from this picture, however: economic growth. Factor it in, and the idea that technological ingenuity can save us from climate disaster looks an awful lot more challenging.

First, let us suppose that the world economy carries on as usual. GDP per capita will grow at a steady 2 or 3 per cent per year in developed countries, while the rest of the world tries to catch up - China and India leaping ahead at 5 to 10 per cent per year, at least for a while, with Africa languishing in the doldrums for decades to come. In this (deeply inequitable) world, to meet the IPCC target we would have to push the carbon content of consumption down to less than 0.03 tonnes for every thousand US dollars spent - a daunting 11-fold reduction on the current western European average.

Now, let's suppose we are serious about eradicating global poverty. Imagine a world whose 9 billion people can all aspire to a level of income compatible with a 2.5 per cent growth in European income between now and 2050. In this scenario, the carbon content of economic output must be reduced to just 2 per cent of the best currently achieved anywhere in the European Union.

In short, if we insist on growing the economy endlessly, then we will have to reduce the carbon intensity of our spending to a tiny fraction of what it is now. If growth is to continue beyond 2050, so must improvements in efficiency. Growth at 2.5 per cent per year from 2050 to the end of the century would more than triple the global economy beyond the 2050 level, requiring almost complete decarbonisation of every last dollar.

The potential for technological improvements, renewable energy, carbon sequestration and, ultimately perhaps, a hydrogen-based economy has not been exhausted. But what politicians will not admit is that we have no idea if such a radical transformation is even possible, or if so what it would look like. Where will the investment and resources come from? Where will the wastes and the emissions go? What might it feel like to live in a world with 10 times as much economic activity as we have today?

Instead, they bombard us with adverts cajoling us to insulate our homes, turn down our thermostats, drive a little less, walk a little more. The one piece of advice you will not see on a government list is "buy less stuff". Buying an energy-efficient TV is to be applauded; not buying one at all is a crime against society. Agreeing reluctantly to advertising standards is the sign of a mature society; banning advertising altogether (even to children) is condemned as "culture jamming". Consuming less may be the single biggest thing you can do to save carbon emissions, and yet no one dares to mention it. Because if we did, it would threaten economic growth, the very thing that is causing the problem in the first place.

Visceral fear is not without foundation. If we do not go out shopping, then factories stop producing, and if factories stop producing then people get laid off. If people get laid off, then they do not have any money. And if they don't have any money they cannot go shopping. A falling economy has no money in the public purse and no way to service public debt. It struggles to maintain competitiveness and it puts people's jobs at risk. A government that fails to respond appropriately will soon find itself out of office.

This is the logic of free-market capitalism: the economy must grow continuously or face an unpalatable collapse. With the environmental situation reaching crisis point, however, it is time to stop pretending that mindlessly chasing economic growth is compatible with sustainability. We need something more robust than a comfort blanket to protect us from the damage we are wreaking on the planet. Figuring out an alternative to this doomed model is now a priority before a global recession, an unstable climate, or a combination of the two forces itself upon us.

Read more about sustainable growth in our special report

From issue 2678 of New Scientist magazine, 15 October 2008, page 42-43
Profile
Tim Jackson is professor of sustainable development at the University of Surrey, UK. His research focuses on understanding the social, psychological and structural dimensions of sustainable living. He is also a member of the Sustainable Development Commission, which advises the UK government.

[Pyron]

If we moved most of our production off-planet, carbon production would not be an issue.

[Elasto]

Take climate change, for example. The global population is just under 7 billion and the average level of affluence is around $8000 per person. The T factor is just over 0.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide per thousand dollars of GDP - in other words, every $1000 worth of goods and services produced using today's technology releases 0.5 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. So today's global CO2 emissions work out at 7 billion × 8 × 0.5 = 28 billion tonnes per year.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated that to stabilise greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere at a reasonably safe 450 parts per million, we need to reduce annual global CO2 emissions to less than 5 billion tonnes by 2050. With a global population of 9 billion thought inevitable by the middle of this century, that works out at an average carbon footprint of less than 0.6 tonnes per person - considerably lower than in India today. The conventional view is that we will achieve this by increasing energy efficiency and developing green technology without economic growth taking a serious hit. Can this really work?

With today's global income, achieving the necessary carbon footprint would mean getting the T factor for CO2 down to 0.1 tonnes of CO2 per thousand US dollars - a fivefold improvement. While that is no walk in the park, it is probably doable with state-of-the-art technology and a robust policy commitment. There is one big thing missing from this picture, however: economic growth. Factor it in, and the idea that technological ingenuity can save us from climate disaster looks an awful lot more challenging.

First, let us suppose that the world economy carries on as usual. GDP per capita will grow at a steady 2 or 3 per cent per year in developed countries, while the rest of the world tries to catch up - China and India leaping ahead at 5 to 10 per cent per year, at least for a while, with Africa languishing in the doldrums for decades to come. In this (deeply inequitable) world, to meet the IPCC target we would have to push the carbon content of consumption down to less than 0.03 tonnes for every thousand US dollars spent - a daunting 11-fold reduction on the current western European average.

Now, let's suppose we are serious about eradicating global poverty. Imagine a world whose 9 billion people can all aspire to a level of income compatible with a 2.5 per cent growth in European income between now and 2050. In this scenario, the carbon content of economic output must be reduced to just 2 per cent of the best currently achieved anywhere in the European Union.

In short, if we insist on growing the economy endlessly, then we will have to reduce the carbon intensity of our spending to a tiny fraction of what it is now. If growth is to continue beyond 2050, so must improvements in efficiency. Growth at 2.5 per cent per year from 2050 to the end of the century would more than triple the global economy beyond the 2050 level, requiring almost complete decarbonisation of every last dollar.

We'd have to have world peace before world growth would achieve those levels for that long but, having said that, I see no reason we couldn't achieve this. It only takes a couple of technological breakthroughs - like shifting to removing CO2 from the atmosphere via growing algae which are then converted into biofuels which is then burnt for energy.

We have not even begun to explore the potential for nano and biological machines, and I think they will hold the key to future technological and economic growth.

There will come a point where we need to shift offworld to keep the growth going but we are nowhere near that point yet. And we still only harness 1% of 1% of the output of the sun or something ridiculous.

[Andarion]

I like to think the best days are yet ahead of us (in the stars), what with the non-renewable resources and limited space mentioned above we will eventually see here (unless we adopt harsh population measures?)...maybe I'm just too much of a Trekkie though.

Quick read from an interview with Steven Hawking regarding space and our survival in the future:

CAMBRIDGE, England (CNN) -- Professor Stephen Hawking, one of the world's great scientists, is looking to the stars to save the human race -- but pessimism is overriding his natural optimism.
Stephen Hawking, here delivering a lecture in May, spoke recently to CNN about his vision of the future.

Stephen Hawking, here delivering a lecture in May, spoke recently to CNN about his vision of the future.

Hawking, in an exclusive CNN interview, said that if humans can survive the next 200 years and learn to live in space, then our future will be bright.

"I believe that the long-term future of the human race must be in space," said Hawking, who is almost completely paralyzed by the illness ALS.

"It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster on planet Earth in the next 100 years, let alone next thousand, or million. The human race shouldn't have all its eggs in one basket, or on one planet. Let's hope we can avoid dropping the basket until we have spread the load."

Hawking is one of the few scientists known to a wide audience outside academia thanks to his best-selling books, a guest spot on "The Simpsons" and an ability to clearly explain the complexities of theoretical physics.

He has 12 honorary degrees, was awarded the CBE in 1982 and since 1979 has been at Cambridge University's Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, where he is Lucasian Professor of Mathematics -- a post once held by Isaac Newton.

Speaking at Cambridge's Centre for Mathematical Studies, he said: "I see great dangers for the human race. There have been a number of times in the past when its survival has been a question of touch and go. The Cuban missile crisis in 1963 was one of these. Video Watch the interview in full »

"The frequency of such occasions is likely to increase in the future. We shall need great care and judgment to negotiate them all successfully.

"But I'm an optimist. If we can avoid disaster for the next two centuries, our species should be safe, as we spread into space."
advertisement

He said: "I don't think the human race has a moral obligation to learn about space, but it would be foolish and short sighted not to do so. It may hold the key to our survival."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/10/09/hawking/

edit: thanks for great articles btw

[Silverblade-T-E]

Elasto,
the only economic sub-system I can see having continued growth on Earth (even now), is the digital one, as, bar the infrastructure, the content itself doesn't use up transport, fuel and raw resources.
Example, art and game creators can "ship" their content across the globe with a vastyl reduced footprint versus anything else.

And this is a serious damned warning of what's coming:
http://www.panda.org/news_facts/news...uNewsID=147821

Andarion,
no worries

[wowisdabomb]

The article is right about world population growth exceeding the resources and degrading the planet..

the solution... global thermal nuclear war and starting over..maybe with apes as the dominant intelligent species. or our facing reality and managing growth in a way to sustain quality of life.. and protecting the planet... lol.. pfft yeah, like thats gona happen...

.. my bet is on the former...with a 99.99% certainty...as Hawking said..

"I see great dangers for the human race. There have been a number of times in the past when its survival has been a question of touch and go. The Cuban missile crisis in 1963 was one of these...The frequency of such occasions is likely to increase in the future. We shall need great care and judgment to negotiate them all successfully."

America Fuck Yeah!... lets put McBomb Bomb Bomb Iran in charge!

[HaftVishniak]

A number thrown around by the Greens yesterday: 3% growth for 100 years means your economy (i.e. pollution, consumption, resource use) is twenty times the size.

It's pretty obvious that if we don't want a population crash a la Rabbits and Foxes, we need profound change.

It's also pretty obvious that the major political parties are unable to accept that.

[Elasto]

A number thrown around by the Greens yesterday: 3% growth for 100 years means your economy (i.e. pollution, consumption, resource use) is twenty times the size.

Unless you can match a 3% growth with a 3% improvement in efficiency...

Put like that it doesn't seem so insurmountable.

[Grindel]

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

[Xan]

Its ok, by the time the sky hits the ground we'll all be dead and our kids can deal with it.

[PPatty]

Thomas Malthus has more lives than a cat.

[Etelka]

Can someone define "economic growth" for me please?

Back in 1800, it probably would have meant that all of us would have 18 horses by now.
In the days of the Roman Empire, the prediction would probably be that by now, all of us would have 200 gladiators (and that's including the gladiators, which makes the forecast a bit redundant).

Even in 1970, no one would have dreamed that "every movie ever made by man, will be readily available to every human being on the planet" would ever be a feasible goal. Yet, that's the direction we're currently taking. To me, that's progress, whether it translates in a growth of Gross National Product or not.

Will we all be driving Bentleys and Rolls Royses in 2050? Of course not, those are bound to go the way of the horse and the gladiator. But that still doesn't mean that our lives won't keep to get better.

Quantitative economic growth, per sé, will only matter for those who don't have enough to eat, don't have a roof over their heads, etcetera. And I'm not exactly certain if their lives will improve over the next decades, although the prospects for the Third World have really been much worse in the past. But for the rest of us, economic evolution is much, much more important.

[Taziir]

I'll have a Double Solyent Greenburger to go.

[Alikat Astrae]

If we moved most of our production off-planet, carbon production would not be an issue.

Give this man a cigar.

[Elasto]

Something like solar collectors beaming energy from space could solve everything, and could be extremely scalable. If you have enormous amounts of cheap energy you can use the energy to solve almost anything - from cleaning up past pollution to everything else.

And Etelka has the situation absolutely spot on. You can't just scale everything we consume now by 3% per year and use that to project where we will be as a species in 100 years and say that will be unsustainable. I dunno, perhaps in the future we will all be sitting in VR-cabinets consuming almost zero real-world resources because we all live and interact in cyberspace.

The only real 'consumables' in the future will probably be energy and information. And the universe has no practical limits on either.

[Alikat Astrae]

Perhaps in the future we will all be sitting in VR-cabinets consuming almost zero real-world resources because we all live and interact in cyberspace.

Ah, the Pwnership Society.

[Star-Demon]

Where does the electricity come from, then?

[HaftVishniak]

Unless you can match a 3% growth with a 3% improvement in efficiency...

Put like that it doesn't seem so insurmountable.

Pardon? That's some serious pie in the sky if you think in 100 years everything will take 5% of the resources and impact.

[Alikat Astrae]

Where does the electricity come from, then?

Generated by vast arrays of Keanu Reeves clones in pods.

[Etelka]

Where does the electricity come from, then?

Electricity for what?