Some ideas seem so right and obvious that we are urged not to waste time in examining them. But a little learning is a dangerous thing-a very dangerous intoxicating drink. It has always been so and today, with a small closely interlocking world where a flu virus that infects very few and kills even fewer thousands of miles away can have an effect over billions of people over the whole world.

Economic policy of Governments is crucially important to all of us but we have a poor grasp of economics – in fact we probably live in the stone age of economics. I have no doubt that many years from now our descendants will regard present economic theory, as practised by governments across the world, with the same eyes as we today view the old discredited Ptolemaic theory that the earth was the centre of the universe.

When Copernicus proved (he did not just speculate) that the earth was simply a planet that revolved around the sun and that as it revolved around the sun the earth revolved on its axis, it was an idea that was completely contrary to the accepted wisdom of thousands of years.

It was met with as much incredulity and mockery as most people reserve today for the idea that economic growth is a flawed concept. Copernicus’s concept was treated as heresy by the policy makers of the time (who were then theologians and princes), but its irrefutable logic persisted. More and more people eventually understood it. Other scientists and great thinkers confirmed its truth and the idea took hold in the minds of men.

I suspect that that the majority of the policy makers of our time – the elected and unelected governments of the nations and their advisers – believe that those who claim that the economic theory of growth as a panacea which produces only positive outcomes and prosperity. It is economic heresy to claim that economic growth should be stifled, controlled and directed, which is what many environmentalists claim.

Brian Czech, an environmentalist economist, wrote some years ago “Shovelling Fuel for a Runaway Train” in which he explains the flaws of economic growth theory, and the limits of growth. He has developed a theory of “a steady state economy”.

I think that those studying economics are beginning to examine the flaws in the concept of economic growth more carefully. They fail to recognise that although resources such as food and fuel and raw materials are finite, when they are exhausted we will be able to substitute them. Increasingly this looks like old fashioned nonsense. Many are following Mr Czech’s lead in decrying economic growth as a goal in itself and others are developing very similar ideas to those being promulgated by Mr Czech and the others who try to develop concepts of sustainability. The disadvantages of economic growth will take many years to fully sink in, just like Copernicus’ idea that the earth was not the centre of the universe.

I have no doubt that eventually we will understand that economic growth is not a formula for ever increasing prosperity as the growth in world’s population tests resources and eventually proves their limitations. Whether Mr Czech’s idea of a solid state economy is the right one, remains to be seen, but his idea will provide the planet and its population with a more secure future than the endless exhortations to grow at any cost that come from the politicians and economists. In the meantime we shall continue to shovel fuel on board the runaway train .

By John Feeney:

Humanity’s greatest challenge is upon us. It’s a converging set of ecological problems. No other difficulty we now face has the potential to impact the human future as profoundly as the convergence of climate change, peak energy, mass extinction, groundwater depletion, and a slew of related environmental catastrophes in the making. People need to know about it. It needs to saturate the media, to be in the headlines, in best-selling books, and on talk shows. And we need feature length films about it. By now, there should have been many theatrical documentaries on the subject.

But there have been only two: The 11th Hour and What a Way to Go. Both worthwhile, the latter offers the less sanitized picture of the precipice toward which we’re headed. Excluding some shoestring-budget short pieces, that makes one film so far which has made an effort to present the unblurred truth of this subject.

Now another is in the works and this one promises finally to awaken the public to the challenge ahead. It’s called Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity and it’s from Dave Gardner, one of a handful of people in the world with the training of a filmmaker and a solid grasp on the global sustainability crisis.

Cutting through the smokescreen

Dave is founder of the Colorado Springs growth control group, Save the Springs. His work there caught my eye when, involved in my own fight against urban growth, I noticed he had refined his responses to “growth machine” propaganda to an indisputable level. Statements such as, “Expansion cannot be sustained indefinitely, so a community that pins its hope for prosperity on expansion is guaranteed eventual failure” told me Dave was one activist with the ability to cut through the smokescreen to reveal the truth of our environmental dilemma.

Another of Dave’s great strengths is his ability to connect local growth issues with their counterparts at the global level. He understands how local economic policies promoting population increases interact reciprocally with national and even global population growth. Drawing on his experience with community growth control issues he demonstrates this relationship as it plays out in today’s seemingly endless urban growth. The result is a new clarity for the phrase “Think globally, act locally” as it relates to the growth of population and the economy.

A preview

What can we expect from Hooked on Growth? Here’s what I know: Importantly, it will highlight the causes of our ecological crisis. Population growth, consumption growth, urban growth, and economic growth fuel our mindless journey to the brink. Through interviews, examples of pro-growth mythology in the media, cutting edge animation, and 60-Minutes-Style case studies, the film will examine these drivers of environmental destruction and their insidious interactions.

To see how these issues play out on the community level, the movie will visit US cities such as Phoenix and Atlanta where the impact on water availability of population growth, climate change and groundwater depletion seem not to worry denial-driven, growth-cheerleading community leaders.

From the film’s website:

We hear from scientists, economists, and world-renowned authors who’ve studied this phenomenon; and from the growth-boosters – politicians, developers and economists-for-hire who promote the myth. We examine the lengths to which communities go to feed the growth beast: Las Vegas, the fastest-growing city in the U.S., and its multi-billion dollar thirst for water to sustain the pace. Colorado’s Front Range, where cities are buying and idling the state’s farms and ranches in an effort to wring out more water to sustain unquestioned urban growth. This scenario is being played out in California, Arizona, and even Florida. In “Hooked on Growth” we’ll assess the I.Q. of this behavior.

A sampling of those already interviewed for the film includes Al Bartlett, Paul Ehrlich, Brian Czech, Hunter Lovins, and Bill Mckibben. This suggests a lineup able to provide key information on issues of sustainability without any of the usual clutter.

A real strength of this film should be its inclusion of commentary from growth-boosters, perhaps even “cornucopians” in the tradition of Julian Simon. Though one might think including such material could work against the film’s message, I suggest it will make it clearer. The basic growth-boosting arguments are so common, and their refutations so seldom heard, many simply assume them to be true. They are, however, logically indefensible. Put them side by side with the essentially irrefutable ecological or pro-sustainability counter-arguments, and viewers will suddenly see through the “growth is essential and good!” propaganda we’ve all heard so often.

I’m glad to know a part of the message of Hooked on Growth is that “even if we manage to decrease per capita consumption and emission, we can’t achieve true sustainability as long as we are increasing population.” This is an issue I’ve been investigating and on which I believe Dave is it exactly right. His message here has to spread if some of those who dismiss the environmental impact of population growth are going to recognize its centrality in the sustainability equation.

But Hooked on Growth won’t highlight only problems. There’s a message of hope associated with Dave’s work, a message that we can replace our futile and self destructive grasping for a prosperity imagined to result from growth with the achievement of true prosperity through a new, harmonious relationship with the earth.

You can help!

Of course, to produce a film this ambitious, a filmmaker needs help! As some of the most successful documentary makers do, Dave is seeking support directly from interested and concerned citizens. You can go here to make a tax deductible donation, volunteer some time to help with the project, or subscribe to any of three email lists designed to keep you up to date on the film, to spread the word, or to provide input. You can even get your name in the credits!

The project is well along, by the way, with 70% of shooting complete. If you’re looking for an environmental cause worth supporting, one which deals in ecological truth, this is one of the few I’d recommend.

Knowing Dave, I’m certain his film will not pull a single punch. From all indications it has every chance of setting the standard for films on this subject. I look forward to keeping abreast of its progress, and can’t wait to see the final product.
_______
Image source: Images used with permission

[Update: Since this was posted, the CASSE site, including the FAQ, has been revamped. I encourage you to go there and have a look around!]

Administrator’s note: Though lots of actions play around the edges of helping address our environmental problems, very few get to the heart of the matter. One that does is the promotion of economic policy which rejects the notion of endless economic growth. In that vein, the “steady state economy” is a key alternative model, having grown out of the work of those in the field of ecological economics.

And no one works harder or more effectively to promote the steady state economy than Brian Czech, Ph.D. (and team!) and the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE). Trained as a conservation biologist, Brian is today an important contributor to our understanding of ecological economics, which he teaches as a visiting assistant professor at Virginia Tech. He is the author of Shoveling Fuel for a Runaway Train.

Here then, is the CASSE FAQ on economic growth. In few words, it says a great deal, touching on key points involved in the fundamental conflict between economic growth and environmental protection. My thanks to Brian for making it available! Find previous posts on Brian and CASSE here. In a related vein is this recent piece on ecological/steady state economics at Trinifar and this one at The Natural Patriot. — JF
________________________________________________________
By Brian Czech:

What is economic growth?

Economic growth is simply an increase in the production and consumption of goods and services. It entails increasing population and/or per capita production and consumption. It is measured or indicated by increasing GDP, or gross domestic product.

Why is economic growth a threat to the environment?

The economy exists within the ecosystem. This fact is overlooked in business and economics textbooks, where the economy is portrayed as a circular flow of money between firms and households:

The production of goods and services entails the conversion of natural resources, or “natural capital,” into consumer goods and manufactured capital. This explains why there is a fundamental conflict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation (pdf). Furthermore, pollution is an inevitable byproduct of economic production. The degradation of the environment as a result of economic growth occurs in many ways, but in general, economic growth leaves a larger ecological footprint.

Why is economic growth a threat to economic sustainability, national security, and international stability?

To grow, an economy requires more natural capital, including soil, water, minerals, timber, other raw materials and renewable energy sources. When the economy grows too fast or gets too big, this natural capital is depleted, or “liquidated.” To function smoothly, the economy also requires an environment that can absorb and recycle pollutants. When natural capital stocks are depleted, and/or the capacity of the environment to absorb pollutants is exceeded, the economy is forced to shrink.

National security, meanwhile, is always and everywhere a function of economic sustainability. The economic strife of a nation may result in insurrection or revolution, and eventually the nation-state may turn its agressions outward. From the Nazi doctrine of Lebensraum to the 21st century powder kegs, war invariably involves, and often revolves around, struggles for resources by nations that have exceeded their ecological capacities – or have had their capacities impacted by other states.

Can’t technology alleviate the threat of economic growth?

Some economists think that, because a particular production process can become more efficient (more output per unit of natural capital), there is no limit to economic growth. These economists and other “technological optimists” are forgetting the second law of thermodynamics, the entropy law, which tells us that we cannot achieve 100% efficiency in the economic production process. When the entropy law is applied across all economic sectors, or in other words when the limits to efficiency have been reached, the only remaining way to grow the economy is by using more natural capital (including energy).

Remember: To think there is no limit to growth on a finite planet is precisely, mathematically equivalent to thinking that you may have a stabilized, steady state economy on a perpetually shrinking planet. Both claims are precisely, equally ludicrous!

OK, so there is a limit to economic efficiency and growth. But don’t we have a long way to go to reach those limits? Can’t we grow a lot, meanwhile, without threatening the environment or the economy?

There are two crucial considerations here and, unfortunately, each one is subtle and consistently overlooked by economic policy makers. First, efficiency is not automatically selected for by consumers, firms or governments. In fact, when the goal is increasing production and consumption, moderate levels – not maximum levels – of efficiency are selected for. (Physicists and systems ecologists may recall the maximum power principle.) Getting serious about increasing efficiency requires a policy goal of something other than economic growth.

Second, technological progress is not a free lunch. In today’s computerized, competitive economies, technological progress comes from research and development, or “R&D.” Profits required for financing R&D are gained partly from economies of scale, which by definition entail increasing the size of the enterprise. This sets up a “chicken:egg spiral” between technological progress and economic growth at current levels of technology, or in other words, a zero-sum game between technological progress and environmental protection (pdf). (Economists and economic historians may recall “Jevon’s paradox.”)

But what about the “green growth” we hear about?

Some of the talk about green growth, and “smart growth” in general, is well-intended, but is more often a function of political expediency. Would we not expect politicians, who court industry while appeasing the public, to promote “green growth?” It’s handy political rhetoric, because “green” is too vague to be relevant to economic policy.

One thing is clear, however. If “green” means protecting the environment and conserving natural resources, then economic growth is fundamentally “brown.” Economists and politicians who speak loosely of “green growth” have no background in ecology, most notably trophic levels.

Trophic levels? What are those?

The “economy of nature” operates in trophic levels, and so does the human economy. In nature, the “producers” are plants, which literally produce their own food in the process of photosynthesis. Herbivores consume plants, and carnivores consume herbivores. Omnivores may eat plants or animals, and some species function as “service providers,” such as scavengers and decomposers.

The human economy follows the same natural laws. The producers are the agricultural and extractive sectors, such as logging, mining, and fishing. As Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations, it is the agricultural surplus that allows for the division of labor and economic growth.

Analogous to herbivores, we have economic sectors that consume the raw materials of the producers. These are manufacturers, and the higher level manufacturers are analogous to the carnivores in the economy of nature. We also have service providers, such as chefs, janitors, and bankers.

The key point is that he economy tends to grow as an integrated whole. More manufacturing and more services. requires more agricultural and extractive surplus, which frees the hands for the division of labor. In other words, economic growth, with limits to efficiency as described above, requires the use of more natural capital and results in more pollution. Through the lens of trophic theory, it is easy to recognize the fallacy of “green growth.”

But what about the Information Economy? Can’t we have growth in the information sectors without using more natural capital?

The fallaciousness of a “de-materialized” information economy becomes evident when we ask two questions. First, what do we do with the information? If the information is to be relevant to economic growth, it must be used by the “regular old sectors,” from agriculture to mining to manufacturing to electronics to banking.

Second, how does anyone come to afford the information? For, if no one can afford it, the information will not get past the invisible hand of the market, and it will not be relevant to economic growth. As Adam Smith and trophic theory tell us, the origins of money are in the agricultural and extractive surplus that free the hands for the division of labor.

So much for de-materializing the economy!

Why emphasize the phrase “economic growth” in discussions on the environment and national security? Why not just talk about “human activities?”

In recent decades, many publications have warned of the environmental perils of “human activities.” These warnings have been based on important scientific findings, but they have had little effect on public policy. Why? Imagine walking through the policy arena, searching for a policy table where “human activities” are handled. Your search will be fruitless, and so are the warnings.

To affect policy decisions, we will need to use language that points clearly to an established policy table. The biggest policy table in the domestic policy arena is devoted to economic growth.

When we use the phrase “economic growth” to describe the overall threat to the environment and national security, the relevant policy table is unmistakable. To the extent we are effective, policy reforms to stabilize the size of the economy will follow, with an inevitable stabilizing effect on population, per-capita consumption, and “human activities.”

What is CASSE’s position on economic growth?

CASSE advocates a carefully crafted, scientifically sound position on economic growth. Individuals are invited to support the position by e-signing (No contact information is requested, so no spamming results.) Professional societies, non-governmental organizations, and other organized groups are invited to join the growing list of organizations that have endorsed the CASSE position. CASSE also assists organizations in tailoring and developing their own positions on economic growth. Contact CASSE to offer an endorsement or for more details.

How can I help?

You can help support the goals of CASSE by e-signing the CASSE position on economic growth. (No contact information is requested, so no spamming results.) Professional societies, non-governmental organizations, and other organized groups are invited to join the growing list of organizations that have endorsed the CASSE position. An organizational endorsement is distinct from an individual signature; both are valuable resources in building the movement toward a steady state economy.

Numerous other activities may help lead to the establishment of a steady state economy. See the Action page for ideas and examples.

A few weeks ago I reported on conservation and other groups adopting official positions on the fundamental conflict between economic growth and environmental protection. I mentioned that Brian Czech and the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy have been instrumental in helping to bring about this awareness and activism.

As an update, on June 9th, at their annual meeting, the American Society of Mammalogists adopted a similar resolution. From the press release:

The ASM described a “fundamental conflict between economic growth and the conservation of ecosystems” based upon scientifically established principles. The ASM noted that an economy has an “optimal size” and that growth beyond the optimum reduces human welfare in addition to threatening other species…. The ASM was particularly concerned about the misleading rhetoric that “there is no conflict between growing the economy and protecting the environment.”… The ASM suggests that, in many nations, a “steady state economy” has become a more appropriate goal than economic growth.

This seems like a good time, then, for a bit more on Brian’s work at promoting the steady state economy. The video below is a “must see.” It features Brian providing a lucid explanation of the steady state economy concept and its significance, including a comparison to the neoclassical economics view. Highly recommended!

Click here for the video. (QuickTime)

(Please let me know if you’re having any trouble seeing the whole video.)

This press release came to me via email:

British Columbia Field Ornithologists take a position on the fundamental conflict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation

At their Annual General Meeting in Lillooet on 26 May 2007, the BC Field Ornithologists (BCFO) adopted a position on the fundamental conflict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation. The BCFO addresses the study and enjoyment of wild birds in British Columbia through research and conservation efforts to preserve birds and their habitats.

The timing of the vote was opportune as Birdlife International announced the previous week that 22% of the planet’s birds are now at increased risk of extinction. A total of 1,221 bird species are presently considered threatened with extinction and an additional 812 species are considered Near Threatened, an increase of 28 species from last year….

The British Columbia Field Ornithologists group is one of a growing number of conservation groups, ecological economics groups, and others which have adopted official positions stating that economic growth is fundamentally incompatible with environmental protection. They include the United States Society for Ecological Economics and the Society for Conservation Biology, North America Section.

Brian Czech and the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE) have played a key role in promoting this awareness and activism. On the CASSE site, you can see listed a number of other groups which have adopted positions based on or similar to the CASSE position.

More importantly, you can sign a petition endorsing the position yourself! I did, and I urge you to as well. We need a thorough reexamination of the economic growth imperative which has long remained unchallenged in our society as it has eroded our ecosystem. That a steady steady state economy is a superior alternative is just screamingly obvious.

Thanks again to Bob Fireovid for passing this along.
_______
Image source: A.Currell, posted on flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 license

Our physical growth will have to stop. It’s unsustainable. The earth is finite after all. That’s indisputable, isn’t it? Listen to Brian Czech talk about it in this radio interview. (You’ll need either to download it as an mp3, or to listen to it as a RealAudio file. For the latter, if you don’t have the RealOne player, just download Media Player Classic which is less problematic anyway and plays the same files.) Czech is the president of the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy and author of Shoveling Fuel for a Runaway Train. He has established himself as an important figure in ecological economics, taking on the neoclassical economic model and macroeconomic theorists and their propaganda advocating limitless economic growth.

Economic growth, as Czech points out in the interview, involves a physical element. Now that’s a problem. It’s that indisputably unsustainable element. There is, says Czech, a “fundamental conflict between economic growth and environmental protection.” What’s more, large numbers of scientists from an array of disciplines have said we’ve reached the limits of growth. Czech says, therefore, what few others dare to — that we need an end to economic growth as we know it. (He carefully distinguishes between economic growth and economic development which involves qualitative rather than quantitative growth and so is not subject to the same limits.) As an alternative he offers the model of the steady state economy, an idea popularized, in part, by Herman Daly.

Explains Czech, “Just as economic growth is the predominant macroeconomic policy goal identified or implied by neoclassical economics, the steady state economy is the predominant macroeconomic policy goal identified or implied by ecological economics.” Specifically, it “connotes constant populations of people (and, therefore, “stocks” of labor) and constant stocks of capital. It also has a constant rate of throughput; i.e., energy and materials used to produce goods and services.”

Clearly, the ecological economics approach to an economy is sustainable. The the conventional, neoclassical approach is not.

The interview last 37 minutes. Try to listen at least to the first half. It’s well worth it.
_______
Image source (minus added text): markg6, posted on flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license.