To date, I have discussed the important role economic growth plays in our society and illustrated some of the problems associated with that growth. There clearly are benefits to it, and it certainly has benefited me, but the point of all this is to show that our commitment to exponential growth forever, ultimately, undermines the very support system that the economy and the rest of society is dependent upon. When do we decide that growth is actually making us poorer? By that time will it be to late? Will we be able to decide how to change own our own terms, or will nature decide that for us?
This short entry will focus on how environmental problems are framed, and how that framing limits the types of solutions that are pursued. When our social, political, and economic institutions are organized around a growth paradigm, solutions to environmental problems will often reinforce that paradigm. If, for example, the solution to a problem will stymie growth, it likely will not adopted. This is especially true when costs are incurred immediately but the benefits are not seen for years. It is hard for a politician to take action on an expensive, long-term issue when she is trying to be reelected in four years. It is often political suicide. A way around this is to search for solutions that alleviate the problem that don’t undermine, and may even promote, growth. In other word, to employ solutions that allow us to grow out of the problem.
When economic activity is preeminently production oriented problems are framed as issues of production, the only logical way to solve these problems of production –such as, pollution or deforestation -- is to produce better. For example, if cars pollute too much, manufacturers produce better catalytic converters. If engines use too much gas, engineers produce more efficient engines. If aquifers are being depleted, agriculturalists produce deeper wells. But do these ‘solutions’ solve the problem? In all cases the operation is “improved,” but the actual problem is just deferred or displaced. Pollutants still can’t exceed absorption capacity. And, aquifers are still mined at a rate that exceeds regeneration.
The “improved production” approach presumes that resource-use is a given and searches for marginal improvements. An alternative approach, that is rarely employed, presumes that current practices are unsustainable and looks for alternative forms of social organization. Meaning that the problem is consumption based and we need to change demand. Both a production and a consumption approach may have similar goals, for example they might both want to dramatically reduce the amount of CO2 we emit, and they might speak with similar urgency. But, the types of questions they ask and strategies they employ will be fundamentally different. I will stick with the climate change example to illustrate this:
A production approach views the emission of CO2 as the entire problem and therefore the solution is technological -- if we can develop better means of production, energy efficiency and renewables, we will solve the problem. If, however, climate change is viewed as a symptom brought on by the incompatible relationship between a growth dependent political economy and the finite world, then the solution appears to be social, rather than technological -- if we change consumption habits we will solve this problem (and many others). I tend to sit in the latter camp, because the former implicitly shifts the blame onto technology, or nature. But, the problem is not the technology itself, or natures inability to absorb our waste, rather it is a society that invents and then uses certain types of technology in an unsustainable way. If the social drivers of environmental problems are ignored, policy solution will focus on symptoms rather than curing the disease.
In reality, both production and consumption approaches are needed. There are many gains that can be made in the way we produce. But, marginal improvements can’t achieve sustainability on their own. It is foolish to not seek sweeping reforms in our consumption habits too. This, however, will force us to address the issue of economic growth, which is why serious consumption solutions are not being discussed.
My next entry will tie this all together with an interesting conversation that is happening in British Columbia around “green energy.” If you haven’t died of boredom by this point, I think you will enjoy it.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Can economic growth be sustainable?
This is a crucial question, and one I have been struggling to understand for that last several months. Undoubtedly it is a question we will be force to face in the coming years. Politicians, conventional economist, techno-optimist (those who believe technology will solve everything) argue that if we grow right, growth can be sustainable. “Our Common Future” which launched the term ‘sustainable development’, called for changing the quality of growth, which is no doubt important but does imply that growth can be sustainable. Obama (who would never lie to me) has inspired and pleased millions of American’s with his green energy plan that will solve the financial crisis (read: get the economy growing again), end the U.S.’s dependence on foreign oil and lead to environmental sustainability. Currently, sustainable growth proponents are winning the debate, but I question if it is by sound argument or just a louder voice.
I am going to walk through the conventional economic and techno-optimist arguments and highlight potential flaws. I will then present an alternative position. I want to stress that this alternative position is not a fringe idea, there is a robust body of research supporting it, but because questioning growth is such a pariah it does not get much mainstream attention.
Conventional (neoclassical) economics: is built on the assumption that the workings of the economy are fundamentally captured by the circular flow of exchange value -- Firms produce goods, which are bought and consumed by households, which in turn supply labour by which the firms use to produce the goods, and so on. The circular flow grows by increasing the inputs of labour (more workers), capital (more machines, bigger factories, etc.), and land (more natural resources). The system is self-contained, and therefore there is no reason it can’t grow forever. In conventional economic thinking the environment is obsolete because resources are assumed to be infinitely substitutable for one another. If we run out of something, or it becomes scarce and therefore prohibitively expensive, we can always find something else that is more abundant and cheaper.
Problems with this logic: the central assumption is flawed because the economy is not a self-contained system, it is a subsystem of the environment. And, the flow is not circular, but linear -- natural resources are converted into goods, which are bought and consumed, and expelled back into nature as waste. Economic production converts nature capital (trees, water, fossil fuels, minerals, etc.) into manufactured capital (houses, cars, clothes, computers, etc.). The economy can, therefore, only grow at the expense of nature. We know the ecosphere is finite because there is a fixed amount of matter on earth, and so it follows that the economy too, must also be finite because as a subsystem it cannot outgrow its host.
Techno-optimist: Proponents of this persuasion, who often play Robin to conventional economics, argue that limits are obsolete. The infinite bounds of human ingenuity can overcome any limit nature tries to impose on us. In our society it is technological ingenuity that gets most of the attention, our propensity for technological fixes allows serious people to have serious conversations about solving climate change by building a giant reflector in outer space. It is easy to understand why technological ingenuity is so popular, it can ‘solve’ an immediate problem, while allowing us to continue course without questioning or changing our lifestyles. It creates new industry and solves the problem, a win-win.
Problems with this logic: Granted the techno-optimist have millennia of support for their position, ever since humans climbed down form the trees we have been overcoming nature’s limits – we tamed fire, developed agriculture, invented electricity, and went to moon, but all that success does not guarantee our ability to overcome the next limit. Nor does it recognize that there are many problems, of our own making, that we have yet to solve. And, many of our ‘solutions’ abate the immediate problem by creating a new one, or deferring the old one to other countries or future generations.
This is not say that technology has no place, indeed it will, and needs to, have a massive role in the future. Efficiencies can be made in every sector of the economy. I am big supporter closed-loop production, 100% recycling, biomicry, life cycle analysis, and renewable energies. But if, and that’s a big if, all those things were put in place (which will take decades, at least), then what? We would still have growth. Every scrap of steel we use might be recycled, forever, but the amount of steel needed each year would still be growing, which would mean more extraction. Likewise, renewable energy could power the economy, but our energy demands would still be growing, which would mean more windmills, more solar panels, more land, more steel, and more Silicone. The technological fixes don’t solve the underlying problem they just delay the day reckoning.
The alternative view is one supported by ecological economist, physicist and ecologist. It is built on the principles of finitude, thermodynamics and ecological interdependence, I’ll briefly explain how these interact: as a subsystem, the growth of the economy is limited by 1) the size of the ecosystem, and 2) its dependence on the ecosystem as a source of low entropy inputs (trees, coal, etc.) and as a sink for high entropy waste (heat, pollution, landfill mass). For example, we take coal and trees and turn them into carbon dioxide, heat, and landfill mass -- they pause for only a fraction of the time in the ‘chair’ phase. We tend to think turning a tree into a chair adds value, but from a thermodynamic viewpoint we are really consuming value. Economic growth is achieved through depletion and pollution and it entropic costs interfere with and unravel the planet’s complex, interconnected ecological life support services -- this cannot ever be sustainable.
Put another way, sustainable growth is an oxymoron. For the economy to grow it must incorporate an ever-greater proportion of nature, but it will eventually hit that 100% ceiling -- in reality, the ecospheres interconnectivity means that Mother Nature will get rid of us long before we reach that point. This does not mean that the economy cannot develop, but that is different from growth. The ecosphere develops, it does not grow. However, to arrive at this, and begin designing how the economy might develop sustainably requires that we stop believing we can grow our way out of every problem we face.
I am going to walk through the conventional economic and techno-optimist arguments and highlight potential flaws. I will then present an alternative position. I want to stress that this alternative position is not a fringe idea, there is a robust body of research supporting it, but because questioning growth is such a pariah it does not get much mainstream attention.
Conventional (neoclassical) economics: is built on the assumption that the workings of the economy are fundamentally captured by the circular flow of exchange value -- Firms produce goods, which are bought and consumed by households, which in turn supply labour by which the firms use to produce the goods, and so on. The circular flow grows by increasing the inputs of labour (more workers), capital (more machines, bigger factories, etc.), and land (more natural resources). The system is self-contained, and therefore there is no reason it can’t grow forever. In conventional economic thinking the environment is obsolete because resources are assumed to be infinitely substitutable for one another. If we run out of something, or it becomes scarce and therefore prohibitively expensive, we can always find something else that is more abundant and cheaper.
Problems with this logic: the central assumption is flawed because the economy is not a self-contained system, it is a subsystem of the environment. And, the flow is not circular, but linear -- natural resources are converted into goods, which are bought and consumed, and expelled back into nature as waste. Economic production converts nature capital (trees, water, fossil fuels, minerals, etc.) into manufactured capital (houses, cars, clothes, computers, etc.). The economy can, therefore, only grow at the expense of nature. We know the ecosphere is finite because there is a fixed amount of matter on earth, and so it follows that the economy too, must also be finite because as a subsystem it cannot outgrow its host.
Techno-optimist: Proponents of this persuasion, who often play Robin to conventional economics, argue that limits are obsolete. The infinite bounds of human ingenuity can overcome any limit nature tries to impose on us. In our society it is technological ingenuity that gets most of the attention, our propensity for technological fixes allows serious people to have serious conversations about solving climate change by building a giant reflector in outer space. It is easy to understand why technological ingenuity is so popular, it can ‘solve’ an immediate problem, while allowing us to continue course without questioning or changing our lifestyles. It creates new industry and solves the problem, a win-win.
Problems with this logic: Granted the techno-optimist have millennia of support for their position, ever since humans climbed down form the trees we have been overcoming nature’s limits – we tamed fire, developed agriculture, invented electricity, and went to moon, but all that success does not guarantee our ability to overcome the next limit. Nor does it recognize that there are many problems, of our own making, that we have yet to solve. And, many of our ‘solutions’ abate the immediate problem by creating a new one, or deferring the old one to other countries or future generations.
This is not say that technology has no place, indeed it will, and needs to, have a massive role in the future. Efficiencies can be made in every sector of the economy. I am big supporter closed-loop production, 100% recycling, biomicry, life cycle analysis, and renewable energies. But if, and that’s a big if, all those things were put in place (which will take decades, at least), then what? We would still have growth. Every scrap of steel we use might be recycled, forever, but the amount of steel needed each year would still be growing, which would mean more extraction. Likewise, renewable energy could power the economy, but our energy demands would still be growing, which would mean more windmills, more solar panels, more land, more steel, and more Silicone. The technological fixes don’t solve the underlying problem they just delay the day reckoning.
The alternative view is one supported by ecological economist, physicist and ecologist. It is built on the principles of finitude, thermodynamics and ecological interdependence, I’ll briefly explain how these interact: as a subsystem, the growth of the economy is limited by 1) the size of the ecosystem, and 2) its dependence on the ecosystem as a source of low entropy inputs (trees, coal, etc.) and as a sink for high entropy waste (heat, pollution, landfill mass). For example, we take coal and trees and turn them into carbon dioxide, heat, and landfill mass -- they pause for only a fraction of the time in the ‘chair’ phase. We tend to think turning a tree into a chair adds value, but from a thermodynamic viewpoint we are really consuming value. Economic growth is achieved through depletion and pollution and it entropic costs interfere with and unravel the planet’s complex, interconnected ecological life support services -- this cannot ever be sustainable.
Put another way, sustainable growth is an oxymoron. For the economy to grow it must incorporate an ever-greater proportion of nature, but it will eventually hit that 100% ceiling -- in reality, the ecospheres interconnectivity means that Mother Nature will get rid of us long before we reach that point. This does not mean that the economy cannot develop, but that is different from growth. The ecosphere develops, it does not grow. However, to arrive at this, and begin designing how the economy might develop sustainably requires that we stop believing we can grow our way out of every problem we face.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Q and A
Four followers, one comment and several emails, things are really starting to snowball here. I am going to respond to two email questions today because I think they add to the conversation and answering them has helped me distill my thinking. Thank you to those who are participating!
Question 1: What do I mean by growth? And, am I confusing growth with consumption, which will occur whether or not there is growth?
Before I answer, I should clarify that I am trying to avoid the minefield that is population growth. I recognize it is an absolutely vital piece to the sustainability puzzle, but I need to keep in mind that this is only a two-year program. I avoid it by focusing on affluent nations, where the problem stems from overconsumption, and not population.
a) When I talk about growth I am referring specifically to economic growth, the standard measure of which is the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). GPD is the dollar value of all goods and services newly produced within the borders of a country. As an aside: it is not a complete measure because it tells us nothing about happiness or the well-being of the country, but it is often misrepresented to mean those things, i.e. a growing GDP is good and a shrinking GDP is bad. Here is a classic example: a car accident generates lots of economic activity -- paramedics, police, and clean-up crews must be paid, insurance companies will pay money to the drivers, mechanics will be paid to fix the cars, perhaps there will even be a funeral -- all of which increases the GDP, but is society better off? I think we can agree that no, it is not. At any rate, the GDP issue is a whole other entry, actually a whole other blog.
b) When speaking on economic growth I do not confuse it with consumption because consumption is implicit in that growth. For any growth to occur, something must be consumed.
It is true that consumption is natural and necessary, and will occur with or without growth. But I am not arguing that it is inherently bad. When speaking to the perils of consumption, I am not referring to consumption for survival but rather to conspicuous consumption -- consumption for the purpose of demonstrating social status, like buying a bigger car or bigger house. It is increasing amount conspicuous consumption that drives economic growth and as a consequence ecological decline.
Environmental problems arise from consumption when we overconsume. That is, when individuals or communities choose a level of consumption that undermines their own life support system. A major challenge that we face, in our global economic system, is that extraction and production happen at a great distance, both physically and psychologically, from the point of consumption. As a consumer in Canada, I am subject to almost no immediate feedback from nature telling me that I am overconsuming. In other words, I can't appreciate that my demand to eat a banana each morning, is aiding in the deforestation of Peru and poisoning of its rivers and workers. If that was happening in my own backyard, I don’t think I would want to eat bananas anymore. Again, this topic deservers a whole other entry, it might be worth me writing one.
The Capitalist system promotes overconsumption because 1) national boarders are too confining for it expansionary/profit maximizing nature. Therefore, it has the tendency to globalize which, as illustrate above, detaches consumers from the immediate consequences of their consumption. And, 2) society’s dependence on this expansionary system inhibits its ability to question growth. Within this frame, our only viable response is to grow out of the problem. But again, as I plan to discuss in my next entry, this can’t be relied upon indefinitely -- sustainable growth is an oxymoron.
Question 2: “Isn’t the primary reason we have growth because of population growth?”
I don’t agree with this, but I am not an economic historian so perhaps someone out there can enlighten me. The evidence from affluent countries, I think, indicates that the inverse is true. Japan for example, a country that has a very low birthrate and traditionally strict immigration laws, has had to relax those laws in an effort to grow the workforce, and hopefully, reenergize their stagnate economy. Similar reforms are happening (or have happened) across Europe and North America where immigration is needed to supplement a shrinking workforce. This says, at least to me, that in affluent countries the reason for population growth is to spur on economic growth. Your question raises another important question: Is the economy serving society? Or is society serving the economy? Karl Polanyi argued that the economy should serve the needs of society (and I agree), to tie that back to your question, yes if a population is growing then the economy should probably grow to meets its needs -- I am for economic growth in Africa, but for economic development in Canada. The alternative to Polanyi’s argument, is the neoliberal position which, at least tacitly, argues that society should serve the economy, i.e. the government should stay out of the way, let the economy do its thing and we will all be better off for it. The neoliberal dogmas have dominated political and economic discourse for the past several decades, especially in the U.S., Worldbank, IMF and WTO. However, as the financial crisis cascades through the US, the cannibalistic tendencies of free-market capitalism, which Polanyi warned about, are being validated. Even some of the most steadfast free-marketeers, like Alan Greenspan, are changing their tune. As one of my professors like to say “Polanyi must be giving us the finger form his grave.”
I encourage folks to read Karl Polanyi’s book “The Great Transformation: The political and economic origins of our time,” it is heavy but incredibly important and timely. It was written in the 1940’s, but in 2008, as the economy tanked, it was on backorder across North America.
Alright, I will get back on track tomorrow.
Question 1: What do I mean by growth? And, am I confusing growth with consumption, which will occur whether or not there is growth?
Before I answer, I should clarify that I am trying to avoid the minefield that is population growth. I recognize it is an absolutely vital piece to the sustainability puzzle, but I need to keep in mind that this is only a two-year program. I avoid it by focusing on affluent nations, where the problem stems from overconsumption, and not population.
a) When I talk about growth I am referring specifically to economic growth, the standard measure of which is the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). GPD is the dollar value of all goods and services newly produced within the borders of a country. As an aside: it is not a complete measure because it tells us nothing about happiness or the well-being of the country, but it is often misrepresented to mean those things, i.e. a growing GDP is good and a shrinking GDP is bad. Here is a classic example: a car accident generates lots of economic activity -- paramedics, police, and clean-up crews must be paid, insurance companies will pay money to the drivers, mechanics will be paid to fix the cars, perhaps there will even be a funeral -- all of which increases the GDP, but is society better off? I think we can agree that no, it is not. At any rate, the GDP issue is a whole other entry, actually a whole other blog.
b) When speaking on economic growth I do not confuse it with consumption because consumption is implicit in that growth. For any growth to occur, something must be consumed.
It is true that consumption is natural and necessary, and will occur with or without growth. But I am not arguing that it is inherently bad. When speaking to the perils of consumption, I am not referring to consumption for survival but rather to conspicuous consumption -- consumption for the purpose of demonstrating social status, like buying a bigger car or bigger house. It is increasing amount conspicuous consumption that drives economic growth and as a consequence ecological decline.
Environmental problems arise from consumption when we overconsume. That is, when individuals or communities choose a level of consumption that undermines their own life support system. A major challenge that we face, in our global economic system, is that extraction and production happen at a great distance, both physically and psychologically, from the point of consumption. As a consumer in Canada, I am subject to almost no immediate feedback from nature telling me that I am overconsuming. In other words, I can't appreciate that my demand to eat a banana each morning, is aiding in the deforestation of Peru and poisoning of its rivers and workers. If that was happening in my own backyard, I don’t think I would want to eat bananas anymore. Again, this topic deservers a whole other entry, it might be worth me writing one.
The Capitalist system promotes overconsumption because 1) national boarders are too confining for it expansionary/profit maximizing nature. Therefore, it has the tendency to globalize which, as illustrate above, detaches consumers from the immediate consequences of their consumption. And, 2) society’s dependence on this expansionary system inhibits its ability to question growth. Within this frame, our only viable response is to grow out of the problem. But again, as I plan to discuss in my next entry, this can’t be relied upon indefinitely -- sustainable growth is an oxymoron.
Question 2: “Isn’t the primary reason we have growth because of population growth?”
I don’t agree with this, but I am not an economic historian so perhaps someone out there can enlighten me. The evidence from affluent countries, I think, indicates that the inverse is true. Japan for example, a country that has a very low birthrate and traditionally strict immigration laws, has had to relax those laws in an effort to grow the workforce, and hopefully, reenergize their stagnate economy. Similar reforms are happening (or have happened) across Europe and North America where immigration is needed to supplement a shrinking workforce. This says, at least to me, that in affluent countries the reason for population growth is to spur on economic growth. Your question raises another important question: Is the economy serving society? Or is society serving the economy? Karl Polanyi argued that the economy should serve the needs of society (and I agree), to tie that back to your question, yes if a population is growing then the economy should probably grow to meets its needs -- I am for economic growth in Africa, but for economic development in Canada. The alternative to Polanyi’s argument, is the neoliberal position which, at least tacitly, argues that society should serve the economy, i.e. the government should stay out of the way, let the economy do its thing and we will all be better off for it. The neoliberal dogmas have dominated political and economic discourse for the past several decades, especially in the U.S., Worldbank, IMF and WTO. However, as the financial crisis cascades through the US, the cannibalistic tendencies of free-market capitalism, which Polanyi warned about, are being validated. Even some of the most steadfast free-marketeers, like Alan Greenspan, are changing their tune. As one of my professors like to say “Polanyi must be giving us the finger form his grave.”
I encourage folks to read Karl Polanyi’s book “The Great Transformation: The political and economic origins of our time,” it is heavy but incredibly important and timely. It was written in the 1940’s, but in 2008, as the economy tanked, it was on backorder across North America.
Alright, I will get back on track tomorrow.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Addicted to growth
Today's blog will focus on the role economic growth plays in society. I might as well come right out with it: I plan to challenge the infallible goodness of economic growth. To my neoclassical friends, I apologize for this blasphemy. I do recognize the positive side of growth, but ask you to consider a negative side. Society's commitment to exponential growth in a finite world is irrational, undermining, and unsustainable. Before I get into this, a brief digression on why growth is imperative to our society is required:
The dependence on growth begins with the economy. Capitalism is by nature expansionary. Businesses, seeking to maximize profits, relentlessly pursue new innovations to lower their costs. As these innovations come online they replace expensive labour. In order to prevent mass unemployment, which is both bad for the economy and a source of social unrest, new industries must be created to absorb displaced workers . If growth stops, or even slows, unemployment rises, and investment and profits decrease. All of which interrupt the circular flow of capital sending the economy spiraling downwards. The liberal democratic state (like Canada), which has developed juxtaposed to capitalism, is equally dependent on growth. Without it, the state could not fund its social welfare programs, such as healthcare, social security, or public universities. Moreover, if unemployment rises, the disgruntled public, who ultimately legitimize the government, will demand change through protest or election. In other words, the public rewards pro-growth policies, and punishes anti-growth policies at the ballot box. The symbiotic relationship that has formed between capitalism, the state and the populace reinforces the growth imperative allowing it to shape and dominate political discourse.
If I asked the question what is growth for? I'd suspect an answer along the line of "to increase prosperity" or "to increase happiness." It does do this to a degree, but just because some growth is good does not mean that more growth is better. Does growth actually make us happier? For someone in abject poverty it can be expected that economic growth will increase their happiness, but what about someone in Canada's middle class? Piles of research suggests that past a surprisingly low income, economic growth does not bring more happiness. What about prosperity, does economic growth actually make us more prosperous? I suppose that too is relative -- There is a solid argument to be made that owning more stuff actually make us less prosperous if it is achieved at the expense of rainforests, or polar bears, or clean air. Although important, the question of 'what is growth for' lays outside the scope of my research. I have included it to illustrate that equating growth to happiness or even prosperity is fallible. For my work, the more pertinent questions include: What happens when the short-term emphasis on growth threatens the long-term stability of society? What role does growth play in shaping and limiting environmental policy? And, do our institutions have the capacity to respond when growth is the problem? The next three entries will address these questions in turn.
If sustainability is truly the goal, and it should be, then we need to put the topic of economic growth on the table. At the moment, growth's false hegemony as the ultimate problem solver makes that seem politically impossible. But I leave you with this: Both capitalism and the state are human inventions, they weren't designed by a supreme being or an invisible hand, they were, and continue to be socially constructed. It is wrong to think that they can't be deconstructed.
With the growth primer out of the way, I will begin to really flesh out my research topic. If you have lasted this long, thank you, I think it will start to get more interesting. Tomorrow's topic: economic growth and ecological decline
Until next time.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Is anyone listening?
I never thought I would be a 'blogger'. I am critical enough of my own writing, so the idea of making it public, and inviting criticism is terrifying. This blog is the product of an assignment that asked me to 'step outside my comfort zone' and present my research in an alternative way. So here I am blogging, in an attempt to engage you in my conversation on growth, environmental policy, and sustainability. Please join me, it promises to be a magical ride.
I have named this blog "The Skeptical Optimist." I have always considered myself an optimist, as a student of environmental studies what other choice do I have. But as I spend more time studying in this field I find myself growing skeptical. Not of the science, but of our ability to respond. The shear complexity and scale of the numerous environmental problems that now plague our planet are enough to stifle the most robust political, social and economic institutions. This worries me!
I suppose the best place to start is with a question: what is driving global ecological decline? That may seem like an easy one -- climate change is caused by the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation is caused by cutting down too many trees, and species loss is caused by overharvesting. Those may be the politically popular answers, but I suggest the cause runs much deeper. Environmental problems cannot be separated from one another because they are all symptoms of a single, much larger issue: society's irrational commitment to exponential growth on a finite planet subject to the laws of thermodynamics. A mouthful I know, but over the next several entries I will unpack how this 'commitment' leads to ecological decline and severely limits environmental policy.
Much of the discussion that follows will be theoretical, but I will ground it in an interesting conversation that is happening right now in British Columbia around climate change policy. Tomorrow's entry will focus on the role economic growth play in our society, followed by entries on economic growth and ecological decline, and how the growth imperative shapes our response to environmental problems. Feel free to ask questions or challenge any of this, I will be happy to respond.
Until next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
