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.