Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
European Activists Against Economic Growth
BERLIN - The global environmental crisis requires replacing the existing capitalist model of production with one that promotes "selective degrowth" of the economy and the restricted and responsible exploitation of natural resources, according to European experts and activists.
In parallel with degrowth French economist Serge Latouche promotes values like frugality, sobriety and austerity - in other words, he calls for renouncing the uncontrolled consumerism of contemporary capitalist societies. (Photo: Twaize/Flickr) The
movement led by French economist Serge Latouche, Swiss political
scientist Marie-Dominique Perrot, the Climate Justice Action (CJA)
association and the monthly "La Décroissance" (Degrowth), among others,
calls for different forms of consumption, the redistribution of wealth,
and technology transfer towards developing countries.
Alexis Passadakis, CJA representative in Berlin, told
Tierramérica that "the goals of this restructuring of the economy are
the conservation of natural resources and the democratisation of their
use in favour of the peoples who live in the zones of exploitation,
like the Amazon or the Congo Basin."
He also said it is necessary "to break away from the market
logic that characterises the current instruments for fighting climate
change, such as trading the rights for emissions of greenhouse-effect
gases."
This carbon market is intended to manage and redistribute
greenhouse gas emissions, when its main objective should be to reduce
emissions at the source, such as from transportation or energy
production, both in the industrialised world and poor countries, he
added.
CJA will participate in the World People's Conference on
Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, taking place Apr. 19-22
in Cochabamba, Bolivia. The association will lead a workshop on
creating inter-continental connections between grassroots movements for
climate justice.
Climate Justice Action is a federation of environmental groups
and activists that joined forces in 2009 to coordinate actions during
the United Nations Climate Summit in Copenhagen last December.
Its members share Perrot's critique of "sustainable
development" and Latouche's proposal for selective economic degrowth,
which in turn are based on thermodynamics theories applied to
environmental analysis of the global economy, put forth in the 1970s by
Romanian economist Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen.
In his book, "The Entropy Law and the Economic Process,"
published in 1971, the "founder" of the economy of degrowth utilised
the concept of entropy and its related laws of thermodynamics to
analyze the irreversible environmental degradation caused by the
consumption of raw materials.
Following Georgescu-Roegen's argument and taking into account
the worsening of the global ecological crisis, Latouche advocates
economic degrowth as an indispensable condition for the survival of
humanity.
"The logic of economic growth applied since the 18th century
has led us to far surpass the planet's physical capacity," Latouche,
professor emeritus of economics at the University of Paris-Sud 11, told
Tierramérica.
As such, degrowth emerges as the only economically viable
formula, not just in benefit of nature but also "to restore a minimum
of social justice, without which the world is condemned to
destruction," he said.
In parallel with degrowth, Latouche promotes values like
frugality, sobriety and austerity - in other words, he calls for
renouncing the uncontrolled consumerism of contemporary capitalist
societies.
A notion shared by those who promote degrowth is the right to
development of the emerging nations, such as China, India and Brazil.
But they also share criticism of many of those governments' measures
for promoting growth.
Passadakis emphasised reducing consumption of imported goods
as a way to promote regional products. "In that sense, the CJA has
adopted the Vía Campesina (an international peasant movement) programme
to ensure food sovereignty of the people through encouraging
consumption of what they themselves produce."
Passadakis suggested that activists promoting these
alternatives should focus on two levels: the national level, to foment
a vision that is ecological and entails economic degrowth, "for
example, through opposition to new carbon-based power plants and in
favour of reducing the workday in order to redistribute employment and
income."
At the international level, Passadakis pointed out that for
the negotiations leading to the 16th Conference of Parties (COP-16) to
the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, "our vision should be to
prevent the worst... We have to convince the governments that the World
Bank has no role to play in the fight against climate change."
Furthermore, "civil society and indigenous peoples should make
it clear that they won't accept it if the conference approves the REDD
plan as another market-based instrument that is supposedly useful
against global warming," he said.
REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation)
involves putting a monetary value on tropical forests in order to
incorporate them into market mechanisms, just like the trade of
emissions credits.
(*This story was originally published by Latin American
newspapers that are part of the Tierramérica network. Tierramérica is a
specialised news service produced by IPS with the backing of the United
Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme and
the World Bank.)



22 Comments so far
Show AllAt least all the nut cases aren't confined to America. Whew! When you lose touch with reality and begin to waste time on completely unattainable goals, its simply self indulgence not policy, not integrity, not admirable.
They are perfectly correct, and you, "Veritas" are absolutely, 100%, bloody wrong, and misnamed at that.
The fact that a group would challenge the assumption of unending growth on this very limited sphere - that blind assumption being the driving force behind the planetary destruction visible in all directions - is anything but self-indulgent, lacking in integrity or out of touch. Your reference to "nut cases" is blind attack worthy of O'Reilly and Hannity. You back it up with absolutely nothing. Your mention of "completely unattainable goals" is not just defeatist, it's a declaration of support for the unending growth ethic of the corporate sphere.
What they are coming to grips with is an issue ecologists have been trying to alert society to since the middle of the 20th Century. Growth for its own sake is the ethic of the cancer cell. Of course, the corporate world will fight challenge to growth, growth and more growth with its platoons of apologists.
Gene Therapy
Boy, does that mean you disagree with me? (lol)
It wasn't a blind attack, it was a comment on their goals. And I believe in the truth, not fantasy, no matter how comforting it might seem.
No sir, I am not wrong. Defeatist? The absurdity of anyone believing that they can stop economic growth, go back to the 1900s or earlier and everyone will just agree to put everything in a pot and divvy it up is out to lunch. Not going to happen.
Preaching things that won't happen has been going on for at least 80 years. Stopped wars yet for an example? Nope.
Your declarations of what I support are as worthless as the idea that because "they" don't like it, everyone will stop their economies, throw the world into a chaotic wars, and divide everything into equal shares to suit them.
"It's a declaration of support for the unending growth ethic of the corporate sphere."
I don't see that stated or implied anywhere.
Planetary destruction? What planetary destruction are you talking about, you don't define it?
"What they are coming to grips with is an issue ecologists have been trying to alert society to since the middle of the 20th Century"
What issue? You don't say.
That's pretty funny!
Pretty screwy, and that's what makes it funny.
If you feel there's no hope, why are you spending your time doing anything besides putting an end to your misery?
licketyglick
You misunderstand. I never said there was no hope, what I said in essence is fairly simple. Trying to push old ideas simply will not fly, most have already been disproved and others fly in the face of reality.
I believe progressives will have to face reality and move closer to liberals to accomplish anything.
There is only one way to "degrowth" without a financial Armageddon. That is create money based on a countries credit, or credit money. Our current system of fractional reserve banking demands increased economic activity or it falters and falls taking the real economy with it.
It's very simple really. Fractional reserve banking and its attendant interest can only function with ever more debt. That debt is in essence an ever increasing mortgage on the earth's real wealth, the natural resources and the environmental damage that it takes to extract, process and ship them.
Those on the left are sadly ignorant of how the financial system really works. The politics are a direct product of the way we create our money. To change the politics you must change the very architecture of the creation of currency and credit.
The way to do that is have the treasury create our currency and credit, with no debt, so that it can be managed as to it's supply and to it's allocation. By regulating supply financial companies can not manipulate through leverage the economy. By retaking our rights to produce currency and credit for the good of the people and the environment the people get both the profit and prerogative of money creation and the ability to "degrowth" without an economic Armageddon.
Good points!
Mayer Amschel Rothschild quote: "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."
Nothing could be closer to the truth ... The "Left" had better take this to heart or they will be soundly rebuked for collapsing the economy. Until the creation of currency and credit are created by the Treasury, without debt, in service to the people, while protecting the environment, they risk the complete discredit of economic catastrophe.
mmckinl
Frankly I don't think progressives pay much attention to things like economics or sociology as liberals do. Lately I feel some agree with our Congress and would consider an economic catastrophe a small price to pay for some ideological accomplishments.
"an economic catastrophe a small price to pay"
It might well be, but unless the old system of debt money is replaced with UST credit derived money all will be for naught. The same actors take over as before now even more powerful ...
That is why having a plan ready to implement to replace the old order is so important both to the success of reform and the disenfranchisement of the old guard.
Unfortunately the "old order" looks like it is being replaced by the Chinese model; totalitarian capitalism.
What you propose sounds like "sovereign credit", as proposed by Henry C.K. Liu in "The Global Economy in Transition" (http://henryckliu.com/page181.html)
This the first paragraph:
"Most monetary economists view government-issued money as a sovereign debt instrument with zero maturity, historically derived from the bill of exchange in free banking. This view is valid for specie money, which is a certificate that can claim on demand a prescribed amount of gold or other specie of value. Government-issued fiat money, on the other hand, is not a sovereign debt but a sovereign credit instrument. Sovereign government bonds are sovereign debt while local government bonds are institutional debt, but not sovereign debt because local governments cannot print money. When money buys bonds, the transaction represents credit canceling debt. The relationship is rather straightforward, but of fundamental importance."
Mr Liu has committed a grave error. He has confused the origins of money. The money we have today is born of debt. Our money is created by banks in the form of loans in a Ponzi Scheme that one dollar begets ten or more ... True credit money would be printed without debt and be underwritten by the power of the Sovereign, the size and health of its' economy, the efficiency of tax collection and the natural resources that reside in its sphere of influence.
The power of Sovereignty is not debt nor gold or specie but the power to tax and regulate commerce denominated in Sovereign denominations with regard to the productivity and wealth, financial and natural, of said economy and the efficiency of taxation and commercial contract. It is the power to tax on the threat of fine, confiscation or prison that is the tie that binds all wealth to the Sovereign.
"Those on the left are sadly ignorant of how the financial system really works."
So you're implying those on the right are not ignorant of how the financial system "really" works?
The right and the neoliberal Democrats are the allies of the financial institutions and do not question the role of private banking using fractional reserve banking to create our money.
The Libertarians are much more interested in economic and monetary theory but their usual solutions of gold backed currency are sadly a throw back to the 19th century. They also fail to realize that even then currency was being devalued through fractional reserve banking ...
We need a new paradigm of Sovereign currency and credit creation that will allow the management of the amount of money and the prerogative of money creation to both profit the tax payers through the Treasury's management and printing of money while managing money flows to benefit sustainable activity and disadvantage those activities that are unsustainable and damage the environment.
And I thought it was my idea....
Still, it is common sense; and in my family it has been the obvious truth: infinite growth (economic) can only be supported if resources are infinite. The fact that resources are NOT infinite is hardly up for debate. Therefore, the capitalist model wherein growth is the absolute necessity is unsustainable, and indefensible. Duh.
We need to get peoples on all parts of the planet independent of the outside world. Off The Grid but still connected to the outside world via the Internet.
Communities decide what they have unique to offer as trade to the outside world, and organize their people to make it work.
The Government has been messing with us for the BIG monopolies who control the RESOURCES; it is THEY who don't want us shopping anywhere else like the SUN.
Degrowth will happen with or without our participation in the process.
I can just hear the BRIC countries crying foul at this idea as it is coming from the European intellectuals , hence they think well if European had fun with infinite growth and consumerism, why should Brazil, Russia, India and China let go of these good times ( personally, for many reasons, i don't believe these were good time).
The climate accord to reduce GHG has ran into similar arguments between Western Industrial countries and BRIC countries. Dito in the case of Nuclear issues around the world.
We are indeed caught in a catch 22. The only arbitrator I see resolving these man made issues is Nature and its fury.
Maybe someone can help me identify the individual/group who said that in the future humanity will have to:
Place a minimum income for every citizen.
Place a maximum income for every citizen.
Place a min/max total population for humanity.
These are worthy goals. The first has been implemented with mixed success in many countries including the US (lot of people fall thru the cracks, of course). The second has been implemented in some Scandinavian countries with very good results (by limiting the highest paid person in a company to x times the pay of the lowest paid). The third has so far been unattainable, but has been suggested by many, starting with Malthus and refined by "The Limits to Growth" published in 1971 or so.
"A notion shared by those who promote degrowth is the right to development of the emerging nations, such as China, India and Brazil."
If you promote degrowth you can't just give a pass to countries that are poorer. Essentially, what they are espousing here is simply shifting all the dirty industry and out-of-control growth to "emerging" nations. According to this mixed-up philosophy China can just keep screwing the earth heedlessly while all the other industrialized countries practice austerity.