Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Thinking About Shrinking: A Green Path Through Hard Times?
As the most serious economic crisis in
80 years rolls across
the planet, financial panic has shoved
food shortages, public-health emergencies, and ecological disasters
into the
background. With fantastic fortunes at
stake, the number-one priority of governments and businesses must be
economic
growth; those "green" initiatives announced not long ago with such
fanfare have
already been deferred or forgotten.
We Americans are now told that because our economy has been
kept afloat for so long on borrowed money and borrowed time, "our"
wealth and
"our" jobs have gone to the other side of the globe, with India and
China
typically the scapegoats. We shouldn't
cut our carbon emissions, we're told, until India and China cut back. If our food crops end up in landfills or
petrol tanks, we're told, that doesn't affect hungry people; rather,
eating
habits in the Eastern Hemisphere are the real key to the food crisis.
(For example, at the height of the
early-2008 global food shortages,
President George W. Bush said
of India, "Their middle class is
larger than our entire population. And
when you start getting wealth, you start demanding better nutrition and
better
food. And so demand is high, and that causes the price to go up.")
In all such pronouncements, the message is consistent: "We
in the West have gotten what we want.
Now, if the rest of you try to do the same, you'll spoil things
for
everyone." Where I live, there appears
to be little awareness of the grotesquely contorted positions that such
arguments
require their proponents to assume.
I lived in India in the early 1980s and the late 1990s, married into an Indian family, and have returned for months at a time in recent years. I have cheered on those Indian citizens who are going against the grain, urging respect for nature and sufficiency for all, and showing how both can be achieved.
That's in contrast to the model of the
traditional
industrial powers, which translates to efficiency for the few and
deficiency
for everyone else. But government and
business elites, both East and West, continue working on the assumption
that
India, China, Brazil, and other emerging powers will follow the same
destructive road to wealth that Europe, Japan, and America continue to
travel.
Too much more of that lopsided growth will make this planet
a very nasty place to live. If
greenhouse-gas emissions are to be reduced to a level that will avert
runaway
global warming, economic activity will have to shrink, not grow.
According to a recent analysis
by Minqi Li, economics
professor at the University of Utah, the world economy must contract at
a
historically rapid clip - at an annual rate of about -1 to -3.4 percent
between
now and 2050 -- if atmospheric carbon dioxide is to be held below the
critical
threshold of 445 parts per million. That
range in negative-growth estimates covers a range of scenarios going
from
dramatic to modest improvements in energy efficiency and alternative
technologies. But in all scenarios,
however rosy their assumptions, economic growth will have to be thrown
into
reverse or else.
Everything depends on how that economic
contraction is
handled. The US economy declined by
about 55 percent in just four years at the start of the Great
Depression, with
the well-known catastrophic outcomes. At
the -2 percent annual rate of contraction required by Professor Li's
‘medium-green' scenarios, economies would eventually shrink by an
amount close
to that Depression-era 55 percent, but over a period of more than 40
years, not
four.
If economic activity is scaled down rationally, in a fair
and humane way, requiring the biggest sacrifices from the most
affluent, we
could all live in a better, cleaner world.
But when recession-plagued economies contract chaotically,
prompting
governments and industries to cast about for new ways to restore rapid
capital
accumulation, almost everyone's environment deteriorates.
There is still time to cure the malignant economic growth
that we've unleashed, but the solution won't come from those people and
institutions that have managed to wreck both the global economy and the
global
ecology. A new way of thinking and
acting will have to come from the bottom up, and from both hemispheres
of this
ailing planet. We'd should be ready; the
unsettled times that lie ahead may offer the opening we've been looking
for.
- Posted in
14 Comments so far
Show AllThanks Stan, for raising a critically important fact it seems most people don't want to discuss: we can't buy our way out of climate change and environmental degradation.
All the great new green gadgets, new LEED-certified high rises and recycled upscale tote bags might be great from one perspective (that is, they require fewer inputs and/or generate fewer greenhouse gases, etc.) But the very processes of building, manufacturing and shipping anything the way we do it today (in mechanized factories powered by coal-derived electricity) contributes to our environmental problems.
Nobody likes to be told we're going to have to get used to living with less, but that's the reality.
We are changing at the bottom. The challenge is to grow the shrinking! Quite a concept huh? Learning to live simply again is not an easy process, but it is a process. The sooner another person plugs in the better.
As Robert Kennedy pointed out, our GNP simply measures that which is bought and sold. Everytime someone gets cancer, it goes up. Everytime someone crashes a car, it goes up.
It doesn't measure the health of our children, the beauty of our landscapes, the strength of our relationships.
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/RFK/RFKSpeech68Mar18UKansas.htm
We can live wonderful lives with much less commerce than we have now. And others in the world can, also.
One thing we totally need more of, though, is birth control!!
Check out the Genuine Progress Indicator: http://www.rprogress.org/sustainability_indicators/genuine_progress_indicator.htm
" At the -2 percent annual rate of contraction required by Professor Li's ‘medium-green' scenarios, economies would eventually shrink by an amount close to that Depression-era 55 percent, but over a period of more than 40 years, not four."
Good news/Bad news - The US economy contracted .5% in the last month (6% annualized), so we have a start... unfortunately, that translates to millions out of work and on the street... and worldwide?... a depression.
For those who can, consider a trip to New York in December for CheneyOilCo's global economic summit... it probably won't be WTO in Seattle, but perhaps there will be an opportunity to be heard. But then, maybe they will *insure* "no disruption".
All right, all you genius forward-thinkers, wise up to this here Leisure Philosophy! The deal is, you're no longer gonna think of yourselves as self-interested wealth-accumulaters, but as self-interested bums who need only a few basics (food, shelter, etc.) and spend the rest of the time enjoying being alive. We're not talking about motor homes, ski trips, and all that other stuff that says 'it's no fun around here where we're at.' Wake up and look out at the world and appreciate something. Talk to friends about cool stuff. Quit craving things you don't have. If you're not incarcerated, be careful about lamenting your circumstances. But most important, spread the concept that capitalism loses to Leisurism all the time and at every turn. Got that, you lily-livered recruits? All right now, go out there and do some converting.
I don't know what the farmlands are like in India these days but I hear that farmers are committing suicide there and the numbers are rising. The only way we're going to get a green path is to first acknowledge our mistaken farming ways and correct them. In earlier post, I discussed my movement away from corn even when I knew it would cost me some bucks at first but in the end, there was nothing to fear. Below is my letter of apology:
Corn is indeed the biggest culprit of them all. It is indeed very energy intensive and sucks up more water and petroleum. Half my earnings come from corn but I do admit that even that is going to change as corn proves to be more costly. Am I ashamed that it takes 7 barrels of oil to produce 8 barrels of corn ethanol? ABSOLUTELY. Am I ashamed to see corn being misused for producing corn feed made with petro-chemicals to shove down the throats of cows and chicken instead of allowing them to roam and feed off grass which would make a huge difference in both the environment, resource usage and even health. YES I AM ! For the last two years, I have happily shifted away from letting corn production be my main source of earning revenue. Two years ago, 80% of my earnings came from corn and that was the peak. I have seen shifted away from corn and now it's down to 45%. This Nebraskan apologizes for the health, environmental, and resource suffering and damage done to others in this country and on the planet for allowing corn production to spiral out of control. Interestingly, when I turn to environmentally and health-friendly farming practices, my earnings are not only somewhat better but I notice stability and a little more happiness.
AMERICA, LET'S STOP THE CORN MADNESS ONCE AND FOR ALL !!
I'm always glad to voice my opposition to corn because I stand up for the truth and nothing but the truth. I don't know if I can convince other Nebraskans overnight but with the irrigation drying up, peak oil hitting us for good this time, and the water crisis only getting worse, maybe more will follow. If not, the worst case scenario is going to be a Great Depression 100 times worse than the one in the 1920s. I can convince a few corn growers to consider switching but I know the change isn't going to happen overnight. I'll spread the word on possible better bio-alternatives such as switch grass or maybe even hemp although the latter is banned as far as growing is concerned, I think.
Hear, Hear!!! The corn ethanol hoax is despicable. Just another agribusiness theft as far as I can tell.
Keep it up!
No doubt about it. The great land damage in my state is obvious but so far all efforts to divert blame away from excess corn usage has been too successful. Yes, it is an uphill battle as I found out the hard way. At first, it almost looked like I was going nowhere by cutting down on corn production. Sometimes my wife would get desperate, other times I myself would keep mulling as to whether it was a mistake to break the addiction. Luckily, we consoled each other and today I don't regret the decision. The sad truth is good environmental practices have been privatized you could say. Balancing profits and nature can be tougher than simply putting nature above profits at first but team up with those closest to you and be patient and persevere and you can defeat the scam.
It's not what Americans at the bottom of the scale personally do at home that will make a difference. It is what the entire world can do to stop their elites from destroying the entire planet for all of us that is important. How many of those who talk 'Green' have any plan to do anything about that? Almost all of them are actually pro-capitalist!
I doubt any of what then author proposes will ever happen. The on going SHOCK being dealt the world's economy is too if anything destroy any of these plans and enforce more of the same failed policies that got us here inthe 1st place. Look at how the OIL biz used this summers gas price spike to lobby the Congress and the population for more drilling off our coasts. On a much smaller scale I watched locally as the movement to make our local Casinos smoke free ( no pun intended) choke on this same economic shock game. Now the Casinos are screaming that they need relief from this onerous plan to make them smoke free. To hell with their employees or the majority of their own customers health. They'll use this because it fattens their business's bottom line in the short. That's what it's all about profits in the short. I would guess u can multiply this kind of reaction and use of the bad economic news and too them same result all over the planet. Were being played by the same crowd that brought us this mess and our political leadership is right in there with them sticking it too us big time.
"A new way of thinking and acting will have to come from the bottom up, and from both hemispheres of this ailing planet. We'd should be ready; the unsettled times that lie ahead may offer the opening we've been looking for."
This is exactly right, and it is happening. Look around and you'll see people joining simplicity circles, growing food, learning about permaculture, and reaching out to others in an attempt to rebuild social networks that we've lost along the way.
Yes, there will be some rough times ahead - most of us know this. But we are ready to change. In fact, we want to change. We've felt this coming for a long time and have known that the chickens would come home to roost eventually. Well, eventually is here.
Time to rebuild connections and community. The day of the lone wolf is over.
I belong to a small but growing number of spiritual thinkers who maintain that "there is enough" and there is no reason for "haves" and "have nots." We believe the solution to our world's disparate conditions is a spiritual one, not an economic, military or political one. The basic needs of all people can be met if those in charge would simply approach the situation from a humanitarian point of view instead of power-grabbing and manipulation of resources.
Consider this: do we not already have enough paper clips, plastic shopping bags, appliances, dishes, tools, etc., to last into the next millenium? Do we really need more? If clothing manufacturers were to stop making clothes tomorrow, aren't there already enough shirts and socks and such in stores, thrift shops, peoples' closets at home to clothe the entire world population for generations to come? Do we really need to keep making new automobiles when there are more than enough already? Do they have to be new and improved, or couldn't we manage just as well with the ones we have now?
Developed societies have a notion that we cannot meet the needs of mankind, which is a faulty and selfish perspective. We DO have the ability to provide clean drinking water, nutritious foods, ample clothing, and safe shelter to all people, no matter where they live. The key is to change our collective mindset about who deserves it, who we can punish by withholding it, and who stands to benefit by providing it.
Many would argue that if we stop making new goods, the global economy would screech to a halt. No jobs for workers, no fuel for the engine. But perhaps if we turn our attention and efforts to other types of employment -- education for all age levels, rebuilding infrastructure, renovating existing homes instead of building McMansions, designing/manufacturing truly green products, just to name a few -- we might be able to reverse current conditions and provide meaningful, people- and planet-friendly occupations.
At this juncture, some have too much and some have nothing. What if we all opened our eyes to see that there is enough for everyone?
&YYY&
Western consumer ways are awaiting price and market signals to change their spending habits. This means that big changes will only come about by catastrophes such as current financial collapse, and squeezes from the resource bottle necks of oil, water and agriculture that are approaching. This will bring about some reduction in meat consumption. It would be nice to have consumer spending drive meat consumption down. I do not know of any governments encouraging this through various controls.
The Gaian climate system is a complex system with possible surprising results, just like the financial system. Many different changes everywhere may add up to unexpected sudden shifts in the system behaviour. The climate systems are not fully understood by anyone, just like the financial systems. It is least understood by climate change deniers. Just like the financial system whereby money managers chase profit and avoid all regulation, without regard to future global consequences, climate change deniers are linked to profits of the coal and oil industries.
The computer modelling is only based on known approximate models, some of them very accurate, and is an analysable sum of parts, and known measurements. The measurements use averages and best guesses. That is why it will be unsuccessful at predicting extreme surprising combinations of change. That does not mean the models have picked the wrong direction of change.