Where GDP and the Sustainability Clash: Forget Shorter Showers

[catherine]

I saw an article (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/24/consume-conserve-economic-growth-sustainability) this morning by George Monbiot that reminded me of LDAHL's Gross Domestic Happiness thread--my belief is that using GDP as a measure of success is simply devastating for the environment. It also reminds me of the thread by miradoblackwarrior, This Can't be Good.

This article makes the case that it's futile to talk about "reducing, reusing, recycling" if we continue our rampant consumerism. If our economic policies don't change, we can recycle till the cows come home and it's not going to save the planet.


Governments urge us both to consume more and to conserve more. We must extract more fossil fuel from the ground, but burn less of it. We should reduce, reuse and recycle the stuff that enters our homes, and at the same time increase, discard and replace it. How else can the consumer economy grow? We should eat less meat to protect the living planet, and eat more meat to boost the farming industry. These policies are irreconcilable. The new analyses suggest that economic growth is the problem, regardless of whether the word sustainable is bolted to the front of it.

It’s not just that we don’t address this contradiction; scarcely anyone dares even name it. It’s as if the issue is too big, too frightening to contemplate. We seem unable to face the fact that our utopia is also our dystopia; that production appears to be indistinguishable from destruction.

[Ultralight]

Link?

[catherine]

Link?

I edited the post with the hyperlink in the first sentence. Sorry!

[Ultralight]

No problem! I wanted to share with some friends. :)

When people say to me: "Hey, Mr. Minimalist! If everyone was a minimalist then our economy would collapse!"

I say: "Sweet. We need something different anyway."

Why do I think this? Because of much of what dude was talking about in this article.

[Rogar]

There is an interesting theory around economic growth and environmental impact that loosely says that as people have higher incomes they are better able to afford lower impact products and the environmental impact goes down. It's called the Kuznet curve and has some this in this study. http://isecoeco.org/pdf/stern.pdf I can picture it in some of what I see around. Like I pay my utilities company extra to indirectly get electricity from wind power. People can afford to pay extra for organic foods and maybe they switch to a more expensive electric or hybrid vehicle. And I think basically growing incomes are a sign of a growing economy.

It's just a theory and I could poke holes in it, but can also see some truth to it. Interesting theory anyway.

[Ultralight]

There is an interesting theory around economic growth and environmental impact that loosely says that as people have higher incomes they are better able to afford lower impact products and the environmental impact goes down. It's called the Kuznet curve and has some this in this study. http://isecoeco.org/pdf/stern.pdf I can picture it in some of what I see around. Like I pay my utilities company extra to indirectly get electricity from wind power. People can afford to pay extra for organic foods and maybe they switch to a more expensive electric or hybrid vehicle. And I think basically growing incomes are a sign of a growing economy.

It's just a theory and I could poke holes in it, but can also see some truth to it. Interesting theory anyway.

I have to ask, how do these higher income people get their money? Is it through extraction of resources or through exploitation?

Like, if you are a full time fracker and it pays so well you can buy a fleet of hybrid cars, eat all organic food, build your house out of solar panels, and put a windmill in your back yard are you really making net gains for environmental conservation?

[kib]

It's basically all doubletalk. ... I used to have a bumper sticker that read, "I love my country but I think we should start seeing other people." It basically spoofs a polite breakup while taking a dig at xenophobia. My friend asked for one and then didn't display it, when I asked, he said it should say, "I love my country AND I think we should start seeing other people." To me, that totally misses the humorous dig and just makes a mealymouthed statement about being nice. His response was that if it said that, he wouldn't offend his clients.

That is how I see the "polite" messages to do this (reduce, for example) ...and definitely, also do that (buy more). Meaningless and mealymouthed. There's no point in putting out advice if you immediately negate it by saying, "or whatever you want to do, that's fine too."

[Ultralight]

There's no point in putting out advice if you immediately negate it by saying, "or whatever you want to do, that's fine too."


Amen to this!

[Rogar]

I have to ask, how do these higher income people get their money? Is it through extraction of resources or through exploitation?

Like, if you are a full time fracker and it pays so well you can buy a fleet of hybrid cars, eat all organic food, build your house out of solar panels, and put a windmill in your back yard are you really making net gains for environmental conservation?

I could probably speculate that employment in the fracking industry would be much lower if everyone drove energy efficient, but more expensive cars. Realistically, fossil fuels are unlikely to go away anytime in the near future and someone is going to have to provide it. Supply and demand, and a little price fixing, has already reduced the demand for fracking operations here in the US.

Where I think the theory falls short is that the more money people get, the more likely they are to buy more cars and bigger houses full of stuff, even if they are more energy efficient. But I also think it's an example of how some types of growth can actually have a positive impact. It just interesting to think about and has shed a different perspective on how I think about sustainability.

[Ultralight]

I could probably speculate that employment in the fracking industry would be much lower if everyone drove energy efficient, but more expensive cars. Realistically, fossil fuels are unlikely to go away anytime in the near future and someone is going to have to provide it. Supply and demand, and a little price fixing, has already reduced the demand for fracking operations here in the US.

Where I think the theory falls short is that the more money people get, the more likely they are to buy more cars and bigger houses full of stuff, even if they are more energy efficient. But I also think it's an example of how some types of growth can actually have a positive impact. It just interesting to think about and has shed a different perspective on how I think about sustainability.

Yes, lots of interesting thoughts to consider here.

[Gregg]

There is an interesting theory around economic growth and environmental impact that loosely says that as people have higher incomes they are better able to afford lower impact products and the environmental impact goes down. It's called the Kuznet curve and has some this in this study. http://isecoeco.org/pdf/stern.pdf I can picture it in some of what I see around. Like I pay my utilities company extra to indirectly get electricity from wind power. People can afford to pay extra for organic foods and maybe they switch to a more expensive electric or hybrid vehicle. And I think basically growing incomes are a sign of a growing economy.

It's just a theory and I could poke holes in it, but can also see some truth to it. Interesting theory anyway.


I have quite a bit of purely anecdotal evidence/experience that seems to indicate the opposite (result) is true. In environmental terms, it would take a lot of biodegradable dish soap to offset a family flying to Borneo for a vacation. Off the top of my head I can't think of anyone who's overall footprint dropped as their affluence increased. Including me, and I try pretty hard to watch such things. We've talked a lot over the years about things like the true benefit of solar energy in light of the toxic cocktails required to produce today's solar panels and decided its probably closer to being a wash than we'd like to admit. Not that we should stop doing whatever we can, but people either can't see or don't want to see the big picture most of the time. In the end I think most of what we currently do in the name of environmentalism ends up doing a better job of offsetting guilt than carbon.

[catherine]

I have quite a bit of purely anecdotal evidence/experience that seems to indicate the opposite (result) is true. In environmental terms, it would take a lot of biodegradable dish soap to offset a family flying to Borneo for a vacation. Off the top of my head I can't think of anyone who's overall footprint dropped as their affluence increased. Including me, and I try pretty hard to watch such things. We've talked a lot over the years about things like the true benefit of solar energy in light of the toxic cocktails required to produce today's solar panels and decided its probably closer to being a wash than we'd like to admit. Not that we should stop doing whatever we can, but people either can't see or don't want to see the big picture most of the time. In the end I think most of what we currently do in the name of environmentalism ends up doing a better job of offsetting guilt than carbon.

Good point, Gregg. And I think the point of the original article is that change has to take place at the top--at the policy level. Enforcing the Clean Air and Clean Water act would be a start. In short, if we really want to "be the change" we need to be less concerned about the "shorter showers" and more concerned about fundamental change in policy in order to address the gross contradictions between sustainability and economic growth.

[bae]

In short, if we really want to "be the change" we need to be less concerned about the "shorter showers" and more concerned about fundamental change in policy in order to address the gross contradictions between sustainability and economic growth.

Bingo.

[Gregg]

Good point, Gregg. And I think the point of the original article is that change has to take place at the top--at the policy level. Enforcing the Clean Air and Clean Water act would be a start. In short, if we really want to "be the change" we need to be less concerned about the "shorter showers" and more concerned about fundamental change in policy in order to address the gross contradictions between sustainability and economic growth.

+1 Wholeheartedly in agreement. The obvious question is whether or not that gross contradiction CAN be rectified. I'm not sure its possible to exist sustainably as a consumer economy dependent on growth. If not then the problem is indeed daunting (especially when combined with my absolute belief that the government exists almost exclusively for the benefit of the most influential members of our society rather than of/by/for the people as a whole, let alone all of humanity).

[ApatheticNoMore]

I'm not really in agreement. I agree only that change in policy is desirable, is the right way to go about it. But however desirable something might be in a world that was not run by lunatics like ours seems to be, IF IT IS NOT POSSIBLE to achieve such change in policy (climate activists in Paris are criminalized and sitting in jail as we type, when they should welcome them with open arms into the conference)... then we really need a plan B ...

maybe it involves shorter showers ...

[Williamsmith]

It all started with industrialization. The nomadic or tribal lifestyles were eradicated. Their technology did not harm the environment, was sustainable, honored nature and focused on human being.......not human having. Industrialism, consumerism, developmentalism, exploitation all focused on resource depletion, pollution, hoarding of things......all with the promise of easier working conditions, and a better lifestyle. We can't go in both directions at the same time without being hypocrites. India and China have both chosen the same path, with the same results. We have exported our consumerism to them in exchange for our debt.

[Tammy]

Once humans started farming and gave up being nomads, population increased. And once that happened, there was no turning back. They had to continue farming in order to live.

We have repeated that cycle again with the industrial and technological revolutions. There is no retuning to the past. There's now over 7 billion of us to feed and house.

[ToomuchStuff]

[QUOTE=catherine;222639 If our economic policies don't change, we can recycle till the cows come home and it's not going to save the planet.[/QUOTE]

Not sure we could do enough to destroy the planet, ourselves certainly, but not the planet.

[ApatheticNoMore]

This article makes the case that it's futile to talk about "reducing, reusing, recycling" if we continue our rampant consumerism. If our economic policies don't change, we can recycle till the cows come home and it's not going to save the planet.

yea recycling is pretty imperfect, and I'm imperfect at it, but do it more often than not I guess. But as for the change has to come from the top, well what if everyone (let's say the 99%, those not at the top) did consume much less? Then some 3rd world country would make up all our conservation? Perhaps, perhaps ... And it is unlikely to happen anyway? Oh sure, but IF we are agree it IS the direction we need to go anyway ... then start walking? But it is improbable. Look change at the top without a movement in the streets and possibly a revolution, is also improbable. I don't like this, maybe a miracle will change it, but it seems the case. Now direct action stopping pipelines etc. might be a decent path for those who take the risks and dedicate their lives to it, but you either do that or not. Changing local laws may also be possible.

It may be just as well to think of "the top" (including federal governments) as enemy captured territory (by the corporations including big polluters) that we don't really have a plausible war plan to take back (though getting money out of politics would be the good route, but without even that, what do we have?).

[Williamsmith]

What we do have is a vacuum ready to be filled by extremism. Nobody believes in the climate solutions. Some don't even believe in the problem. A lot of influence, power and wealth is being brokered. The world economy is the Guinea pig. But as big a problem this is.........it is child's play compared to the hatred , death and violence being spread worldwide by extremism religion. That cancer is growing faster than our lack of sustainability.

[Rogar]

What we do have is a vacuum ready to be filled by extremism. Nobody believes in the climate solutions. Some don't even believe in the problem. A lot of influence, power and wealth is being brokered. The world economy is the Guinea pig. But as big a problem this is.........it is child's play compared to the hatred , death and violence being spread worldwide by extremism religion. That cancer is growing faster than our lack of sustainability.

In an official news release from the Department of Defense, there appears to be the thought that global instability is related to climate change.

"...reinforces the fact that global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for U.S. national security interests over the foreseeable future because it will aggravate existing problems such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions that threaten domestic stability in a number of countries.

The report finds that climate change is a security risk because it degrades living conditions, human security, and the ability of governments to meet the basic needs of their populations. Communities and states that are already fragile and have limited resources are significantly more vulnerable to disruption and far less likely to respond effectively and be resilient to new challenges."

http://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/612812

[kib]

Rogar, everything about that was on target ... and then I saw the source. I'm sure defense.gov would love us to believe that the first step in taking care of climate change effects is heightened military presence. ... so hard to know how much of anyone's position is conjecture designed to get us fearful and supportive, and how much is rational extrapolation (and how much is perhaps both).

ANM, the idea of a third world country "making up all our conservation" is not how I look at it. 1. We are the leaders in consumption, if we can come up with ways of consuming less that still satisfy, we can pass that knowledge on. 2. Beyond that, they're going to consume / pollute what they will; I don't think they're going to consume more of something because we consume less, they're going to consume as much as they need/think they need. But if we don't set an example and come up with some answers for our own consumption, I don't see how we can advise anyone else about the problem.

[Rogar]

Rogar, everything about that was on target ... and then I saw the source. I'm sure defense.gov would love us to believe that the first step in taking care of climate change effects is heightened military presence. ... so hard to know how much of anyone's position is conjecture designed to get us fearful and supportive, and how much is rational extrapolation (and how much is perhaps both).

Perhaps so, KIB. I had a conservative friend who was asking why I thought climate change and terrorism are related. I used the reference in the discussion to illustrate the fact, as I figured any reference from a Bernie Sanders or liberal media source would be discounted as biased to the left.

[Williamsmith]

All that report is.....is a political response to an appropriations committee request for justification of more spending on military preparedness globally. We re justifying our military presence worldwide because of the weather.....how very convenient.

[Rogar]

All that report is.....is a political response to an appropriations committee request for justification of more spending on military preparedness globally. We re justifying our military presence worldwide because of the weather.....how very convenient.

I have slightly more faith in the integrity of the Department of Defense.