Sustainable growth

[Nick Grant]

Always been a hot topic and there has been some renewed discussion recently. Still lots of confusion between growth and activity and lots of misplaced faith in economic activity being decoupled from environmental impacts such as CO2 emissions.

Having wrestled with these ideas for many years I have just started reading Tim Jackson's excellent report Prosperity without Growth, highly recommended:

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/prosperity_without_growth_report.pdf

Audio of presentation at the RSA:
http://www.thersa.org/fellowship/journal/videos/tim-jackson—the-dilemma-of-growth

Interested to hear what people think.

Nick

[Tom Foster]

OK – confusion between activity and growth maybe – but then you seem to warn that even activity (as distinct from growth) can't be decoupled from environmental impacts. The human race might as well pack up and go home now, then!

[Nick Grant]

No, some decoupling is possible it is just that it can never be enough to compensate for the sort of economic growth that we assume is essential. If you think it can then lets see some numbers. It is a long report and I'm only in page 20 but it is well written and worth reading as I don't intend to summarise it.

[Tom Foster]

Nick, It's significant to read “some decoupling is possible” even if qualified “it is just that it can never ….”

Copied from http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=5076&page=3#Item_4:

what about this: http://www.steadystate.org/CASSEFeaturesSSE.html ?

These people give some emphasis (but not enough, I think) to the ready scientific/technological possibility of doing more and more with less and less. Ever-improving standards of living, technological convenience etc have been assumed to equal an every-growing economy. But there's no technical reason why living standards shouldn't continue to rise even in a steady-state or shrinking economy, i.e. an economy that consumes less and less resources. You can argue about whether 'doing more and more' is still outpacing 'with less and less' (that's the present condition) – but there's no inevitability to which of these exceeds the other.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026786.900-special-report-life-in-a-land-without-growth.html illustrates just what a far-reaching uphill a sustainable society would be.

[Tom Foster]

'Doing more and more with less and less' is not growth in the sense of ever-increasing resource consumption, in fact 'with less and less' means contraction.

We may wilt at the forces presently arrayed against such a desirable state but nevertheless it's a conceivable possibility.

In that scenario, 'ever-improving standards of living' does not, as you state, inherently 'imply growth again'.

I completely agree that economic growth, meaning growth of resource consumption, is unsustainable – by definition. In fact sustainability of human life on earth demands major pay-back of previously consumed resources e.g. by nett sequestration of CO2 or unoxidised hydrocarbon – and equivalent for many other key 'resources'.

My point is that resource-consumption stasis, or even major pay-back, doesn't inherently also mean contraction, or even stasis, in living standards, as subjectively experienced. There's no inherent reason, other than human stupidity, why benefits of civilisation, science and technology shouldn't continue to be delivered, enjoyed and even increased, maybe in changed form, but cleverer and using less of everything, material and energy embedded and in-use.

By all means, see the difficulties in getting to that happy state, call it naive, but accept that it's not fundamentally or 'mathematically' impossible. That's really misleading.

[Nick Grant]

Tom

At least read the report/book as our wires are still crossed.

Obviously doing more and more is growth regardless of the material bit. Obviously more and more happiness cant go on for ever but thats an asides. We can imagine an economy where there is happiness and busy-ness and needs are met with minimal resource use (as per the New Scientist article you linked to).

However this state of affairs cant grow and grow whilst using less and less. As the book points out, the end point of this fantasy is we end up as angels.

Sure we can go on discovering, learning, making new music or painting new pictures but that is something different to what is understood by growth. Perhaps you are thinking of 'personal growth'?

The book looks at the 'what if we all became organic gardeners and yoga teachers with bicycles' growth scenario etc

Nick

[Tom Foster]

OK Nick, maybe I'll read it.

Maybe we need a new word for 'doing more and more with less and less material and resources'.

That's what me and Buckminster Fuller are interested in, so I promise to let you keep 'Growth' for 'doing more and more using either more and more resources or less and less resources, makes no difference, it's still growth to me'.

[Nick Grant]

Yes doing more and more is growth. RTFM

[KATE DE SELINCOURT]

Nick and Tom

Suggestion – maybe say “quality of life” rather than “standard of living”?

“Standard of Living” tends to be tied to consumption, quality of life I think might be what we're actually wanting more of – and maybe a bit less closely coupled in to consumption/stuff/conventional “growth” indices?

Kate

[Nick Grant]

Sorry to be picky Kate but even quality of life cant get better and better for ever. Or do you know something? Explain's your smile.

Original post isnt about whether it is possible to live a happy life with minimal resources, we all seem to agree that should be possible. It is about whether growth – the un-challengeable assumption that stabilises our current economy – can be sustainable.

🙂

[Author]

Posts