CASSE Position on Economic Growth: We should endorse it!
If we are serious about global warming, we ought to move towards a sustainable economy. I see the Green Party of the United States and the Green Party of England and Wales listed on the CASSE Position. We should endorse it as well.
http://www.steadystate.org/CASSEPositionOnEG.html
CASSE Position on Economic Growth
Whereas:
1) Economic growth, as defined in standard economics textbooks, is an increase in the production and consumption of goods and services, and;
2) Economic growth occurs when there is an increase in the multiplied product of population and per capita consumption, and;
3) The global economy grows as an integrated whole consisting of agricultural, extractive, manufacturing, and services sectors that require physical inputs and produce wastes, and;
4) Economic growth is often and generally indicated by increasing real gross domestic product (GDP) or real gross national product (GNP), and;
5) Economic growth has been a primary, perennial goal of many societies and most governments, and;
6) Based upon established principles of physics and ecology, there is a limit to economic growth, and;
7) There is increasing evidence that global economic growth is having negative effects on long-term ecological and economic welfare...
Therefore, we take the position that:
1) There is a fundamental conflict between economic growth and environmental protection (for example, biodiversity conservation, clean air and water, atmospheric stability), and;
2) There is a fundamental conflict between economic growth and the ecological services underpinning the human economy (for example, pollination, decomposition, climate regulation), and;
3) Technological progress has had many positive and negative ecological and economic effects and may not be depended on to reconcile the conflict between economic growth and long-term ecological and economic welfare, and;
4) Economic growth, as gauged by increasing GDP, is an increasingly dangerous and anachronistic goal, especially in wealthy nations with widespread affluence, and;
5) A steady state economy (that is, an economy with a relatively stable, mildly fluctuating product of population and per capita consumption) is a viable alternative to a growing economy and has become a more appropriate goal in large, wealthy economies, and;
6) The long-run sustainability of a steady state economy requires its establishment at a size small enough to avoid the breaching of reduced ecological and economic capacity during expected or unexpected supply shocks such as droughts and energy shortages, and;
7) A steady state economy does not preclude economic development, a dynamic, qualitative process in which different technologies may be employed and the relative prominence of economic sectors may evolve, and;
8) Upon establishing a steady state economy, it would be advisable for wealthy nations to assist other nations in moving from the goal of economic growth to the goal of a steady state economy, beginning with those nations currently enjoying high levels of per capita consumption, and;
9) For many nations with widespread poverty, increasing per capita consumption (or, alternatively, more equitable distributions of wealth) remains an appropriate goal.
- Michael Vaillancourt's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Recent Comments
- Theodore Tadeson |
- Rick Shea |
- Bram Kivenko |
- Rick Shea |
- David Barclay |
- 1 of 2171
- ››
Comments
The entire concept that There
The entire concept that There is a fundamental conflict between economic growth and environmental protection is totally opposite to what a lot of GPO members feel - that what is good for the environment can also be great for the economy and yes, even the growth of the economy. For example, our current "everything is made in China" economy is built around the assumption that there is an abundant supply of cheap energy; oil - which is deteriorating. Our economy and infrastructure are extremely lacking when it comes to being prepared for peak oil, etc.
Either way, a policy built around purposely limiting economic growth is political suicide, and I for one would vacate this party if it were to endorse such policy, however overconsumption is a very real problem but I don't think its the place of government to dictate this. Creative ideas are always welcome though.
Economic Growth / Sustainable Development
I disagree with your "political suicide" comment, and regardless a party like the Greens ought to be focusing on coherent solid policies, rather than being constrained by what some people believe is politically advantageous. Sustainable growth is where progressives are headed. The need and advantages are obvious. It looks like you already have justification to vacate the party as it appears their policies are not what you believe them to be. This is from the GPC Vision Green:
http://greenparty.ca/policy/visiongreen
See also the article on the GPC site "Development and Growth: Not the Same":
http://greenparty.ca/about-us/challenge-and-goal/d...
Have you heard of the Sustainable Development Commission? Read their report, Prosperity Without Growth:
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?i...
The GPO is certainly more
The GPO is certainly more conservative than the GPC. I guess Ontario is more conservative in general. I certainly agree with you Tim, telling the electorate that we effectively want to make them poor is a masochistic move that the GPC would not survive.
Now, I know some people out there will say: limiting economic growth does not mean people will be poor. But that's because those people are wrong. It's true that limiting economic growth doesn't have to make people poor, but the way some people here advocate economic reduction, it would make us poor.
Sustainable growth
Well Bram, if you are concerned about our well-being, you should be more supportive of the idea of transitioning to a sustainable steady-state economy. The alternative is economic and social ruin as we run out of resources and destroy the environment in the process. If you are concerned about "us" being "poor", then we have to consider who is "us" and determine what is fair and just given the natural constraints on the finite resources of the planet and the rate at which they can be replenished.
I am very concerned with the increasing financial inequality both within Canada and between nations. The facts are that most people are not better off as a result of neoliberal policies such as economic globalization. The benefits have gone to a small elite, with wealth and power becoming increasingly concentrated. This is not healthy for any society. For details on inequality in Canada please see the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives website: http://tinyurl.com/n58mo9 and their public awareness site on this issue, the "Growing Gap" site: http://growinggap.ca/
No we shouldn't endorse it
By CASSE’s own arguments a steady state economy is not much better than a growing one.
What we need to do is grow the Green characteristics of our economy, not aim for a steady state Brown one.
Ard Van Leeuwen (Dufferin-Caledon, ON)
The views I express on this blog are purely my own and should not be construed to represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada.
Failed Growth to Steady-State Development
That doesn't sound right. What argumentsI are you referring to?
We are living in a failed growth economy, and need to move to a sustainable one as soon as possible. I read an excellent article on this subject today by Herman Daly. I encourage you to read it:
From a Failed Growth Economy to a Steady-State Economy
already quoted
The Daly piece you bring has already been quoted by myself at http://www.greenparty.ca/node/4513#comment-9974 . See the main blog entry on that webpage as well as the comment on another most important dissenting economist, Hudson.
Endorse GPI not CASSE
The fundamental flaw with CASSE’s position is that it equates economic activity and growth with environmental damage. Growth in CO2 emissions and non renewable resource consumption is environmentally damaging but growth in education, health care and a range of other human services hardly is. Rather than focusing on stopping economic growth we should be encouraging growth that reduces our ecological foot print and discouraging economic activity that burdens it.
For example, converting to renewable energy sources will require a lot of economic activity that will be captured and measured by GDP. It would also however dramatically reduce our ecological footprint. CASSE statements leave one with the impression that all growth and even economic activity in general is undesirable.
CASSE’s arguments that a steady state economy is better than a growing one can be extended to advocate that a shrinking economy is even a better solution. It’s not that difficult for our political opponents to draw parallels between shrinking economies and shrinking ‘prosperity’ so endorsing CASSE is a difficult political position to defend.
By further extension of CASSE’s arguments shrinking world population would also be desirable. Herman Daly describes population control as a ‘controversial and difficult’ topic and he’s talking as an academic. The topic of population control is nigh impossible to approach from a political perspective beyond the need to make voluntary contraception available to developing countries. ‘Economic prosperity’ as experienced by developed countries ironically is the best / only solution for slowing down or even shrinking population.
We are a political party. Aligning ourselves with ideas that are associated with shrinking economies and a shrinking world population would put us in an extremely difficult position to say the least. It would keep us at the political fringes and discredit our very credible other policies such as our Green Tax shift.
There’s a better way that’s talked about in many places in Vision Green. We should align ourselves with seeking to maximize a GPI or “Genuine Progress Indicator”.
One example of a Canadian GPI under development is the Institute of Wellbeing’s (http://www.ciw.ca/en/Home.aspx) “Canadian Index of Wellbeing”. It aims to measure such factors as the sustainability of ecosystems and natural resources and the levels of health, education, community vitality and living standards. It takes into account CASSE’s concerns but differentiates between undesirable and desirable GDP contributing economic activity.
As a candidate I can talk about the hope that comes along with changing our measure of success from a GDP to a GPI but I won’t talk about the need to implement policies to shrink economic activity and population. I don’t believe in them.
Ard Van Leeuwen (Dufferin-Caledon, ON)
The views I express on this blog are purely my own and should not be construed to represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada.
Re: Endorse GPI not CASSE
Ard, I agree that the way the GDP fails to distinguish harmful and beneficial economic activity is good reason to focus policy decisions on a GPI like the CIW. However, that does not preclude endorsing the CASSE position (whether it is politically advisable to do so is debatable). Perhaps the CASSE position could be clearer in this respect, but it does not assert that all activity that adds to GDP (e.g. building alternative energy infrastructure) is bad. Rather, it is saying that we need to achieve a "steady state economy (that is, an economy with a relatively stable, mildly fluctuating product of population and per capita consumption)". A shrinking economy is not a steady-state economy, as Herman Daly stresses in his article.
This is an excerpt from the GPC page on Sustainability, one of the six "fundamental principles" of the GPC:
From what I can determine, the GPC's stated policies and positions agree with those of CASSE.
More on CASSE and GPI
Hi Michael,
You say from what you can determine, the GPC’s stated policies and positions agree with those of CASSE. I agree that they use a lot of the same language as GPC policy but perhaps that’s what makes them so seductive and compelling. But it doesn’t make them right. To the extent that CASSE did agree with GPC policy (the link you provided to sustainability is not GPC policy, it’s someone’s descriptive interpretation of it), I would argue that GPC policy is wrong. It can happen.
Back to CASSE. If you agree that GDP fails to distinguish between ecologically neutral and damaging economic activity, then that in itself should stop you from endorsing CASSE. CASSE defines a steady state economy as one with a steady GDP because, according to them, economic growth is “often and generally indicated by increasing GDP”.
That is, they don’t make the distinction that there is GDP contributing economic activity with a large ecological foot print and other with little or no foot print. Yet, they use this flawed GDP measurement as the yardstick by which to measure how much growth the planet can ecologically bear. According to them current levels are just about right because they aren’t advocating for growth or shrinkage, just a steady GDP.
You raise an ever bigger issue when you wonder whether endorsing CASSSE ‘is politically advisable’. I’d say that as a political party it’s pretty darn important to consider whether something is politically advisable or not. The problem with CASSE is that it comes very close to positions that argue that we need to shrink the world economy and population.
We aren’t important enough to be on other party’s attack ad sights but if we were we would be an easy target if we allowed ourselves to be characterized as the party that wants to shrink the Canadian economy and the Canadian population (as if culling the herd to correct an ecological imbalance). A lot of uncertainty and fear could be whipped up and I predict we would lose political support because of it. Compare that to supporting GPI which is very difficult to attack.
With less political support we would lose ability to implement much sounder and more deserving ideas than CASSE such as Ecological Fiscal Reform for example. EFR would ironically do more to achieve CASSE’s goal of environmental protection than implementing a steady GDP economy would. EFR gets good press in Daly’s points too.
Maybe you can agree with me that endorsing CASSE is not a good political support builder. Maybe not. There are GPC members who might believe it but more importantly, would think it irrelevant. They might argue that building political support is not the role of the GPC. They might say that educating the public about truth, any truth is more important than building political support. Building political support does after all conjure up distasteful notions of compromise and even selling out.
In my opinion CASSE is a lose-lose situation. It’s flawed and therefore doesn’t further the interests of educating the public. It’s politically extreme and therefore would not build political support.
Ard Van Leeuwen (Dufferin-Caledon, ON)
The views I express on this blog are purely my own and should not be construed to represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada.
prepare to defend
"We aren’t important enough to be on other party’s attack ad sights"
If we aren't already, we are on the cusp of this. For a year or so already the Conservatives' puerile repetitive fold-over mailings have listed the GPC leader along with the others in their mock ballot, presumably to ridicule the other leaders by association, leaving Harper pointed to as "the man". Less officially, as I contributed to our local campaign last year, with some effectiveness, for a few days the right-wing blog-o-rama was occupied with libel -- of me! While this is not indicative of a preoccupation, it does mean that GPC is in the "sights". The second there is political threat to eating away Cons. support somewhere or everywhere, or somehow indirectly causing damage to them, the gun will be aimed & shot. The other three parties would also shoot, but probably with more discretion. (In the last Ontario election, there was one district where the incumbent PConservative felt Green-threatened, and there were important repercussions, although internal to Tories.)
A fall election is a real problem for the Liberals. Any intent to attack Greens might get lost in the attack-o-rama that might ensue. (But still expect "green-ness" to be usurped all around. In a current Toronto provincial by-election, I note the NDP orange signs have acquired a green stripe on the bottom!) Individual Green candidates in any case must prepare to defend themselves locally against charges of foolish policy. There are many rhetorical ways to do so. I cannot stress enough the importance of raising the bar & taking things seriously now for GPC-ers, in major part because of the political danger facing Liberals, whose pool of supporters is the largest source for GPC growth. If they fail or flounder, and as I've said I kind of hope they do because it would foil the fools behind the current American administration, a significant number of Liberal-supporters could not only flake off but slide off to Greens. For this GPC must increase in stature, for which a steady hand and as knowledgeable head as possible is required. And with a national political party, lots of luck.
CASSE / GPC policy on sustainable development
Ard Van Leeuwen wrote: You say from what you can determine, the GPC’s stated policies and positions agree with those of CASSE. I agree that they use a lot of the same language as GPC policy but perhaps that’s what makes them so seductive and compelling. But it doesn’t make them right. To the extent that CASSE did agree with GPC policy (the link you provided to sustainability is not GPC policy, it’s someone’s descriptive interpretation of it), I would argue that GPC policy is wrong. It can happen.
Ard, before we got engaged in this discussion on this blog, I had asked my Federal Council rep about endorsing the CASSE position. She advised that she would forward the suggestion to the Shadow Cabinet for their consideration. I realise you hold the finance portfolio on the SC, so I wonder whether or not we should continue this discussion here on the live blog. I have some thoughts on your last post, and I have been corresponding with the folks at CASSE about it. You've raised a few points that I'd like to address, and if we are to continue blogging about it I'll start a new blog entry for each point so we can keep track of things.
I'm quite new to the Green Party and am learning my way around. I gather this "membership approved policy" is the main (only?) source of official GPC policy? I haven't yet read this document, though I don't quite know how much weight to give it, given the note about the "living policy" approach and the need to contact central office for clarification. Anyway, I will be reading it to see if I can determine what the GPC's policies are with respect to sustainable development and economic growth. I hope at the end of this process we get some clarity, and find that GPC's position and policies favour sustainable development.
Flaws with a focus on shrinking or freezing GDP
We've certainly been having discussions about CASSE and DeGrowth on the Cabinet and candidate lists. I list them together because they hold essentially the same view: that size of GDP is linked to, or a proxy for, ecological footprint, and therefore in order to match our footprint to the available ecological capital, we must shrink and limit the "size of the economy" (as measured by GDP).
I am strongly opposed to taking this approach because it is deeply flawed. GDP is a poor proxy for ecological footprint. At best, it only approximates it when all GDP and all human material activity are each averaged. But any such average or aggregate exercise serves only to mask the differences between different activities - some very harmful, some essentially benign, some perhaps even eco-positive. It may be true that economists fail to understand or appreciate ecological limits. Yet it is equally true that ecologists tend to profoundly misunderstand basic economic terms.
GDP or the size/scale of the economy are measures of value (in dollars or other currency), not measures of materials. They measure "economic" activity, not physical activity. Economic activity is the value created or added when goods or services are produced or exchanged. This value is a human creation - something assigned by human consensus (markets or governments) - and thus is very subjective. The value that humans put on various goods or services can rise or fall independent of the physical amount of materials being produced or exchanged.
It is very true that, for a developed society, rise in GDP does NOT necessarily mean overall improvement. Yet it is also true that rise in GDP does NOT necessarily mean greater ecological impact; nor does drop in GDP mean reduced impact. (Ditto for "steady state").
Therefore, anyone who advocates freezing or shrinking GDP as a good thing is making precisely the same error (in reverse) as those who advocate increasing GDP as a good thing. Society needs to see GDP as an esoteric economic measure, useful in some contexts but useless as an indicator of "how well we are doing" or whether society is improving or getting better - or as an indicator of footprint. We need to focus on the specific indicators of concern - literacy rates, poverty reduction, biodiversity, etc. As long as those are improving it matters not a whit whether GDP is rising or dropping. (However, if leading quality of life indicators are improving, then GDP will likely also be rising. Increased quality will be reflected in increased "value", and that in turn will mean greater GDP.)
The CASSE manifesto is flawed from their very first statement: "1) Economic growth, as defined in standard economics textbooks, is an increase in the production and consumption of goods and services,"
This is true, but is meaningful only if one also understands that when an economist speaks of "an increase in the production and consumption of goods and services", she does not mean we are making more stuff. Rather, she means we are making more dollars worth of stuff. More (or less) is measured in dollars, not physical units. If you sell fewer cars but for more total dollars, an economist will say that you are selling more - your sales are up - even though the number of cars is down. Economists don't measure objects, they measure value. Economic growth, strictly defined, is an increase in the value of goods and services produced/consumed. This may or may not accompany an increase in the volume (or footprint) of said goods/services.
Having mis-defined economic growth as an increase in the actual (physical) amount of resources used, stuff created, or pollution/waste left behind, the rest of the CASSE statements about economic growth fall apart.
Another flaw in steady-state thinking is the assumption that a steady state is a natural state. In reality, a steady state is a scientific model which is rarely, if ever, experienced in nature. First of all, our planet has constant net inputs of solar energy. But even if one were to assume that our biosphere as a whole were a steady state, any sub-system of it is not in a steady state - it is expanding, contracting, or shifting in its relationship to all other sub-systems. Since the human economy can never be more than a sub-system of the biosphere, it can also never itself be in a truly steady state. The steady state is a mental fiction as much as any model in an economist's textbook. If humans ever were to establish a "steady state" economy, it would soon run into problems with a non-steady-state ecosystem. Can you stand in front of an advancing glacier and tell it not to move further, because the farmland it is bulldozing is part of your balanced, sustainable steady-state food supply? How does your steady state deal with natural erosion of coastal land, or new islands created by volcanism? Even the concept of a climax community (a steady-state ecological stage reached after passing through various other stages) is largely discredited in biology. External conditions (such as climate) change constanly enough that no ecosystem can stay stable and avoid flux for long. We have a tendency to assume that, failing human interference, Nature will persist as it was found and remain relatively unchanged. Yet the pre-human fossil record shows that nature itself is in constant flux, with species expanding, contracting, returning, and changing their significance in the larger ecosystem over time. Humans, being a natural species, will likewise be in a constant state of flux. Trying to freeze that at some specific scale (even allowing for balanced shifts between subsystems of the larger human "economy") is essentially going against nature.
We desperately need to budget limits on things like the amount of water we consume, GHG we emit, trees we cut, fish we catch, etc. so that we don't exceed what nature can sustainably provide. But it serves no purpose whatsoever to try and limit the dollar value we place on the water, minerals, or renewable resources of our planet. Cutting down a tree is cutting down a tree, whether that tree is turned into $500 worth of toilet paper or $50,000 worth of fine cabinetry. To worry that the latter is somehow 100 times "worse" for the planet (when, in fact, it is far more sustainable for being durable) just because it has 100 times more "economic value" (hence GDP) is to get confused by what the numbers actually represent. The map is not the territory, and GDP is not footprint.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca
CASSE response to Erich's comment on economic growth
Here is a response from CASSE about Erich's comment:
Value growth is not inflation
I am very aware that GDP growth is inflation-adjusted; real GDP growth measures increases in real value, not merely increases in dollar amounts (which may be inflation). However CASSE is still confusing increase in value with increase in physical (ecological) consumption of goods and services. When price increases are due to increased perceived value of goods and services (beyond inflation), that is a non-physical increase, so has no repercussions on ecological footprint. Rising prices for cars can be due to improvement in quality of workmanship (a non-footprint difference), improvement of features, or even just higher perceived value of a specific trademark or brand - none of which are inflationary.
As a simple example, a DVD can be sold bare-bones or it can have a number of extra features added - such as more languages, deleted and alternate scenes, commentary tracks, interactive menus, "easter eggs", etc. The physical process of creating (or buying) the DVD is no different, but the extra features increase the value (and price) of the DVD in a non-inflationary manner. Soon people will also be able to download full DVDs (with languages, subtitles, menus, features, etc.) through the internet or cable into their computer or home DVD-burner instead of the current ability to only download the bare-bones film. This will decrease footprint (no shipping of DVDs, no packaging) yet increase the value paid for movie downloads. Again, this is a non-inflationary "growth" in the economy. (Hiring more popular actors to star in the film at higher salaries, and selling the resulting DVDs for a higher price, likewise is a non-inflationary increase in price/value).
Other examples include hiring better-trained professionals to provide better services or advice (to a person or business) - this is a higher value service but need not reflect greater footprint. What you pay for a better lawyer or doctor or architect doesn't represent a physical increase in goods or services, yet the economic value of the service produced (or consumed) is higher, meaning higher GDP.
Or, to re-state my previous example:
Cutting down a tree is cutting down a tree, whether that tree is turned into $500 worth of toilet paper or $50,000 worth of fine cabinetry. To worry that the latter is somehow 100 times "worse" for the planet (when, in fact, it is far more sustainable for being durable) just because it has 100 times more "economic value" (hence GDP) is to get confused by what the numbers actually represent. The map is not the territory, and GDP is not footprint.
If we use the tree for fine cabinetry instead of toilet paper (and instead make our toilet paper out of recycled paper or farmed fibres) then the increase in the forest product value from $500 (tp) to $50,000 (kitchen) is not inflationary.
Certainly much current GDP growth tracks growth in the material economy, but not all of it does, so using GDP as a proxy is erroneous - and will be more so as better regulations or pricing systems drive more profit-seeking into non-material value-added sectors of the economy.
CASSE is calling for a stable (or shrinking) GDP. This can be inferred by a correlation of therefore statement 5:
A steady state economy (that is, an economy with a relatively stable, mildly fluctuating product of population and per capita consumption)
with whereas statements 1 and 4:
Economic growth is an increase in the production and consumption of goods and services
Economic growth is often and generally indicated by increasing real gross domestic product (GDP)
I'm quite supportive of using GPI-type measures as guides to social policy and measures of its success. "Economic growth" as a whole needs to be discarded as a measure of good or bad, since it is only an abstract (measure of value) and an aggregate (combining good and bad results) and instead the actual human factors (literacy, biodiversity, habitat, natural capital, health, etc.) should be measured directly.
I re-state that economic growth is an increase in the value of goods and services consumed, not necessarily the volume of them. Therefore, economic growth need not indicate increased footprint, so if one wishes to limit or reduce footprint, targetting economic growth may not be effective - or may even be counter-productive. Instead, one should target footprint directly.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca
The problem with CASSE can be
The problem with CASSE can be identified simply by looking at its board. The list is almost exclusively environmental economist professors who probably haven't worked a regular job a day in their adult lives.
These economists plug a bunch of numbers into a bunch of macroeconomic formulae and say, "yay it works." The problem of course is that there is no math to describe the psychology of the labour force or foreign influences in relation to these grand designs. Any Ph.D in economics who, with a straight face believes that (s)he can predict the outcome of a radically modified and untested economic model should have his/her credentials rescinded. They are embarrassments to their alma maters.
We have to get away from trying the patience of the electorate. We are never going to get elected with a plan chock full of "trust me" powder. Incremental change is the only thing that people will be comfortable voting for.
CASSE response to Ard's comment on economic growth
Here is CASSE's response to Ard's concerns with the CASSE Position:
Tradeoff means undesirable
Ard states:
CASSE statements leave one with the impression that all growth and even economic activity in general is undesirable.
CASSE responds:
I think this is a misinterpretation. The position makes it clear that there is a tradeoff between growing the economy and protecting the environment.
This statement actually proves Ard's point. If there is a tradeoff, then it means one cannot do both, and further that there is an inverse relationship between the two. (That's the general meaning of tradeoff, anyhow). If you want to protect the environment, you must "trade it off" by not growing the economy. Reversing the equation means that growing the economy harms the environment. Therefore, growing the economy is undesirable. That equation makes no allowance for the fact that there are forms of economic growth which are VERY harmful, and other forms which have zero harm, or even net benefit. It essentially assumes all economic growth is harmful, and even equally harmful - so we must limit it in scale, not type.
If instead one assumes that there are forms of economic growth which are enviro-positive (which Ard & I do, but CASSE apparently does not) then you can have cases of simultaneous economic growth and environmental protection.
For an example along those lines, one can look at farming. There are ways of farming which are unsustainable and ill-suited to the climate, soil, or other local conditions. They generate economic activity while depleting soil, water, biodiversity, or other ecosystem factors. Yet there are also site-specific sustainable forms of farming (organic, permaculture, etc.) which not only don't degrade the soil or deplete the water, but can actually restore and build soil, collect water, reduce runoff, etc. These types of farming can also generate economic activity, and with better understanding and practice, even increase it. (Many studies have shown higher net profits from organic agriculture - partly due to reduced inputs, partly due to higher prices (= value) of the produce).
If it can be accepted that there are ecosystem-positive forms of economic activity, then growth in those sectors is eco-positive. In that case, the trade-off is not between economic growth and environmental protection, but between economic growth of one type (unsustainable) and economic growth of another (sustainable).
I believe that society in general, and voters particularly, are far more willing to exchange one kind of economic "growth" for another (through sustainable development, by which I mean the transformation of economic practices from non-sustainable to sustainable modalities) than they are willing to forgo economic growth/development altogether.
It may be that once we have finished a transition to an economy based on sustainable practices, then "economic growth" as we know it may end. Yet it may not, so long as that growth is in non-material value. Value is an attribute created by humans, not by physics or biology (ecosystems), so we can decide if we wish to increase it.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca
quite so, Ard
It is certainly right that it is difficult, even politically contraindicated, in an English-speaking area to denigrate "growth", there is something too deeply culturally attractive about the notion that it is better to more healthily exploit it poiitically than to chuck it. That would be via talk of "growth" in ways suggested by Ard, as I have seen his shadow cabinet colleague Erich also positively mention. In fact, it is a great way to assimilate "green" thinking to an anglo milieu.
And despite some bad policy adoption on population recently by the party (on which see http://greenparty.ca/fr/node/9818#comment-9730 ), Ard's avoidance of this very good, both for his candidacy's and logic's sake, as I've strongly argued elsewhere.
A CIW report I used in my recent drumming up about the dangers of cell telephony (see and take seriously complete webpages at http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/930/2009-07-16/it-takes-green-dangers-wir... , http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/930/2009-07-22/bioinitiative , http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/930/2009-07-23/eu ).
Daryl, it is important we
Daryl, it is important we actually respect the wishes of the electorate. You're going to say that I mean to throw the baby out with the bathwater, That's not it at all. Not all policy is about educating the electorate. Sometimes the electorate holds its own ideological opinion. You have to accept that there are people out there who ideologically disagree with you, and their positions on some policy issues are immutable. If the GPC fronts a platform that alienates too many people, then we can never be a functioning party.
The bottom line is that we have to pick our battles, and we shouldn't be fighting battles that the electorate doesn't want. Yes, I know, we're going to have a groundswell of new support this election, even though polls show all 5 main parties are roughly where they were last election.
I still don't know...
...why you're a GPC supporter. And no, I think GPC would do well in a fall election to match closely enough its pre-election polling numbers, and if this hits 10%, the party is much enhanced, and the leader's placing even last in a very close race is good enough. Certainly 15% & leader winning are best, but it's not something to be expected, setting up for disappointment. Best to steer cautiously for regular..."growth"!
There's plenty man does
There's plenty man does not know. Kudos for your humility.
Great Post Ard
To advocate for a shrinking economy in the next election after we have just experience what a shrinking economy feels like, "if you vote for me I'll give you an eternity of job losses, but don't worry in the new economy I will give you a harrow a horse and a buggy and you can farm to your hearts content, on your 40 x 90' suburban plot of land". If we ever want to implement real change we have to this in small bits not giant chunks. I don't know about you, but I would rather live in a pragmatist green government then in a liberal or tory one that does not care about the environment unless its in the polls that they need to.
Oh by the way, I came across
Oh by the way, I came across this (on Fark, but whatever). This is the kind of garbage that will be used against us if we try to forward a zero-growth policy.
http://www.infowars.com/obama-science-czars-plan-to-sterilize-population...
It funny, but it will kill us in an election.