All posts in the topic The Growth Addiction? (Short link)
Summary
- There are 12 posts — by 8 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Ron Kjestrup at 2007 Apr 16 01:53 UTC
| From | File | Date |
|---|---|---|
| John Veitch | jsveitch.vcf | 2007 Apr 01 09:43 UTC |
| John Veitch | jsveitch.vcf | 2007 Apr 04 09:45 UTC |
| Andrew Groom | SOC GPI flyer .pdf | 2007 Apr 06 22:00 UTC |
Craig Burton gets right to the point:
"Why should I bother when the worlds 3 largest polluters won't and
cannot stop polluting because our planet cannot find an answer to one
very heavy hard hitting question...how do we solve growth?"
30+ years ago the Values Party advised us of the necessity to curb
"growth" and as an economist by training, this is a issue that's
concerned me for a long time.
We get what we target and we get what we measure. Growth of revenue
makes it easier to produce profits, increases the tax take, and relaxes
the constraints on decision making. If we have "growth" we can avoid
many of the hard decisions we would otherwise need to make. Economists
believe that continuous "growth" is the essential purpose of economic
advice.
Environmentalists and ecologists know that nature has always been able
to maximise the production of the ecosystem. There is in nature both
diversity of species and competition among them for limited resources.
Any species that over-exploits it's niche, or becomes too successful,
enjoys a temporary victory. Retribution in nature is swift and hard. DEATH!
From nature we can learn rules about the dynamics of large systems.
When we can apply rules based on those principles to government, to
lawmaking, to business and to community development, the addictive
passion for more and more "growth" will be seen as either criminal or
self destructive. (There may be treatment and help available if we are
wise. Natures own method would be much more brutal. If treatment and
help fails, we'll get that anyway.)
We are a long way from a general understanding of that. Governments in
particular are addicted to "growth".
The following file was added to this topic:
Excellent points you raise, John and Craig. I'd like to add a couple of
things:
1. If you feel strongly about the issue of how sustainable our current
lifestyle is, particularly in Christchurch, I urge you to join Sustainable
Christchurch / Otautahi (www.sustainablechristchurch.org.nz).
2. If you're looking for a good read on the problems of growth and the
impacts of human beings on the planet, I highly recommend "Ishmael" by
Daniel Quinn. It's in the Christchurch Library and I have a couple of
copies if anyone's wants to borrow them.
Cheers, Andrew.
Oooo.. neonate politics! (cans of worms comes to mind) The following URL'ert I posted to my blog captures both sides of "growth addiction" and what to do about a fundamental incompatibility between profitability and sustainability.(Usefuly there is a counterfoil to the points raised, see additional comment contributed by Aubrey Meyer, Director of the UK based Global Commons Institute and architect of Contraction and Convergence, a proposed global framework that resolves climate, growth and development.) http://mildgreens.blogspot.com/2007/03/c-under-scrutiny.html
What we need is an asteroid, say about 500 metres across (not too big), to hit
the planet. History has shown how good they are for the environment and
population control.
Hi Guys, I've been politely told off for not keeping it local so this might be
my last post (if they let it be posted). The issue with pollution and solving
climate issues locally has nothing to do with recycle bins. It has everything
to do with growth and at an international level. That was my point and I didn't
even start this discussion. It seems my last statement was a bit too much for
the powers that be. I didn't swear, I didn't abuse anyone or tell any dirty
jokes.
If they are going to be this controlling and short sighted about what's
discussed then this is going to be an incredibly boring forum to be a part of.
Cheers, Craig
Hi Craig,
I agree with Craig 100%.
We have to redefine what growth is, GNP and GDP etc.Rather we need to look
at indicators.There has been some serious research going on in this field by
academics, and while there may be some people that think that this issue is
outside the scope of this forum, I think it unwise to shut this discussion
down.
Can't we be proactive?
Cheers Dave
This topic is available on the web at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues/messages/view_email?id=2OsahkRx7jjOt0pwNegieg&show_thread=1 Since I started this thread let's give it a local twist. In my opening post I said: !. "Economists believe that continuous "growth" is the essential purpose of economic advice." 2. "There is in nature both diversity of species and competition among them for limited resources." 3. "From nature we can learn rules about the dynamics of large systems. When we can apply rules based on those principles to government, to lawmaking, to business and to community development." Re: 1. There is an economic plan for the development of Christchurch and Canterbury. It's hidden here, in a site that's badly maintained by the CDC. It's the Canterbury Regional Economic Development Strategy (CREDS) 2005-2015 homepage. http://www.creds.org.nz/Home I imagine that if we get into this plan in detail we'll see that it's full of efforts to "GROW" in ways that any environmentalist or climate change strategist will find unacceptable. We need a paradigm shift here. There's lots that we need to do, but we need to think carefully about the sort of thing that's unacceptable, to us. Slowly we need to move "unacceptable" towards being "illegal". On the more positive side we need to define how we can "develop" in ways that are not destructive of the values we want to sustain. Education, health, culture and environment for instance. It all starts with talking. Re: 2. Economists say that market prices are indications ( a signal) of the reality of "limited resources". But sadly human beings and governments and businesses also use "the common" and think of it as a "free resource". The common is over-exploited, polluted or destroyed because there is no price put on it's use. Here the law is hopelessly behind our knowledge of economic and environmental realities. Changing the LAW, is something people can do. Correct pricing of all resources is fundamental to success. RE: 3. What is our experience of the dynamics of large systems in Canterbury? Groundwater is one, we have knowledge about. People know that putting pollutants in the Avon or the Heathcote rivers doesn't take them "away" to some harmless place. There are also human systems we might look at. The education system: I'm shocked to confirm numbers (I'm a market researcher among other things.) like 10% or more of our adult population are functionally illiterate.
The following file was added to this topic:
David says:
"We have to redefine what growth is, GNP and GDP etc.Rather we need to look
at indicators.There has been some serious research going on in this field by
academics, and while there may be some people that think that this issue is
outside the scope of this forum, I think it unwise to shut this discussion
down."
You might be interested in an upcoming presentation on the Genuine Progress
Indicator (GPI) (see attached flyer), organised by Sustainable Otautahi
Christchurch.
Cheers, Andrew.
The following file was added to this topic:
Hi Craig.
I agree with your comments. Look, the USA is planning to build something
like 250 new coal-powered electricity generators over the next 20-odd years.
They are to be "clean" ones. That is, they will have scrubbers on them. They
won't be clean - just cleaner than current ones.
China is planning over 300 of them - but probably not as clean as the USA
models.
We export - through Lyttelton Port of Christchurch Ltd (A CCC majority-owned
company) - coal from the West Coast.
The god stuff goes to steel smelters. The cheaper stuff goes to power
stations. We have about 2000 years of the stuff waiting export at current
rates of consumption from the West Coast.
In Southland we have another few thousand years of low grade coal suitable
for coal-fired generators.
One day we may export that too...
Now, the whole darn lot is going to the Northern Hemisphere. Where pollution
is greatest.
Meanwhile, we have a Government and its green supporters running around
talking carbon credits and doing bugger-all except raising our costs of
production and compliance.
If we build a tiny, wee coal-powered generator all the pollutants and heat
flies out the chimney and drifts across 2000 miles of ocean to Chile.
Instead, we send the stuff to the Northern Hemisphere... where HUNDREDS of
coal-fired generators are being built.
The one GOOD point of our coal exports though (apart from export income) is
that every ten tonnes of the stuff we export to China will keep some poor
bugger of a miner alive for another day.
We have to think globally before we act locally. We can set an example - but
globally... who cares?
As there is more ice and stuff in the Antarctic then in the Arctic maybe we
will do the world a favour by burning a lot more coal here - rather than in
the Northern Hemisphere.
So, maybe we should be looking at lowering production and compliance costs,
raising our productivity - and exporting our wares - rather than our coal?
Cheers,
Tim Kerr
Tim, I think you hit the nail on the head. I'd be really interested in knowing
how many tonnes coal are shipped through Lyttelton to places like China (for
interests sake).
I think it's worth investigating the possibilty of a "green" local body
councillors list of those who support Kyoto. Then we'll know who not to vote
for come next election time. It really makes me sick.
Kyoto is nothing about the environment - it is a thickly veiled smokescreen
which is in reality an international tax on sucker countries pockets to feed
the countless hoards of underfed ... .so that they too can have the opportunity
of living off a welfare state ... sow their seeds and breed squillions more
living off the same sandy, dry and unproductive turf.
Ask the greens if they want to plant a million trees - you will discover an
underbelly that does not want NZ to generate positive carbon credits - and so
fixing the 'mistake' our present administration 'accidently' made worth a
billion dollars per year (what is the strict legal defination of treason?) is a
positive no no.
So Kyoto is a way of sucking compulsory donations to world vision out of our
pockets ... of course in reality it does not go to world vision - it goes to
corrupt leaders who are pampered by international mining consortiums and other
similar ilk that get these third world countries into hock and then get their
guaranteed loans recouped via the world bank.
Let's put the council and govenrment on notice. Cheers, Craig
Personally I feel Kyoto or other initiatives are pscychological mechanisms
which provide western consumers the ability to shed "the feelings of" local
collective guilt.This is synonymous with the concept of the "scape goat" in
religion, and indeed the current anti-carbon movement has many hallmarks of
religion.
In saying this - I make no claim as to whether this is good or bad ... perhaps
these are necessary illusions which enable some people to wake up more
refreshed in the morning. I am merely commenting upon the nature of the
movement.
Apocalypticism has been a fundamental and important drive throughout the
development of civilisation, and with the public perceived loss of the nuclear
'threat', and its icey billiard ball earth paradigm (remember global winter -
how flippant are computers and their masters), we need another threat to our
utopia of efficient consumption.
I have some comments which I think are pertanent (engineers perogative to
misspell all the hard words :-)
When we talk about global warming, and we are not refering to the world as a
goddess or other spiritually incarnate force which like a giant 'power of
positive thinking machine' integrates our trinkets of confessional pennance and
looks benevolently upon us, we really are wanting to protect our piece of the
american pie, right here in kiwiana land. When we are sincere (if possible?) in
establishing an authentic project pertaining to this global warming concept,
then our concern must surely be that our project must benoficially effect the
quality of life of 'people' in the greater community.
Therefore I would assume that we would take initiatives that would be oriented
towards a world with higher population, assuming the United Nations predictions
of 10Billion by 2050 are a reasonable estimate, and that these people are
mostly in third world countries.
We need to assume that the most important aspect of quality of life for these
people will be food, the next will be shelter and the next will be hope of a
safe future.
With our Projects Goals established, let us look at the significant risks.
1) Reduction in the use of petroleum for biofuels will put pressures on
carbohydrate commodities. Western countries will move to secure crops in long
term agreements which will lock out many in the third world in their own
countries, and hinder the development of food industries. This is happening
now.
2) Increased cost of manufacture will drive industry into the third world at an
increased rate as populations develop, which will simply shift the emmissions
burden.
3) Increased population will lead to increased methane and CO2 emmissions from
increases in carbohydrate crops (aka rice rotting)and animals farting.
4) Famine pressures will lead to greater localised pressures which will
necesarilly lead to unrest, and fuel anti consumer sentiment (leading to more
people moving towards religious counter cultures and terrorism). International
dependancies on food distribution will necessitate increased consumer taxation
and may be counterproductive with respect to localised development.
5) As the process of wealth distribution is driven by efficient consumerism -
our human battery farms (cities) must become more efficient at getting people
to purchase and consume to ensure that tax dollars are available for central
authorites to pay back Peter, and effectively manage the population crisis.
International infrastructure must be established to tap that dollar and get it
into the starving hoards in a way that minimises the possibility of unrest that
effects supply.
6) It may be some time for an asteroid to hit unfortunately, and starving
people tend to have more babies because its basic human nature. We have to be
prepared for a world that has more unrest, and so it is probably in the
consumers interest to encourage efficient military mechanisms to control those
'interests' that can effect the supply chain. therefore it would be an
appropriate green response to develop a more efficient and capable military
mechanism. This would imply tapping off an increased percentage into military
expenditure.
7) Lastly, as the world warms up, some areas will become more marginal
(pakastan) in the growing of crops, and yet others will become better for
growing - FOR EXAMPLE EUROPE! As europe has existing infrastructure to support
increased yields, existing distrubution systems, economies that can support
development and an educated workforce ... global warming may actually increase
this globes ability to feed its over burgeoning population, as long as
political will is such that this carbohydrate wealth will be distributed where
needed.
With (7) in mind, maybe we should be aggressively enforcing national
boundaries, so as to ensure that when populations try to drift due to changes
in the global landscape rendering some historically fertile areas marginal,
those populations get thinned, minimising impact.
This post is tongue in cheek is intended to demonstrate the impacts of a
malthusian catrastrophe. Of course I dont like the possibility of 1-7 but they
are the effects of a species growth addiction. Locally it will mean higher
taxes for us to maintain some international management - and possibly that is
where initiatives like Kyoto fall over ... what is the first inroads into huge
consumer taxation to help fund the crisis third world population growth SUPPORT
in a world where the second world energy consumption is developing at an
exponential rate, then perhaps we can do something more efficient about it
locally? I dont know....just thinking out loud.
Further to Andrews post about the Sustainable Otautahi indicators meeting
tomorrow night - we will be interviewing the SOC Chair Chrissie Williams
tomorrow on mornings on Plains FM at around 8.10 a.m.. Podcast available from
around 10.30 a.m