Introduction
A 2011 study by the
United Nations indicates that current rates of consumption are
depleting natural resources at an unsustainable rate. As
international actors promote exponential economic growth as a means
to address the issues surrounding human development and cope with the
rapidly expanding population, the corresponding effects of natural
resource depletion and environmental degradation lead to growth that
has become uneconomic. The
concept of sustainable development is a fallacy perpetuated by
individuals and interest groups whose primary goal is achieving
greater economic growth. These
pursuits are problematic and cannot resolve the environmental
crisis that we collectively face. To attain an acceptable standard of
living for current and projected populations within the boundaries of
the finite supply of natural resources available to us, we must
re-evaluate current assumptions that are made regarding necessary
levels of consumption. Planned economic contraction, or degrowth, is
the most viable solution
to the array of environmental challenges that we, as a global
community, can no longer ignore.
When
Growth Becomes Uneconomic
Uneconomic growth occurs when the social and environmental costs
incurred from economic growth outweigh the benefits (Daly 63).
Wealthy countries, with their insatiable habits of consumption, have
potentially begun to experience social and environmental costs that
are greater than the benefits of economic growth (Daly 63). The
productivists of modern regimes have influenced the formation
of public policy to the extent that attaining higher levels of
GDP-measured economic growth is the dominant strategy in achieving
human development and alleviating poverty (Alexander 1).
This is problematic, as the western standard for development is
unattainable on a global scale due to the limitations of earth's
natural resources (Alexander 2). Adherence to this policy,
theoretically, has uneconomic growth as its predictable outcome. In
accordance with basic microeconomic theory and the law of the
diminishing marginal utility of income, the marginal benefit of
growth will decrease (Daly 64). As benefit decreases, costs increase
according to the law of increasing marginal cost, and this will lead
the global economy to a situation in which the costs of growth
increasingly outweigh the benefits (Daly 65).
An article in Saskatoon's The Star Phoenix alleges
that Alberta's oil sands are an exemplification of uneconomic growth.
The author posits that in addition to the pollution, acid rain and
CO2 emissions caused by oil sand development, all in the name of
employment growth, the resulting effects lead to job loss. In
Alberta's case, as oil revenues spiked the value of the Canadian
dollar rose accordingly, and over 600,000 domestic manufacturing jobs
were lost. While this is an example of a market repercussion for
uneconomic growth, the environmental repercussions are paramount. In
an article for the magazine Canadian Dimension, economist
Peter Victor points to loss of biodiversity, climate change and
upsetting the nitrogen cycle as three main components in which
economic growth has perpetrated uneconomic outcomes. Victor argues
that we have exceeded earth's capacity for resource provision, and
that western countries' current consumption habits cannot be
satisfied in the long-run. He asserts that GDP growth is not
necessarily indicative of human development, and questions the
correlation between increasing wealth and happiness. Both authors
conclude that economic growth does not always lead to human
development and that it has been, in many cases, counter-productive.
As with any cost-benefit analysis, this conclusion begs a
re-evaluation of investment strategies and goals. However, such a
re-evaluation is becoming more difficult
due to the implications of globalization for sovereign policy making
and enforcement (Daly 63). As national boundaries become a concept of
the past, countries and transnational corporations are both unwilling
and unable to internalize the environmental and social costs of their
economic activity (Daly 75). Instead, the global pursuit of profit is
disguised as investment in politically correct “sustainable
development” in order to allow continuity of the status-quo without
forcing the population to consider the negative implications of
unrestricted growth (Latouche 12). The macroeconomic justification
for this is such that as resources become increasingly scarce, their
allocation will become increasingly efficient (Alexander 5). Pricing
mechanisms will lead to substitution and technological innovation
will allow the market to make extremely efficient use of the
remaining resources, or even access previously inaccessible reserves
(Alexander 5). This theory, as will be demonstrated, is problematic.
The
Shortcomings of Sustainable Development and Population Control
While sustainable development is a comforting concept in the face of
resource scarcity and environmental degradation, it does not hold in
reality. Despite our society's endless potential for innovation, as
long as growth remains the dominant paradigm in economic planning we
will consume an increasing, and unsustainable, quantity of resources
(Alexander 9). Consider the example of innovations in fuel-efficient
vehicles to illustrate the shortcomings of the sustainable
development concept: With the invention of the fuel-efficient car, we
proceed to drive more and buy more cars, secure in our assurance that
the problem has been solved and we are free to consume at a standard,
or increased rate (Alexander 9). This relationship between innovation
and growth-driven consumption illustrates the need to reassess the
traditional macroeconomic argument that growth is able to continue
exponentially into eternity. With a finite and rapidly disappearing
supply of resources, it is becoming increasingly apparent that at
this rate, the path of economic growth will lead to disaster. The
sustainable development pursuits of the past 20 years have not
yielded the results necessary to contain the problem at hand, and
with consumerism continuing to grow unchecked we must adopt a new
approach (Martinez-Alier et al. 1)
Population reduction as a means to address environmental challenges
is a policy advocated by conservative politicians (Latouche 25). In
1974 Henry Kissinger introduced a proposal to control the populations
of thirteen developing countries viewed as a threat to US dominance
by encouraging their leaders to promote the use of birth control
(Latouche 26). Another proponent of population control, public health
specialist Maurice H. King, suggested that if family planning is not
effective it is the poor who should be “left to die” as their
lifestyles impose more on the environment (Latouche 26). This
demonstrates the precarious balance of justice in the practice of
population control – who will be subject to control measures may
become an arbitrary decision, with the burden distributed unevenly
amongst the world's population. Approaching population reduction
without the looming influence of earth's demise would allow for the
formation of level-headed policies which would avoid, for example,
global bacteriological warfare as a method of population reduction
(Latouche 26). Although population reduction is demonstrated to be
both desirable and necessary in resolving the environmental crisis
(Latouche 27), it is a concept that must be approached calmly to
ensure a peaceful and equitable implementation of measures. Following
a period of degrowth, it would be possible for leaders to address
this issue in the absence of excessive pressure.
Decoupling
and Degrowth
The concept of decoupling involves breaking the link between
resource use and economic growth (UNEP xiii). It suggests a shift
from innovation which encourages resource consumption to innovation
which reduces the use of resources, in addition to the adaptation of
a growth indicator which is more comprehensive than GDP and considers
the social and environmental impacts of growth (UNEP xvii). However,
evidence shows that this approach is insufficient in solving the
environmental crisis on its own (Victor “Uneconomic Growth”). A
2002 OECD report suggests that decoupling indicators are flawed
since, for example, they do not capture externalities such as
cross-border pollution. The report suggests that this approach must
be used as a complementary measure to other tactics. Furthermore,
absolute decoupling cannot occur simultaneously with economic growth,
and will increase in efficiency only in correspondence to slower
growth (Victor). For this reason, although developed countries should
practice decoupling regardless, it is a strategy that can only be
effective when paired with measures for degrowth (Victor).
The prominence of the growth paradigm is a product of the problems
addressed by Malthus, Marx and Keynes regarding overpopulation,
wealth distribution and unemployment: Economic growth became the
accepted all-around solution, leading to decades of policy formation
in the interest of furthering of this goal (Daly 73). As has been
demonstrated, however, the increasingly uneconomic effects of growth
mean that it is no longer a feasible solution to these problems (Daly
74). Zero growth is undesirable as well, and the answer lies in a
middle-ground – the slowing of growth (Alexander 13). In the
developing world where growth is imperative to raise the population
to an acceptable standard of living, degrowth is not a possibility.
It is wealthy countries who possess a standard of living that would
make a period of degrowth manageable, and therefore they should allow
any room for growth to occur in the countries where it is needed most
(Alexander 2).
It
is believed that slow growth would lead to full employment, poverty
elimination, fiscal balance, CO2 emission reductions and more leisure
time (Alexander 13). A planned economic contraction, as opposed to
the undesirable unplanned alternative, can be achieved through a
combination of restructured investment strategies, reduced workweek
hours, and a redistribution of labour amongst the population
(Alexander 14). Restructuring of investment strategies would have the
aim of shifting investment from private to public goods (Alexander
14). A reduced workweek and the redistribution of labour
responsibilities would allow for a steady standard of living by
substituting wealth for an increase in leisure (Alexander 14).
Systems of progressive taxation, the implementation of a maximum
wage, and the proliferation of worker cooperatives would all
contribute to a shift from high to low consumption patterns
(Alexander 17). Sudden and drastic degrowth would be too great a
shock for the population, but a gradual implementation would be a
viable step forward in policy making (Martinez-Alier et al. 4).
Conclusion
Productivism and the growth paradigm, originally intended to solve
the problems associated with overpopulation, unjust distribution of
wealth and unemployment have become the foundation for a culture
which emphasizes, above all else, the acquisition of material wealth.
The resulting levels of consumption in wealthy countries has led to a
point where growth has become uneconomic, and does not provide an
overall benefit to society. Not only has growth become uneconomic,
but it cannot possibly be sustained at current population levels.
Sustainable development initiatives are insufficient in addressing
the severity of the environmental crisis, and only serve to allow the
customary patterns of consumption to continue unchecked. Population
reduction, within the current sociopolitical framework, would likely
lead to unjust and possibly violent outcomes and should only be
evaluated following a period of degrowth. Decoupling strategies are
necessary, but also insufficient in achieving ecological
sustainability if implemented alone; the most effective policy to
attain both environmental and economic stability is one of planned
economic contraction, or degrowth. The restructuring of investment
and a redistribution of labour will reduce consumption patterns in
wealthy countries while allowing the developing world the necessary
room for growth. In light of the growing imperative for an
ideological shift toward true sustainability, degrowth must be the
primary goal of the global community.
Works Cited
United Nations.
“Humanity’s
voracious consumption of natural resources unsustainable – UN
report”. UN
News Centre 12
May 2011. Web. 04 Apr. 2012.
Daly,
Herman E. “Un-economic growth: Empty-world versus full-world
economics”. Sustainable
Development: The Challenge of Transition. Ed.
Schmandt, Jurgen and Ward, C.H. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2000. 63-77. Print.
Alexander,
Samuel. “Planned economic contraction: The emerging case for
degrowth”. University
of Melbourne: Office for Environmental Programs/Simplicity Institute.
03
Aug. 2011. Web. 04 Apr. 2012.
Hanley,
Paul. “Oilsands an example of 'uneconomic growth'”. The
Star Phoenix 17
Jan. 2012. Web. 04 Apr. 2012.
Victor,
Peter A. “Uneconomic Growth”. Canadian
Dimension 05
Mar. 2012. Web. 04 Apr. 2012.
Latouche,
Serge. Farewell
to Growth. Cambridge:
Polity Press, 2009. Print.
Martinez-Alier,
Joan et al. 'Sustainable de-growth: Mapping the context, criticisms
and future prospects of an emergent paradigm”. Ecological
Economics 69
(2010): n. pg. Web. 04. Apr. 2012.
United
Nations Environment Programme. Decoupling
Natural Resource Use and Environmental Impacts from Economic Growth.
UNEP,
2011. Web. 04. Apr. 2012.
Organization
for Economic Co-operation and Development Environment Programme.
Indicators
to Measure Decoupling of Environmental Pressure from Economic Growth.
OECD
Environment Programme, 2002. Web. 04. Apr. 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment