1. Growth economics does not contribute to per capita wealth or quality-of-life (in developed nations)

2. Growth economics is the worst tool for alleviating poverty

3. Growth economics is not sustainable

4. Technology does not slow growth

Major points

5. Growth economics will end (sooner or later; whether we like it or not)

6. Growth economics places future quality-of-life at great risk

7. There is a better alternative

Major points (cont.)

Steady State Economics

Steady state economics can [in wealthy countries]… distribute wealth more equitable lower rates of (or even eliminate) poverty foster a more educated citizenry foster a more politically-engaged citizenry produce cleaner water and cleaner air offer high quality transportation increase efficiency of resource utilization substitute renewable for non-renewable resources offer more leisure time

Steady state economics

In U.S. communities…

Economic progress, improved quality-of-life, and human justice do NOT require growth economics

In 1970s economic growth decoupled from quality-of-life

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

Index SustainableEconomic Welfare

per capita GrossNational Product

Threshold Hypothesis

Max-Neef, 1995

Paul Gottlieb, 2002

Growth is decoupled from per-capita

income

Policies based on false assumptions do not achieve desirable goals

Growth Economics – worst tool for fighting poverty

• In 1980s, of every $100 added to the global economy, $2.20 went to those in poverty

• In 1990s, poor’s share shrank to just 60¢

• In 2008, mankind’s ecological footprint was already 1.35 Earths

• Using global economic growth to increase poor’s income to $3/day would require 15-Earths of biocapacity

Worth it?

Reducing poverty requires policies specifically designed for that purpose

e.g., wealth redistribution

• Increases aggregate rate of consumption (plus net exports) tracked by increasing GDP/GNP (national level)

• Caused by increasing… rate of per-capita consumption population

• Per-capita consumption correlated with… “standard of living” per-capita ecological footprint

Growth Economics (in any community)

In U.S. communities, most all economic growth results from increasing population

Current policies encourage population growth

Cannot!

ecological economists• Science-based, rational

– ecology, biology, physics

• Consider interactions between humans and rest of nature

Can!

“mainstream” economists• View human activities in

a vacuum

• Supported by…– banks, investment

firms– most corporations

Growth Economics forever?

CASSEwww.steadystate.org

Niccolucci, et.al. (2007) Ecological Economics 60: 667-672

<15 acres

cover

Sweden

Ecological Footprint & Biocapacity

Ecological Deficit

~25 acres

Unsustainable conditionDependents’ dilemma: What if they change their minds?

Moral costs: What are “foreign” providers doing to their bio-capacity & biodiversity?

Our Community’s Situationcover

United States

Niccolucci, et.al. (2007) Ecological Economics 60: 667-672

Growth Economics increases our ‘takings’ from others (including our children) and the risks to all

‘Rational’ growth maximizes ultimate, steady-state consumption rates

Time

Res

ou

rce

Co

nsu

mp

tio

n R

ate

Growth curve Steady state

Growth is NOT sustainable

Our current path (overconsumption) lowers the ultimate steady-state condition

Time

Reso

urc

e C

on

su

mp

tio

n R

ate overconsumption

rational

steady state - rational

steady state- overconsump

Poor or no ‘plan’ for vanishing resources

Overconsumption

• Total costs of achieving sustainability significantly increased• Flexibility/options vis-à-vis unknown challenges significantly decreased• Significantly delays achievement of sustainability• Reduces steady-state quality-of-life from (competes with) future generations

Overshoot

Time

Res

ourc

e C

onsu

mp

tion

Rat

e

hyper

overshoot

rational

steady state

HYPER-CONSUMPTION

Which future are we leaving our children?Growth economics could condemn/sacrifice most to a

future of poverty, violence–totalitarianism

Or, our current path may be…

Overconsumption

Crash

We owe future generations a planned endgame

Sustainable scenarios curve – U.S.

5

10

15

20

25

30

150 200 250 300 350 400

Population (millions)

Per

-Cap

ita

Fo

otp

rin

t (a

cres

)Line 1

Currently

Technology – a false messiah –

• Decreased demand for a resource decreases resource price, which then increases consumption

– rebound effect

• Savings from efficiency improvements are spent on increased consumption elsewhere

– savings deposits in fractional reserve bank is the worst choice (money supply increased 10x)

Technology often worsens consumption

Increased efficiency in resource usage increases consumption of that resource

Jevons Paradox: The Myth of Resource Efficiency Improvements, J. M. Polimeni, K. Mayumi, M. Giampietro, B. Alcott (Dec, 2007)

Technology – false messiah

“If the only check to population is misery…• the population will grow until it is miserable enough

to check its growth.”• the result of any improvement is ultimately to

enable a larger population than before to live in misery, so that resource-improvement actually increases the sum of misery.”

Overcoming one resource constraint simply extends the biophysical limits on growth

economics until another limit is encountered

Kenneth Boulding, "The Malthusian Model as a General System," Social and Economic Studies, Collected Works, Vol. I, p. 455, (1955)

Voluntary simplicity

Does not lower system-wide consumption

• Free markets• Low living standards (real or perceived)

– advertising-driven demand for prestige consumption (affluenza)

• Wants-based economies– governments (including representative democracies) manage

supplies, not wants“How economic growth becomes a cost”, Paul E. Smith, Ecological Economics, 68(3), pp. 710-718 (2009)

one person’s “doing without” enables another to “do with”

The ultimate steady state condition – has a huge impact on community &/or global biodiversity

Time

Res

ou

rce

Co

nsu

mp

tio

n R

ate

Steady State Total Bio-capacity

Natural wealth/capital (resources) allocated to the human economy

We have already taken TOO MUCH!Growth WILL end at some point

End growth ASAP to maintain biodiversity and protect our own mental, emotional, physical and spiritual health

Natural wealth/capital (resources) left for biodiversity

(assuming anything is left!)

The final, steady state condition will be our

legacy to Life

• Land use and zoning policies– allocate resources to serve growth economics

• Legal systems– colonial (17th century) English common law

– intrinsic rights sacrificed to property rights

– unreasonable corporate power rights of personhood, “commerce clause”

• Monetary/economic systems– self-destructive (recessions, depressions)

– monetary expansion over wealth preservation– private/aristocratic control (banks, corporations)

– convert non-monetary, community wealth into monetary assets

Current growth-first systems and policies

None of the existing decision systems consider future generations

Non-monetary community wealth

Clean, healthful water Clean, healthful air Low crime Low taxes (volunteerism, minimal

complexity & infrastructure) Light traffic, short lines Small, locally-owned businesses Diversity in local culture Small schools, class sizes and

student/teacher ratios Space

By converting community assets into money, large banks and corporations maximize their takings (wealth extraction) from communities

Quiet Nature, biodiversity Historical preservation Community self-sufficiency Citizen participation in civic

and community affairs Community – doing things,

making decisions together Individual freedom

• Centralized control of resources– in all systems (financial, production, natural resources,

governance) control and power concentrated in the hands of a few

– Federal preemption/supremacy

• Lack of free press– mainstream media corporate-controlled– active & passive censorship/disinformation– urbanization advocates– “don’t worry, be happy” (1984 – opiate of the masses)

• Weak democracies– direct democracy (self-governing people) smothered by

representative democracy (ruling class)

– pro-money voting/campaign laws

• Myopic religious institutions– Anthropocentric (restricted morality), Biblical/colonial, Ishmael

Growth-first social and political systems favor totalitarianism

In other words, growth economics IS un-American

Systems/policies that maintain growth economics

must be replaced

With alternatives that nurture sustainable economies

• “…a low footprint lifestyle can be appealing and beneficial to society as a whole…Some of the measures may appear counter to traditional government pro-economic growth policies. In reality, these recommendations are a pro-Scotland, pro-quality of life approach which will secure Scotland’s future.”

• “…policies aimed at achieving well-being rather than economic growth as an over-riding objective are appealing to many and may provide the necessary new perspective to achieve a strong, healthy and just society within global limits. This could not only have positive environmental effects. As a cross-cutting issue, freeing up more “time for life” could also contribute to the establishment of healthier communities, the strengthening of social cohesion , and improving people’s quality of life”

• “Government policies should aim for increased well-being and not economic growth per se.”

• “People in Scotland are willing to adopt more sustainable lifestyles if they are given clear leadership by government.”

Towards a Low Footprint Scotland (2007)www.scotlandsfootprint.org/pdfs/LowFootprintScotland.pdf

Communities are taking action

CASSE Petition

• Scientific Organizations:American Society of MammologistsSociety for Conservation Biology (N. American Section)

British Columbia Field Ornithologists

• Civic & Political Organizations: Bloomington (IN) Environmental CommissionCoast Range Association (Corvallis, OR)Coos Cty. Alternatives to Growth (Coos Bay, OR)Sustainable Saratoga Springs (NY)U.S. Green Party

www.steadystate.org

• Determine ecological footprint (EF) vs. biocapacity (BC) in your community

• Set a desired target EF/BC ratio to drive all community policies

• Set a desired, target population based on target EF/BC and other desired quality-of-life indicies

• Estimate future water supply vs. consumption rate; set desired target [consumption/availability] to drive community policies

• Make preservation of local, agricultural land a top priority in land use/zoning/taxation policies

• Give citizens easy access to clear and complete information about upcoming government deliberations & decisions that could increase community’s EF, decrease BC, increase water consumption, or degrade water quality

Community Actions

• Require EF/BC impact assessments of any measures considered by government bodies or voters

• Require voter approval of annexations, TIFs, changes to housing allocations, and changes in the master plan

• Require voter approval of any development project that would increase the EF from (or decrease the BC of) the subject property

• Require a project applicant to disclose all potential risks to public health, safety and welfare and to the environment

• Give community residents rights to challenge government decisions (made without voter approval) that may increase the community’s EC, decrease its BC, increase water consumption, or degrade water quality

• Assess impact fees to cover ALL the estimated costs to the public

• End growth promotion by the homestead tax credit

Community Actions (cont.)

• Reform environmental and conservation law1) Make rights-based rather than property-based

2) Extend legal standing (inherent rights) to ecosystems (CELDF)

3) Adopt Tort of “Ecological Degredation” (Guth)

4) Adopt Precautionary Principle

5) Protect “commons” for current and future generations (SEHN)

• Restore community control over land development1) Rein-in corporate rights/powers within the community

Deny corporations rights to ‘personhood’ Ban campaign contributions by non-local businesses in local

elections (Humboldt Cty., CA)

2) Eliminate State or Federal authority to act on behalf of corporations involved in local land use (or other natural resource) disputes

Community Actions (cont.)

Growth economics does not contribute to per capita wealth or quality-of-life

Growth economics is the worst tool for alleviating povertyGrowth economics is not sustainable

– economic growth increases rates of natural resource consumption and pollution (including CO2 emissions)

Technology does not slow consumption growthGrowth economics will end (whether we like it or not)

– the world has changed (we are reaching our limits – esp. energy)

Growth economics places our quality-of-life at great risk– we are stealing from future generations and all of life

Take home points

www.ControlGrowth.org/SteadyState.ppt

Citizens for Sustainable EconomiesWorking for future generations

Steady state Economics – a better alternative