tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post4408743366965634175..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: The Odd Coupling: Asking the Wrong Questions about "Decoupling" Environmental Impacts from Economic GrowthUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-58828029974658957602013-05-20T11:24:10.371-04:002013-05-20T11:24:10.371-04:00"....we argue that the future adaptability mi..."....we argue that the future adaptability might require policies reallocating resources towards the unpaid and the community." [From the linked research paper abstract].<br /><br />"Earth is abundant with plentiful resources. Our practice of rationing resources through monetary control is no longer relevant and is counter-productive to our survival."<br />Jacque FrescoMyrtle Blackwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07427043367624101075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-81408964164189437192013-05-18T20:17:28.230-04:002013-05-18T20:17:28.230-04:00"Degrowth" is a lousy slogan. It implies..."Degrowth" is a lousy slogan. It implies that stopping GDP growth is the strategy. That's not what sophisticated advocates of degrowth think. But if you have to explain your one-word slogan, it's already failed.<br /><br />Conversely, "growth" is a great slogan <i>because</i> it is misleading! Being against growth is like being against health. Just like labeling high-fructose corn syrup "health food"...<br /><br />I agree that reducing our footprint will <i>eventually</i> reduce GDP and I assume that is what you mean, Peter. A transitional program may, however, actually increase GDP <i>temporarily</i> through increased investment in cleaner, more durable goods and infrastructure. <br /><br />I have argued that the initial effects of work-time reduction would boost productivity, possibly even to the extent that it more than offsets the anticipated effect of a fall in aggregate hours. It's a counter-intuitive result that is consistent with Chapman's theory of the hours of labour.Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-83577911712214756202013-05-18T18:32:22.194-04:002013-05-18T18:32:22.194-04:00Well, maybe we aren't so far apart after all. ...Well, maybe we aren't so far apart after all. I don't think there can be much doubt that reducing our footprint <i>will</i> reduce GDP or at least greatly slow its rate of growth. This is one reason why a substantial reduction in working hours is a logical comcomitant of strong environmental policy.<br /><br />My gripe is that way too many enviros reverse the cause and the effect. Obstructing GDP growth is not an environmental policy. If it were, I would have a poster of Angela Merkel on my wall.Peter Dormanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00093399591393648071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-74195313979360457882013-05-18T16:16:21.524-04:002013-05-18T16:16:21.524-04:00P.S. Just to add, I'm not simply being glib wh...P.S. Just to add, I'm not simply being glib when I use the image of "calling cannibalism growth". There's a lot of research and theoretical discussion on this issue, some of which I refer to in <a href="http://econospeak.blogspot.ca/2013/03/income-growth-and-double-counting.html" rel="nofollow">Income, GDP Growth and Double Counting</a>. <br /><br />It gets rather discouraging to have to keep pointing out that "growth" is a euphemism for what produces revenue and has very little to do with "economy" in the sense of either improving human well-being or conserving the amount of resources consumed to provide for well-being.<br /><br />As the title to this post and the quote from Pynchon point out, "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers." GDP asks the wrong questions. Peter's "what proportion of our footprint reduction do you want to achieve by reducing GDP?" is profoundly a wrong question. <br /><br />Reducing GDP will <i>not</i> reduce our footprint. But reducing our footprint MAY reduce GDP. If the choice is between a bigger GDP with a bigger footprint or a smaller GDP with a smaller footprint, I would prefer the latter. If there is another alternative to those two choices, it is up to the proponents of GDP growth to demonstrate its practicality and political possibility. <a rel="nofollow">Three-card decoupling</a> is not a viable alternative. It's a con.Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-6459301076889304562013-05-18T13:34:48.060-04:002013-05-18T13:34:48.060-04:00I'm not against growth, Peter. I'm against...I'm not against growth, Peter. I'm against calling cannibalism "growth" and then insisting that we need to accelerate the cannibalism to provide nutrition for the growing population. John Halasz has summarized the mind boggling dilemma in his comment. It's all about maintaining the value of existing capital and accumulating more. Fuck the huddled masses yearning to breath free. <br /><br />There are genuine economic growth strategies that don't depend on increased resource extraction and that have known for centuries. They won't be implemented by the powers that be. Why? Because 1. they do not contribute to the accumulation of capital and 2. they relieve the political pressure for policies that do contribute to the accumulation of capital.<br /><br />Seriously, Peter, how much footprint reduction has been achieved over the last two decades by "decoupling GDP growth for resource consumption"? What makes you think that will change if we keep doing the same things?Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-41761566033734596682013-05-18T02:20:05.886-04:002013-05-18T02:20:05.886-04:00OK, I'm going to kick myself for doing this, b...OK, I'm going to kick myself for doing this, but here goes.<br /><br />Let's suppose that what we need to do is reduce our environmental footprint, measured according to several key variables (and especially CO2), by about 90% in the space of a few decades. This was proposed over a decade ago by <i>Greening the North</i> (Sachs et al.) and still stands as a reasonable benchmark. My question is, approximately what proportion of this do you propose to achieve with reductions of GDP, and about how much through changing the content of GDP and the way it's produced, i.e. decoupling?<br /><br />Incidentally, this is the old IPAT question I learned when I first started studying this stuff in the 1970s. Back then the mantra was "we need to reduce population!" and Barry Commoner said, well, let's look at some numbers. Now how many people need to disappear in the coming years?<br /><br />Seriously, S-Man, what proportion of our footprint reduction do you want to achieve by reducing GDP?Peter Dormanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00093399591393648071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-82058303458349858062013-05-18T01:59:30.301-04:002013-05-18T01:59:30.301-04:00Capitalism is driven by the "imperative"...Capitalism is driven by the "imperative" of maintaining the "value" of invested capital by means of the rate-of-profit. Which leads to its "growth" dynamic, since such "growth" is driven by increasing the capital-intensity of production to raise the productivity of labor via the substitution of capital for labor, which generates both increased surplus labor supply and increased potential and actual output to be absorbed.<br /><br />That's why employment growth and growth in resource consumption "must" necessarily go together. Without both the re-absorption of both surplus labor and surplus output, the "value" of capital can't be maintained, since it is measured by labor both as a necessary complement of production (else there's nothing to be substituted for) and as a prime source of consumption demand.<br /><br />For the technical means of production to be invested in resource efficiency and as a complement to natural processes and limits, vast amounts of current infrastructure and productive capital stocks must be devalued (together with their financial "asset" claims), even as new forms and modes of infrastructure and productive techniques must be developed and built.<br /><br />The coordination problems and cultural changes involved in such a transformed political economy are rather mind-boggling to contemplate.john c. halaszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17176419625607679150noreply@blogger.com