theangle.org

Money. Credit: Martin Kingsley/ flickr

By Simon Hukin:

Every human age is characterised by a peculiar destructive obsession. From the religious charlatanism of the dark ages to the ascent of dictatorship in the early twentieth century, as a civilisation we have an enduring passion for self-harm. However, most of these preoccupations have been both largely self-evident and rebelled against. Our present delusion is far more insidious. We are obsessed with growth.

Our governments have no higher goal nor greater measure of success than the change in GDP. Yet increasing consumption, quite clearly, no longer improves our standard of living. Nor, if truth be told, does it gratify us; the most prosperous nations are also, largely, the most depressed. Economic prosperity has brought with it health problems previously unknown, including obesity, eating disorders, tobacco related illness and diabetes. It has also wrought environmental degradation, a dearth of long term thinking and vast waste of patently finite resources. We live in a limited system – the riches of spaceship earth will, quite evidently, come to an end. We are already facing the devastating environmental and economic consequences of having passed peak oil. To ignore these natural bounds is to condemn our descendants – and fellow creatures – to an impoverished planet.

In order to continue existing we must adapt. We must change the way we think about our world and our goals. No longer can we fixate on producing more. A bigger pile of stuff is not the answer to our problems. This may sound like the diatribe of a hopeless greeny. I assure you, it is not. Acknowledging there will come a time when further growth is impossible is merely common sense; there are definite limits to the productive capacity of our planet. We should plan for this. As a society, our outlook must change. We must move from an obsession with wanting More, to wanting Better.

Instead of focussing on throughput and output, we should shift our goal to producing better products and services; renewable, sustainable, environmentally friendly, culturally and socially valuable, and aesthetically pleasing products for a new society. It is evident the growth model is not viable in the long-term as it rests on the fundamental assumption of unbound potential. Averting the catastrophe growth into the long term will bring requires both a change in social attitudes and economic institutions. It is a daunting task, yet the need for a viable macro-economic model for a 0-growth society is clear.

The investment of money generated by the exploitation of non-renewable resources must be seriously considered. This exploitation is, in the long term, socially detrimental as it creates a reliance on a product doomed to eventual exhaustion. The traditional reply to this is it is in the interests of industry to adapt and find new renewable solutions in order to ensure continuing profit, and so it will. However, the short-term mind set driven by profit oriented growth obsession leads companies to cling to their presently profitable business practices rather than invest in new, renewable ones.

Take the case of the fossil fuels industry. Even discounting the environmental damage the burning of fossil fuels entails, the astonishing reliance we have built on these finite resources has led us into an economically, socially and geopolitically untenable position. Consider the ramifications of an oil reliant world whose oil is controlled entirely by one player (in our case, most likely OPEC) – a war between superpowers is not an impossibility, with the oil lust of the US vying with the rapidly emerging mega-market of China. Or consider an oil dependent world in which there is no oil at all – in which all industry has jerked abruptly to an halt, in which commuter towns atrophy as the lack of petrol for cars and trucks makes commuting impossible and goods delivery far more difficult, in which the only way to obtain food would be to grow it yourself or walk the thousand kilometres to the nearest farm-belt.

These apocalyptic scenarios are most definitely not impossible – indeed, as our reliance on oil increases and remaining supplies rapidly diminish, they grow ever more likely – and fossil fuels are only a few of the finite resources on which we have come to depend. In order to remedy this we must strive to replace the drive to profit for profit’s sake with the drive to stabilise and future-proof our economic system. This suggests the profits which come from the exploitation of finite natural capital should be reinvested – forcibly if needs be – into developing renewable alternatives. Averting global catastrophe or a war between superpowers seems a sound justification.

If the growth model is not viable, what is the alternative?

We must begin building a new system of economic thought centred on sustainable development. This includes developing new tools in order to explore macro-economic variables previously uncharted, and determine the interaction between those variables solely economic and those ecological. Particular attention must be paid to a) the exploration of changes to investment patterns necessitated by a shift in economic focus; b) the ramifications of stringent and enforced resource use and emissions caps; and c) the impact of ecological change on economic sustainability and forward viability. Some work has already been done in this regard, initially by Schumacher – the famous pioneer of ‘Buddhist economics’ – and more recently in the MDM-E3 model proposed by Cambridge Econometrics and the EU’s TEEB study called “Millenium Ecosystem Assessment,” yet much more remains to be done.

Additionally, the inadequacies of conventional measures of prosperity such as GDP are now well known. We must develop new means of measurement. Coupling happiness indexation to conventional measures of the standard of living and national progress may provide a solution. An example of such a scheme is the ‘Happy Planet Index’.

In terms of changes to the tangible economy, the starting point must be an intensification of investment in jobs, long-term non-liquid assets and public infrastructure. Primary targets include: jobs in public asset creation and maintenance; renewable energy research and infrastructure development; universal public transport; public space generation and regeneration; greening existing buildings; ecosystem protection; and subsidies for green business practice, renewable technology provision and resource use efficiency improvement. Once again, there has been some work done in this area, especially in Europe. Examples include Deutsche Bank’s ‘Green Investment’ Scheme, the UNEP’s global ‘Green New Deal’ and the UK Sustainable Development Commission’s ‘Sustainable New Deal.’

Associated with these changes in investment procedure is the imperative to strengthen regulatory measures governing fiscal prudence. Our prudential regulator is acceptable – indeed, it is one of the best in the world – but we must not be lulled into a false sense of security. Debt-driven materialism has been the central pillar of economic growth for decades, yet the maintenance of this massive debt has proved to have a destabilising effect on the macro-economy, and was one of the primary causes of the Global Financial Crisis. Reform of the international financial market, increased public control over the supply of money, and the provision of further imperatives to save are all crucial if we are to stabilise the macro-economy and break the debt-cycle. Furthermore, maintaining the bans on short selling and other unscrupulous market practices are essential in protecting against high levels of consumer debt. It may also be of interest to consider the possibilities a Tobin tax has to offer.

A proposal to increase macro-economic stability and improve general well being is the limitation of working hours. Reduced working hours lead to an improved work life balance and the protection of jobs. In order to achieve this it is necessary to: mandate the reduction of working hours, invest an authority to combat discrimination against part-time employees, and improve leave entitlements. However, these policies are not aimed at denigrating the role of employer, but rather to offer more flexibility in terms of employment and improve the productivity of employees. The positive results of similar systems can be observed in Denmark, France and Germany.

Income inequality is one of the major problems which needs to be addressed in any new macro-economic conception. Systemic inequality drives positional consumption, increases social anxiety, serves to undermine social capital and expose lower income households to higher morbidity and lower life satisfaction. For too long this problem has been ignored, with both sides of politics reluctant to institute measures to increase the fairness of income allocation for fear of being labelled as anti-business, or socialist. However, our society is now at a stage where it is eager for such changes – the exorbitant gains of the ‘ultra-rich’ highlighted by the Global Financial Crisis have served to outrage and embolden the previously apathetic and downtrodden working classes. Redistributive mechanisms such as progressive tax structures, minimum and maximum income restraints and universal access to high quality education, have strong provenance, both theoretically and in practice. It is time to adopt them here.

Beyond basic economic changes we must consider the need to strengthen society and community. In order to do this we should create policies to build and protect shared community facilities, such as parkland, theatres, recreation centres and so on. We should invest in grass-roots sustainability programs, and provide training for green jobs. We must reduce international labour mobility. We must devolve planning responsibility to local communities and protect public services such as broadcasting, museum funding, research and library services. Not only will such initiatives improve the capacity for communities to resist economic shocks, it will also enable our local communities to be more integrated and socially cohesive.

Defeating the cult of consumerism

A far greater challenge, however, is the cult of consumerism. Our profit-driven culture has given rise to a cult invested in continual gross consumption, and increases in rate of same. This must be defeated if we are to change the timbre of our economy. To combat the consumerist mentality we must dismantle incentives toward materialistic consumption and unproductive status competition. Strategies to achieve this include stronger regulation of commercial media outlets; greater funding for public broadcasting tied to regulations denying the ability of the broadcaster to take on endorsements , advertise or cross-promote; the establishment of strong consumer protection bodies empowered to castigate offending bodies; enshrining fair and sustainable practices in trade legislation; banning advertising to children; establishing commercial free geographic zones and screening times; and funded rights of reply to advertising claims. If all of these are implemented we may begin to see changes in our prevailing culture within a decade, and the cult of consumerism may just fall.

Finally we must set in place measures to permanently protect the ecology of our world. The profligacy of consumer culture has brought about the depletion of the natural system and placed burdens on the ecosystem which are both unsustainable and destructive. We must impose caps on resource use and harmful emissions, in order to maintain the natural equilibrium vital to our survival. The contraction and convergence model much touted in reference to carbon emissions should be adopted more generally. Caps on harmful emissions production and non-renewable material throughput should be established and gradually lowered. Sustainable yields should be identified for renewable resources. Limits should be established for per capita emissions and wastes, and enforced thoroughly. Our present taxation system should be reformed in order to impose taxes on ecological negatives (such as pollution) rather than financial positives (such as income). These have long been accepted by economists as viable means of rectifying negative social conditions not accounted for by markets. It is time to begin implementing them on a large scale.

We face, in this, the difficulty of enabling presently underdeveloped economies to grow to a position of equality without developing unsustainable economic systems. This requires the establishment of an empowered international authority, with a clear remit to establish a global technology fund – investing in renewable energy, energy efficiency, carbon reduction and the protection of carbon skins in developing countries. Suggestions on how to fund this include a Tobin tax on international currency transfers, or a levy on imports (payable by importers) from developing countries. Developing societies presently under-developed must continue to grow, until they reach economic conditions adequate to guarantee individual welfare, personal security and a modicum of luxury. We must help them achieve this; after all, nations previously repressed deserve a chance at global economic equality. Yet this must not be used as a justification for maintaining present conditions in developed nations. The catch cry of economic rationalists – that competitiveness is everything – must be recognised as the drivel it is.

The ideas mentioned briefly above outline a strategy for tackling the greatest problem of our age – the insidious growth mentality. It is imperative we act, for inaction leads only to destruction. If we follow the strategies outlined above we can defeat the cult of consumerism, shackle the rampant profit motive and slaughter growth before it destroys us. Living in a society with a purpose beyond profit, a meaning more than more, our culture can progress unfettered by the need to earn; art and science will flourish, happiness will rise and a great many social ills will be eradicated. We will have defeated our greatest, most destructive obsession.

Simon Hukin is a student at the Australian National University, General Secretary of the Western Australian Secondary Students’ Association, peripatetic music teacher and general curmudgeon. He is heavily involved in politics and the union movement.

Related Posts:

• Australia’s Arrogance of Ignorance
• The Art of Happiness (Part Two)
• The Art of Happiness (Part One)
• Internet Filter: An Open Letter to Sen. Conroy
• CPRS: A Taxing Question (Part Two)
• Leaky Logic: Taking the Boat out of Boat People