How Long Will The Bounty Last?

I’m taking the week off to head out of town with the family. I’ve got some drafts in the works, but it won’t be until I get back before I finish them. Expect some posts next week sometime. Until then, enjoy this great interactive inforgraphic…

I’ve been discussing limits in the last few posts. Here is a great interactive infographic put together by Scientific America that shows the limits of what our planet can provide. If we keep growing our economy, producing (mostly) useless junk and waste, how long can we expect to keep it up?

It reminds me of peak oil. Of all the wasteful things we use oil for (fuel is the biggest one – so many other things we are capable of using as fuel and energy that are renewable and sustainable), we are running out of oil incredibly quickly. But there are much more important things that we use from oil, like plastics and rubber for medical supplies, for instance. we would be able to keep these more important (and less destructive) uses of oil longer if we gave up the heavily destructive and wasteful uses like fuel. It’s all about sustainable scale and efficient allocation. We’ve got to make the non-renewable resources last and focus on transitioning to using only renewable resources within their ecological limits.

Have a good week, I’ll be back…

Related posts:

1. Quaker says “Go Humans Go”?
2. Sustainable Economics Blogs
3. Earth Overshoot & Natural Debt

The Limits of Earth

Debates over limits is not new. From Parson Malthus to Donella and Dennis Meadows to Herman Daly and, most recently, Tim Jackson, Juliet Schor, Peter Victor and many others – economists, policy-makers, ecologists, and biologists have all debated the limits we face and where they are encroach on society (or rather, where society encroaches on them). Economists from the very creation of the social science to recent shapers of the field have recognized the limits to a growth economy.

In the 19th century John Stuart Mill, a political economist who believed in free markets and utilitarianism, expounded the idea of a ‘stationary state,’ or a steady state, economy, one which remained stable without expanding in size. In Mills stationary state vision our economy would maintain a constant population and stocks of capital. He envisioned an enlightened state where “there would be as much scope as ever for all kinds of mental culture, and moral and social progress; as much room for improving the Art of Living and much more likelihood of its being improved, when minds cease to be engrossed by the art of getting on.”

John Maynard Keynes, the grandfather of current economic thought, even acknowledged that growth was a means to an end. Keynes referred to the dilemma of growth as “the economic problem” that someday will “take the back seat where it belongs, and the arena of the heart and the head will be occupied or reoccupied, by our real problems – the problems of life and of human relations, of creation and behavior and religion.”

Where does that leave us today? In a world seemingly full of ecological limits playing out in numerous arenas – peak oil, water scarcity, climate change, dwindling resources – how do we find that stationary state equitably? Do any of these limits play out in our favor?

The Challenge Is The Opportunity

Today we are faced with the greatest challenges ever faced by humanity. A multitude of constricting elements that are forcing us to come to grips with our way of life on Earth. Yet we are not new to adversity as a species. Our past is highlighted with times of strife and hardship. In nearly every case these times of struggle are highlighted by a renaissance of life – improvements in our lives, our society as a whole and our understanding of human nature. Why would this be need to be any different?

The caveat here is that we must actually rise to the challenge. Lester Brown, author of Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, recently wrote an uplifting article about our economy’s role in transitioning from oil, coal and natural gas to renewable energies like solar, wind and geothermal. This transition is needed in wartime speed, not only to avert the affects of Peak Oil on our economy, but also to reduce the odds of runaway climate change wiping most of humanity from the planet.

Here’s a tidbit from his article:

“Implementing Plan B entails cutting net carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions 80 percent by 2020. This would keep atmospheric CO₂ levels from exceeding 400 parts per million (ppm), up only modestly from 387 ppm in 2009, thus limiting the future rise in temperature. To make this ambitious cut, the first priority is to replace all coal- and oil-fired electricity generation with renewable sources. Whereas the twentieth century was marked by the globalization of the world energy economy as countries everywhere turned to oil, much of it coming from the Middle East, this century will see the localization of energy production as the world turns to wind, solar, and geothermal energy.

“Can we expand renewable energy use fast enough? I think so. Recent trends in the adoption of mobile phones and personal computers give a sense of how quickly new technologies can spread. Once cumulative mobile phone sales reached 1 million units in 1986, the stage was set for explosive growth, and the number of cell phone subscribers doubled in each of the next three years. Over the next 12 years the number doubled every two years. By 2001 there were 961 million cell phones — nearly a 1,000-fold increase in just 15 years. And now there are more than 4 billion cell phone subscribers worldwide.”

Of course, climate change is simply one means by which our ecosystem is constricting us, though obviously one of the most prominent. Ultimately we must realize that economic growth cannot continue forever. Once we’ve built the renewable energy systems we need (and decommissioned the oil and coal industry) we will still need to recognize our economy must find a sustainable scale. The fact that the world economy is already using 150% of the Earth’s bio-capacity and has exceeded, or is encroaching, on every other biophysical limit, shows that we have to take these limits into account in our economic system – or else.

In doing so we will be presented an opportunity to change our society for the better. Instead of focusing on material wealth, superficial whims and “keeping up with the Joneses” we can focus on expanding our knowledge, understanding, leisure time, building stronger communities and confronting poverty, social justice, hunger and inequality. Once we build a steady state economy we can increase the well being of everyone while remaining within ecological limits.

This seems to be to be quite an opportunity for our generation and the next. Shall we rise to the challenge?

Related posts:

1. Mr President, Put Solar On The White House
2. Social Business and Limits to Growth
3. The Limits of Efficiency

In the seventies it was “the man.” The Man was keeping us down. The Man was taking our money. The Man was pushing his agenda of consumption, 40-hour work weeks and corporate profit. Today that stigma has been replaced with acceptance and encouragement! We need to bring back the Man, but we also need to create a similar stigma on the pro-growthers, the liquidators.

I propose “growther.” It sums it up pretty well. It should be used in disgust and disapproval, like “that’s the agenda of a growther trying to destroy your work-life balance” or “those growthers are driving our planet towards collapse” or “you ignorant growther!” I’m open to other ideas, too, so please chime in!

Related posts:

1. No-Growth Economics and You
2. Life After Growth – Economics For Everyone
3. Newsweek: The No-Growth Fantasy

Our Natural Accounts Run Red

Today is the official day of Earth Overshoot: the first day of the year our natural capital spending is in the red. This type of natural debt is far more destructive than its monetary counterpart (natural debt meaning debt owed of natural capital, not a debt that is natural – there is no such thing). Instead of being able to pay back this loan, we’re actually making it harder to pay our bills next year and the year after.

Overshoot is a term used often by biologists to describe a population that consumes more than the system can support. This could be a pack of grey wolves in the Northern Territories that is eating more deer than can possible be born and grow within the year. What does that mean? With less deer this year to breed, there will be less deer next year to eat. The deer the wolves eat next year will deplete their reserve even further. Eventually no deer will be around to eat and the wolves will starve.

We’re doing the same thing today with the Earth. As the Global Footprint Network puts it,

“For most of human history, humanity has been able to live off of nature’s interest – consuming resources and producing carbon dioxide at a rate lower than what the planet was able to regenerate and reabsorb each year.

But approximately three decades ago, we crossed a critical threshold, and the rate of human demand for ecological services began to outpace the rate at which nature could provide them. This gap between demand and supply – known as ecological overshoot – has grown steadily each year. It now takes one year and six months to regenerate the resources that humanity requires in one year.“

The bummer here is that we can’t migrate to a new territory: there’s only one Earth. There will only ever be one Earth. One Planet. That’s how much we’ve been given, best we figure out how to use it well. We need to create a sustainable scale to our society and economy.

Maxed Out: Earth Doesn't Have Give Out Credit

Overshoot is directly related to carrying capacity – and biologists know that when a population consumes more than the system can renew, this overshoot often leads to a mass die-off.  We’re already watching the most massive extinction since the dinosaurs, our biological diversity is dwindling at unheard-of rates. Perhaps this should be seen as a warning to our own existence? After all, we are part of nature.

Celebrate Earth Overshoot Day by donating your car and buying a bike, calling your congressman, writing the president, trading your oil company job for a green job, building resiliency in your local community and supporting your local economy. Have a great anti-Holiday!

See my cross-post on Post Growth and out my guest post on Green Growth Cascadia about Earth Overshoot Day. Image Credits: Global Footprint Network.

Related posts:

1. Natural vs Man-Made Capital
2. The Earth Bleeds Out
3. Earth Demands Steady State Economy

Dick Smith's Wilbderforce Award

Dear Dick,

Thank you so much for placing such an inspiring award in the public arena. The issues confronting human society are grave to say the least, yet they pale in comparison to the spirit and optimism we carry with us. Those of us in the “next generation” hold the key to shaping the future of what will surely be the most pivotal century in all of human history. Climate destabilization is already taking place and will only increase if we continue to follow the growth paradigm. Resource scarcity, pollution, community degradation, biodiversity loss and the breakdown of civilization are the only future presented by further growth of our economy.

There are many of us that recognize these challenges and are working as best as we can to solve them. For several years I have run a blog called Steady State Revolution, where I focus on the damaging behavior of conspicuous consumption and the need for a sustainable alternative. Recently I co-founded a blog called Post Growth with a few other fellow-minded bloggers, both in the United States (Scott Gast) and in Australia (Sharon Ede). Another blogger friend of mine in the UK, Jeremy Williams has been making waves with his blog Make Wealth History and a website called Beyond Growth.

I’ve recently taken a post with the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE) as their Washington State Chapter Director. CASSE has been working hard to further the public conversation about these topics and I have been privileged to help them in their endeavors. Their new blog, the “Daly News,” features some of the most prominent names in ecological economics – including the blog’s namesake Herman Daly.

Every one of these people recognizes the conflict between continued economic growth and ecological sustainability. We see how the growth economy must transition to a stable, dynamic, steady state economy to insure a livable, just and flourishing human society is passed down to future generations.

Your prize may very well represent a flag under which we can all unite.

I believe the single most important thing in the success of the human experience is community. No man is an island, and this is an even more evident truth in the face of climate change and peak oil. Our way of life is dependent upon others, and the way we live impacts everyone. A sustainable economy will require strengthening our local and global communities, working together in cooperation instead of competition.

Your award represents a means to help pull more of us together, not for the money, but for the possibility of inspiring change and the ability to enhance the recognition of a sustainable way of life for all.

I look forward to the next year!

All the best,

Joshua Nelson
Washington State Chapter Director
Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy
steadystaterevolution.org
postgrowth.org

Related posts:

1. Million Dollar Prize To Cure Growth Addiction
2. Blueprint For A Better World
3. Beyond Talk: Climate Action Now

A few weeks ago I got a phone call from Australia. A gentleman named Dick Smith was on the line and he was very complimentary about our film project. Quickly I was brought up to speed on this man and his new, noble effort to get the world talking about limits to growth and into a recovery program for growth addiction.

That was the headline in the Sydney Morning Herald last week as Mr. Smith announced his one million dollar Wilberforce Award – a grant to be awarded to someone under 30 “who can impress me by becoming famous through his or her ability to show leadership in communicating an alternative to our population and consumption growth-obsessed economy.”

Did you see a news story about this audacious offer? I found no news stories about this outside of Australia, other than a photo in Times of India and the UK Guardian. The rest of the world apparently doesn’t consider this million-dollar prize offered by one individual newsworthy. I find that incredibly disappointing, but I suppose that is to be expected in a world where denial of limits to growth is so widespread and growth addiction is perpetuated by the pushers (growth profiteers, who include mainstream media).

Dick Smith ad in Murdoch press

In fact, Dick Smith has taken on the mainstream media in his quest to eliminate the mega-dose of pro-growth Kool Aid served to us daily. He recently took out this ad in Rupert Murdoch’s The Australian newspaper.

Unless you live in Australia, you may not know who Dick Smith is. The subject line of his follow-up email to me read: Rapacious Capitalist Loves your Website. So, who is this “rapacious capitalist” who is not pushing growth at every turn in order to finance his next private jet or another 10,000 square-foot vacation home? You can read more about him here.

Smith is a man who concedes “I’ve benefited from a long period of constant economic and population growth – we are addicted to it.” He is indeed a wealthy businessman. But Dick Smith has seen the light. It has come to his attention (thanks to his daughter) that there are limits. He writes, “sooner or later this consumption growth will have an end. We appear to be already bumping against the limits of what our planet can sustain and the evidence is everywhere to see.”

I’m encouraged that a number of wealthy capitalists are speaking out today about the fallacy of our quest for and belief in unending growth. Media mogul Ted Turner frequently raises the issue of overpopulation and sustainability. “Too many people are using too much stuff,” he told Charlie Rose two years ago. Zhang Yue, Chairman and Chief executive of BROAD Air Conditioning spoke eloquently about limits to growth in a speech last year to the Business for Social Responsibility Conference: “Today, that mission to grow more, to get more, to make more, isn’t suitable for society.”

Fact is we’ve all benefited from the era of growth. But just as it’s not too late for those who’ve built empires and made fortunes to learn from our mistakes and promote a more sustainable model, it’s not too late for society at large. It is time for us to get over our growth addiction and move quickly to a model that celebrates “enough.”

I applaud Australian Dick Smith for having the vision to see where our worship of growth everlasting will take us, the courage to confess his sins, and enough concern about future generations to put his money where his mouth is. According to Smith, “I will be looking for candidates whose actions over the next year show that they have what it takes to be among the next generation of leaders our incredible planet so badly needs.”

Originally posted here. For more information about Hooked on Growth, visit www.growthbusters.org.

By the way, I’m under 30, in case there are any who would like to help me win this prize

Related posts:

1. Dear Dick Smith
2. Growthbusters: Hooked on Growth
3. Australian Growth Debate Emerges

I’ve been busy drafting a guest post for another blog, as well as enjoying this great weather (seldom comes to Seattle), so it will be a few more days before another good post materializes. I do have some cool news, though, something I wanted to share earlier:

CASSE vs Barclays Capital

Brian Czech, President of the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE) and author of Shoveling Fuel for a Runaway Train,  was on Business News Network for a debate over economic growth.

This is an exciting step into the mainstream media for CASSE and the steady state economy. Face time on any major news network is good, especially when Brian raises such good points. It also helps that the Barclays’ representative (who is treated like an authority on economics, even though he looks a little green to me) stumbles a bit and uses “modest” more than a modest amount.

Unfortunately, I couldn’t find an embed-able video of it, but you can watch the debate here.

Related posts:

1. Become a CASSE Member!
2. Growing the Growth Debate
3. The New Green Economy Day 2: Recap

The Gates’ number one ally in getting the campaign rolling, Warren Buffett attempted to start the giving by pledging that ”more than 99% of [his] wealth will go to philanthropy during [his] lifetime or at death.” At face value this appears to be quite the statement: more than 99% of his wealth given away! However, it seems to me that Buffett’s pledge might be more for show and is slightly disingenuously when labeled as philanthropy. Here’s why…

The Richest of the Rich

Perhaps it is difficult for the majority of us to actually realize how much money the top 1% of the world have in their bank accounts. A simply way to think of it: the richest 1% of Americans possess more than all the combined wealth of the bottom 90%. In Warren Buffett’s case, he’s currently valued at around $47 Billion – with a B. That’s more zeros than can fit in most calculators – $47,000,000,000. He recently fell from the #1 richest person in the world to the #3 spot, poor guy.

I wonder if there is even a concept of “enough” with this class of richest of the rich. These top 1% wield an amazing amount of influence and power with their vast sums of monetary wealth. Do they really deserve this power? Is it right for them to have so much while most of the world has hardly enough?

When Is Enough, Enough?

Income and wealth inequality are traceable to many social and environmental problems. In their book The Spirit Level, Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson link the wealth inequality in developed nations to shorter, less healthy and increasingly unhappy lives, as well as rising rates of teenage pregnancy, violence, obesity, imprisonment, poverty and addiction. Pickett and Wilkinson starkly point out that economic growth must be halted, as these  life-diminishing results of valuing growth above equality in rich societies can be seen all around us.

Growth is the driver of consumption that is quickly depleting the planet’s limited resources and is the instigator of climate change that has drastically reshaped the face of the planet for the foreseeable future. It is no wonder that Buffett, juxtaposed next to the more climate-conscious Gates family, is one of Rolling Stones top ten “Climate Killers.” He’s got hands deep into oil, gas and coal, as well as funding climate denying science organizations and publicly denouncing ideas of a comprehensive climate bill. If he truly cared about his impact in the world, would he really worry about his profits in these industries over the destructive climate change that results from their use? How much good can his wealth do if it is made by destroying the planet?

Why Buffett’s Pledge Is Not Much Of A Sacrifice

I should point out that this is a lot of money that will, eventually, go to (hopefully) worthy organizations doing good in the world. I think that’s spectacular. I take issue with the way Buffett tries to frame his “giving,” and his lack of actual philanthropic action. In my opinion philanthropy means to actually give up wealth to better others because it’s the right thing to do, not to maintain your extremely wealthy position and give away excess that you’re running out of ways to spend.

He outwardly states in his pledge that “my family and I will give up nothing we need or want.” I think the want portion of that statement is where it gets a little muddy: [emphasis added]

“This pledge will leave my lifestyle untouched and that of my children as well. They have already received significant sums for their personal use and will receive more in the future. They live comfortable and productive lives. And I will continue to live in a manner that gives me everything that I could possibly want in life.

Some material things make my life more enjoyable; many, however, would not. I like having an expensive private plane, but owning a half-dozen homes would be a burden….”

He goes on to say, “I will continue to annually distribute about 4% of the shares I retain. At the latest, the proceeds from all of my Berkshire shares will be expended for philanthropic purposes by 10 years after my estate is settled.” Great, so you’re donating what I assume to be enough to help out on your tax return (the 4% annually), but everything else is going to have to wait until you’ve kicked the bucket?

The kicker is this: 1 percent of his wealth amounts to $470,000,000 – $470 million dollars. Even if he did a more philanthropic action of actually giving away 99% of his wealth today, in full, he would still be able to at least earn $14.1 million a year at a low rate of 3%. I would find this a bit more worth of praise, yet even this is an ungodly amount of money – anyone would be able to do well in this world making $14 million a year. So, I don’t buy that his pledge is entirely much of a burden or sacrifice for others – he just has sooo much money that there’s almost nothing else to do with it after he’s dead anyway. Why do we allow a system to give so much excess to some while not providing enough for others?

It’s Not All Bad

It’s not all that bad, here’s more:

“My wealth has come from a combination of living in America, some lucky genes, and compound interest. Both my children and I won what I call the ovarian lottery…  My luck was accentuated by my living in a market system that sometimes produces distorted results, though overall it serves our country well. [Actually, it doesn't many that well, but he seems to serve you well, Mr. Buffett]

I’ve worked in an economy that rewards someone who saves the lives of others on a battlefield with a medal, rewards a great teacher with thank-you notes from parents, but rewards those who can detect the mispricing of securities with sums reaching into the billions. In short, fate’s distribution of long straws is wildly capricious.”

Buffett at least seems to realize that our economy is distorted and he is lucky to have this much wealth, especially for performing very little for the good of society (whereas the teachers he mentions make next to nothing compared to the benefit they provide). But our system doesn’t need to be constructed this way – we can institute simple and effective measures that encourage a more reasonable distribution of wealth. For now, we can give thanks that at least some of the people at the top are donating large percentages of their money.

As Jule put it last night:

“As a philanthropic adviser, I never want to dish a philanthropic impulse—especially one with such scope and potential impact as Buffet’s. And while giving away the lion’s share of his fortune won’t affect Buffet’s lifestyle (so he has said) it’s curious to ponder the number of zero’s remaining in his wallet (my calculator couldn’t show me all the zeros)…

What is important is that both Buffett and Gates are widely respected in the business community and their leadership is having ripples—forty of the U.S. billionaires have already signed on. In fact, I hope Americans living at all levels will consider giving more and volunteering more, and not because of tax advantages but because if FEELS SO GOOD!”

Related posts:

1. Federal Reserve Transparency
2. The Robin Hood Tax
3. Say No to Bonuses