Enough Is Enough

by Rob Dietz

  Make the Steady-State Message More Accessible

  Franny Armstrong knows how to get a point across. As an environmental and social activist, she has successfully attracted attention and raised funds for just causes, and those skills have transferred to her filmmaking projects. Armstrong has created three documentaries that have been viewed by a total of 70 million people. Her movie The Age of Stupid rose to number one at the U.K. box office without formal advertising or major-studio funding.20 Not content to sit back while her film delivered its message about the urgency of addressing climate change, she also founded the 10:10 campaign, which helped spur the United Kingdom and other nations to cut their carbon emissions.

  To raise the profile of steady-state economics, Armstrong offers a simple piece of advice: “Change the name.” She has a point. “Steady-state economics” sounds like a specialized subset of the broader field of economics (the same holds true for “ecological economics”). In reality, “economics” should embrace the idea that the economy is a subsystem of the biosphere, and steady-state principles should permeate the field of economics. Labeling these principles under an appealing banner could help them gain some traction.

  Some people hear the words “steady-state” negatively. Even with a hopeful and promising goal—to enhance human well-being within the ecological capacity of the planet—the name conjures up stagnation in some people’s minds. Finding a new and captivating name for the steady-state economy could help attract a critical mass of people committed to taking the concept forward.

  What the name should be, though, remains an open question. As described in Chapter 4, scholars and activists have suggested a variety of labels, all of which have their particular flaws. Some, such as “green economics” and “new economics,” seem too nebulous. Others, such as “biophysical economics,” veer into the realm of scientific jargon. Ideally some top marketing talent would pause on the quest to sell sugary snacks and tooth whiteners, and instead apply their considerable know-how to solving this naming problem.

  In the meantime, part of the rebranding process includes assembling a cast of campaigners who can tell a good story. Banging people over the head with data, figures, and rational arguments often fails to persuade them to take action, largely because it doesn’t generate an emotional response. Delivering real stories of real families engaged in the transition to a steady-state economy could create an emotional impact and provide a more effective way to gain attention. The challenge is to create a message that is accessible without being trite. Taking a page out of Armstrong’s script, a film could serve as a catalyst for a fundamental shift in how the public views economic growth. But regardless of the medium used, the most important skill of Armstrong’s to emulate is her ability to tell a compelling story.

  In addition, any attempts to deliver an effective message about the steady-state economy need to overcome what Dan Kahan, a legal scholar at Yale University, calls “protective cognition.” Kahan has concluded that people tend to dismiss scientifically sound evidence if it poses a threat to their worldview. They don’t want to believe that something they hold in esteem could be detrimental to society. Kahan writes, “Because accepting such a claim could drive a wedge between them and their peers, they have a strong emotional predisposition to reject it.”21

  Kahan’s findings help explain why people resist messages about the limits to economic growth. Even though scientists are providing evidence that continued economic growth is having detrimental effects on both environmental and social systems, people tend to deny the evidence because it clashes with their preexisting worldview.

  The key to bypassing protective cognition is to frame information about economic growth in a way that prevents people from feeling threatened. One possibility is to focus the conversation on needs that all people share (e.g., subsistence, security, and participation) and how the economy can help meet these needs without growth. Such framing could dampen denial and diminish the dangerous allure of economic growth.

  Engage with People in New Forums

  Innovative ways need to be found to engage decision makers and opinion influencers in a more active debate about the problems of growth and potential economic reforms to solve them. “Forums for exploration” with policy makers, politicians, and researchers could provide places to hold such debates. These forums could explore the tricky policy issues discussed in Part II of this book, such as population growth, material and energy throughput, and inequality. Development of such forums has already started in the form of conferences, including the international conferences on degrowth held in Paris, Barcelona, and Montreal; the Growth in Transition Conference held in Vienna; and the Steady State Economy Conference held in Leeds.22 These and other similar conferences need to disperse their results more widely to governments, businesses, universities, and the general public.

  One way to raise the profile of steady-state principles at conferences and other venues is through the use of a position statement, such as the CASSE Position on Economic Growth or the Declaration on Degrowth.23 If such statements can gain significant numbers of endorsements from think tanks, businesses, professional societies, universities, and concerned citizens, then they can encourage mainstream institutions and public figures to “break ranks.”24 Once a few politicians become more willing to enter the debate on economic growth, the safety-in-numbers principle will create space for their colleagues to do the same. A small but dedicated group of politicians could significantly raise the profile of steady-state options for dealing with social and environmental problems.

  In order to develop new forums for discussion, put pressure on politicians, and educate the public, steady-state activists will need to build strong centers of action. A few such centers, mostly underfunded nonprofit organizations, are scattered around the globe. Examples include CASSE, the New Economics Foundation, Feasta, SERI, Research & Degrowth, the Post Growth Institute, the Post Carbon Institute, Earth Economics, the New Economics Institute, the New Economy Network, the New Economy Working Group, Ethical Markets, and Gaian Economics. These organizations need help to expand public awareness of alternative economic systems and to introduce politicians and members of the media to the concept of a prosperous but nongrowing economy.

  Build Academic Capacity on Steady-State Concepts

  Successful transformation of the economy will require a growing number of students, academics, and economists who understand the concepts of ecological economics and the steady-state economy. However, finding university economics departments that house research programs or offer courses on the steady-state economy is difficult. Many of the professors interested in teaching such courses have developed them as electives in other departments such as environmental studies and anthropology. This lack of a steady-state presence in economics departments has left a research gap—there’s a need for more rigorous study of how a steady-state economy would work. If the brainpower currently dedicated to pursuing economic growth could be applied to pursuing economic sustainability, we’d have a lot more ideas about how to achieve a prosperous, nongrowing economy.

  The good news is that the discipline of ecological economics has been making strides, thanks largely to the development of an academic society. Herman Daly, Robert Costanza, AnnMari Jansson, Joan Martínez-Alier, and other scholars established the International Society for Ecological Economics (ISEE) in 1990. The founding principles of the society are:

  • The human economy is embedded in nature, and economic processes consist of biological, physical, and chemical processes and transformations.

  • Ecological economics is a meeting place for researchers committed to environmental issues.

  • Ecological economics requires trans-disciplinary work to describe economic processes in relation to physical reality.

  Since its inception, the ISEE has grown in popularity and influence.25 Through the momentum generated by the society, and the development of new books, journal articles, and other information sources, there is a soli
d base of material to expand teaching and research at academic institutions. But more work is needed, especially to satisfy the demands of students who are fed up with the current economics curriculum (see Chapter 4). Like the news stories dedicated to steady-state principles and the underfunded nonprofit organizations that promote steady-state ideas, the ISEE is a minor player compared to its pro-growth counterparts.

  WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

  At this point in history, when humanity faces widespread economic and environmental turmoil, most people can agree that some amount of change is needed to manage the problems caused by economic growth. Everyone, including the most steadfast skeptics of steady-state concepts, would benefit from a wider, more inclusive conversation about economic growth. The three recommendations for initiating this conversation—making the steady-state message more accessible, engaging with people in new forums, and building academic capacity on steady-state concepts—are mutually reinforcing measures for breaking the disconcerting silence surrounding the steady-state economy. The time to implement these strategies is at hand. The longer politicians and journalists remain in their cone of silence, the more ecological limits will exert their influence, and the more urgent our social and environmental problems will become.

  At a public discussion on alternative economics in Leeds, Sheryl Odlum—a vocal member of the Occupy Movement—was asked how to make the transition to a sustainable and fair economy. Her answer was simple: “We rise.” Movements and protests offer an opportunity to raise the profile of steady-state ideas. Protestors have been demanding secure jobs, equitable distribution of income, more restraints on banking practices, reduced corporate influence in politics, and more scrupulous use of public funds (e.g., money for education instead of bank bailouts).26 In a nutshell, people around the world are seeking social and environmental justice—the same motivation for establishing a steady-state economy. Steady-state principles, therefore, could provide a unifying economic agenda for Occupiers and other people in search of positive change. The more protestors realize the potential of this agenda, the more they can provide a powerful voice to overcome the silence on the alternative to perpetual economic growth.

  As the silence subsides, perhaps instead of headlines colored by the assumptions of growth-mania, we’ll see columns with headlines like these:

  • Council of Economic Advisers Raises Questions about Growth

  • Full-Reserve Banking Proposed to End Debt Crisis

  • How the “Steady Staters” Are Saving the Economy and the Environment

  The arrival of such hopeful headlines would signal a profound shift—one that coincides with two other shifts required for the transition to a steady-state economy: the cultural shift away from consumerism (see Chapter 12), and a shift in national goals to enhance international cooperation (to be discussed in Chapter 14). But none of these changes will happen without pushing politicians, the media, and academic institutions to engage in a wider discussion—the changes will only happen when we rise.

  [CHAPTER 14]

  ENOUGH UNILATERALISM

  Changing National Goals and Improving International Cooperation

  On a visit to Leningrad some years ago, I consulted a map to find out where I was, but I could not make it out. From where I stood, I could see several enormous churches, yet there was no trace of them on my map. When finally an interpreter came to help me, he said: “We don’t show churches on our maps.” … It then occurred to me that this was not the first time I had been given a map which failed to show many things I could see right in front of my eyes. All through school and university I had been given maps of life and knowledge on which there was hardly a trace of many of the things that I most cared about and that seemed to me to be of the greatest possible importance to the conduct of my life.

  E. F. SCHUMACHER (1977)1

  WHAT ARE WE DOING?

  The United States, with less than 5 percent of the world’s population, emits about 18 percent of the world’s total output of greenhouse gases.2 The five largest coal users, China, the United States, India, Russia, and Japan, consume 77 percent of the world’s coal production.3 In the twenty-first century, when a single nation’s consumption habits can produce global consequences, unilateral economic decisions can be downright dangerous. Aggressive competition, especially among the wealthiest nations, for control of critical resources like land, water, and oil could prove disastrous. The last thing we need is a race to wring the final fragments of growth out of an already overgrown global economy.

  On the flip side, suppose a nation faced the facts, acknowledged the limits to growth, and wanted to make the transition to a steady-state economy. Such virtuous behavior could put the nation in a tight spot if all of its global neighbors were to continue aiming for growth. Nations that seek to improve their own economic footing with little regard for broader social and environmental consequences are following a strategy more suited to the nineteenth century than the twenty-first.

  In 1884, German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck was becoming increasingly concerned about the colonial aspirations of Britain and Portugal in Africa, because they were interfering with his plans for control of the Congo. He viewed international diplomacy as the path of least resistance for protecting his nation’s interests in Africa. Toward this end, he invited representatives of Britain, France, Portugal, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, the United States, Austria-Hungary, Sweden-Norway, Denmark, Italy, Turkey, and Russia to a conference. The representatives convened in Berlin to map out their vision for commerce in Africa.

  Bismarck proposed three main topics for the agenda: (1) freedom of trade in the Congo basin, (2) freedom of navigation on the Congo and Niger Rivers, and (3) rules to follow when taking possession of new territory.4 Conferences in those days tended to last longer than the three-day affairs of modern times, but even so, the Berlin Conference stretched on for an exceedingly long time. It started on November 15, 1884, and by the time it concluded on February 26, 1885, the colonial powers had laid the foundation for the “scramble for Africa” that took place over the next six years.5

  Both Bismarck and the British ambassador, Edward Malet, expressed humanitarian goals in their speeches at the conference. To be sure, they emphasized commercial operations, but each stressed the importance of maintaining the welfare of the native population.6 Their notions of native welfare were blatantly paternalistic, but even worse, they remained mostly notions. The colonial powers commenced a race to grow their realm of commerce and expand their power and prestige. The land grab was perpetrated without consent, and colonial cultures and external economic institutions were “superimposed upon an already vigorous people with a long history.”7

  Today a more eclectic and less coordinated club is seeking riches in Ethiopia, Tanzania, Sudan, Ghana, Madagascar, and other African nations. Its unusual roster of members includes American universities such as Harvard and Vanderbilt, the king of Saudi Arabia, the Korean corporate conglomerate Daewoo, British financiers, Chinese agribusinesses, and other deep-pocketed investors.8 Big money is scooping up lands all over the continent for crop production. This twenty-first-century group is exercising more subtlety than its nineteenth-century counterpart, but the win-win rhetoric still abounds. Promises of 25 percent returns on investment intermingle with announcements about sustainable farming practices, job creation, and feeding hungry local populations—all of this despite cases of poor land management, importation of workers, and ongoing focus on the export market and the conversion of crops to biofuels.9 Whether these land deals result in more food for locals remains to be seen, but foreign investors are definitely feeding their own appetites. According to the World Bank, they have gobbled up an area of farmland larger than France over the last few years.10

  The parties involved in the current African land deals are prospecting for economic returns. Wealthy foreign nations are looking for investment opportunities, and cash-strapped African nations are hoping to kick-start the agricultural sector, create jobs,
and improve food security. But the scene is playing out more like a modern-day Berlin Conference. Investor nations, such as water-starved Saudi Arabia and overpopulated China, have their own food security in mind. And there have been reports of evictions of people from traditional farming and grazing lands.11

  Even if the investor nations had honorable intentions in executing these land deals, they would still be following the wrong map. It didn’t work in 1884, and it won’t work now. To get a handle on what nations can do differently—to figure out the details of a new map to sustainable well-being for all—it’s important to understand the broad historical pattern of economic growth and international trade.

  Over the past two hundred years, only a handful of countries have experienced high and continuous rates of economic growth, and they have done so largely at the expense of the rest of the world, which has remained almost stagnant in economic terms.12 In the last sixty to seventy years, however, more and more nations have begun to follow suit, emulating the development paths taken by the industrialized nations, but at different rates and with different outcomes. Differences in rates of industrialization explain, to some degree, the enormous disparities between rich and poor—or North and South—around the globe. Only 16 percent of people live in the so-called developed nations, yet these nations account for about 78 percent of global consumption expenditures.13 Meanwhile, 40 percent of the world’s population struggles to subsist on less than $2 per day.14

  This disparity is a problem of global proportions. The poor people of the world must be able to meet their needs within an economic framework that accepts the limits of a finite planet. But mainstream economics offers only the “solution” of growth. Economists used to believe that an increase in income per capita would lead to increased equality across society (the “Kuznets curve” hypothesis), but that belief was based on an overly simplified set of assumptions about how economies develop and grow.15 Some economists have also argued that higher incomes reduce environmental degradation (the “environmental Kuznets curve” hypothesis).16 The theory is that wealthy countries tend to have better environmental performance because they can spend surplus resources on pollution prevention and remediation (although wealthy countries also tend to purchase more products, and the manufacture and transport of these products is often linked to resource use and pollution elsewhere).