Sustainable Degrowth
= a growing community of scientists and social activists, sharing the basic insight that a reduction of energy and material use implies a reduction of gross domestic product (GDP), is gathering under the heading of sustainable degrowth [1]
Examples
"Two outstanding examples are the solidarity economy in Brazil and the global information commons."
See:
Discussion
These are from the reading notes of Michel Bauwens, but the exact reference to the article by Serge Latouche is unknown:
Sustainable Degrowth is a contradiction: we have to maintain Natural Capital intact, and we have about 50 years to do this. This is the only possible definition of a sane economy.
N. Georgescu-Roegen distinguishes:
- high entropy = energy not accessible to humanity
- low entropy = accessible energy
Stabilizing our economic world still means using up natural capital, so the 'only option is degrowth'.
For rich countries, a negative annual growth of 4% for 30 years, would be necessary, argues Edward Goldsmith.
Since no political power could realistically impose this, it can only be a bottom up process. Economic crises, chaotic politics and then calls for a strong leader are not advisable. This is why the process has to be sustainable, so as not to engender a crisis of democracy.
Fossil fuels are non-renewable in human time frames and must be abandoned. A consequence of this is the abandonment of air travel, no refrigerators, no supermarkets, but more physical work and a return to the local.
The author Serge Latouche sees a 3-level economy:
1) small-scale economy geared against concentration
2) mixed private-public investment level
3) public services (water, energy, education)
These will be great steps for Westerners, but one should look to the planet as a whole, where
- 80% of the world population has no car, no fridge, no phones
- 94% never took a plane.
Nicholas Goergescu-Roegen stresses that sustainable development is a most nefarious concept. Herman Daly's attempt to define a development compatible with zero growth, are also seen as irrealistic. Zero growth in current conditions is still toxic, degrowth remains a necessity.
Serge Latouche writes:
“L’espace bioproductif par habitant de la terre est de 1.8 hectare. Or un citoyen américain consomme en moyenne 9.6 hectares (un Européen 4.5!). Une civilisation durable imposerait une limite de 1.4 hectare avec une population stable.”
Finally Latouche stresses that a new societty could still be hedonistic, it is not puritan conservatism.
Classic economics proposes a total substitutionality between natural resources and human capital. There is an underlying claim that eventually the need for natural resources can be near zero. But this is clearly false and against the second law of thermodynamics. In the current system, higher energy productivity still leads to overall higher energy consumption. (Jevon Paradox ?)
Nicholas Goergescu-Roegen distinguishes, 'stocks and flows' ('fonds et flux'). Capital and the necessary flows to renew it. High technology (such as computers) may seem light but it may depend on very expensive social reproduction that uses a lot of capital lower on the chain.
NGR innovated because he used a bio-economic approach, based on physical flows, rather than on value.
The key work that needs to be done is on social preferences, on the social imaginary. The demand must shift to civil society goods (attention, care, knowledge, participation, spiritual freedom. In the Global South, it is imperative that traditional relationships be maintained. Civil society needs to be expanded, through the production of public relational goods.
More Information
- Martínez-Alier, J, Pascual, U, Vivien, F-D & Zaccai, E. Sustainable de-growth: Mapping the context, criticisms and future prospects of an emergent paradigm. Ecological Economics 69, 1741–1747 (2010).