Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Time to banish the god of growth
Editorial, New Scientist
IMAGINE an industry that runs out of raw materials. Companies go bust, workers are laid off, families suffer and associated organisations are thrown into turmoil. Eventually governments are forced to take drastic action. Welcome to global banking, brought to its knees by the interruption of its lifeblood – the flow of cash.
In this case we seem to have been fortunate. In the nick of time, governments released reserves that should with luck get cash circulating again. But what if they hadn’t been there? There are no reserves of fish, tropical hardwoods, fresh water or metals such as indium, so what are we going to do when supplies of these vital materials dry up? We live on a planet with finite resources – that’s no surprise to anyone – so why do we have an economic system in which all that matters is growth (see “Why our economy is killing the planet and what we can do about it”)? More growth means using more resources.
When the human population was counted in millions and resources were sparse, people could simply move to pastures new. But with 9 billion people expected around 2050, moving on is not an option. As politicians reconstruct the global economy, they should take heed. If we are to leave any kind of planet to our children we need an economic system that lets us live within our means.
(15 October 2008)
At The Oil Drum, Leanan adds “Many of the stories in this special report are behind a paywall, but a few are free.”
In the TOD discussion, VK writes: “This graph from the New Scientist article is truly mind boggling. Exponential insanity! This one too!
How our economy is killing the Earth
New Scientist
THE graphs climbing across these pages (see graph, right, or explore in more detail) are a stark reminder of the crisis facing our planet. Consumption of resources is rising rapidly, biodiversity is plummeting and just about every measure shows humans affecting Earth on a vast scale. Most of us accept the need for a more sustainable way to live, by reducing carbon emissions, developing renewable technology and increasing energy efficiency.
But are these efforts to save the planet doomed? A growing band of experts are looking at figures like these and arguing that personal carbon virtue and collective environmentalism are futile as long as our economic system is built on the assumption of growth. The science tells us that if we are serious about saving Earth, we must reshape our economy.
This, of course, is economic heresy. Growth to most economists is as essential as the air we breathe …
(16 October 2008)
List of related articles at original. Other free articles from this issue of New Scientist:
Interview: Champion for green growth (Gus Speth)
Why politicians dare not limit economic growth
Why do we need economic growth?
John Sloman, BBC Online
With recession looming and unemployment rising, politicians and economists are trying to find ways of stimulating economic growth. But is growth a good thing? Does it have harmful consequences? Could we live without it, asks John Sloman.
First of all, what do we mean by economic growth?
It is the annual rate of increase in real GDP, where GDP stands for “gross domestic product”. This is the country’s production of goods and services, valued at market prices (or at cost when the goods are not sold). The figures are then corrected for inflation by using the prices that existed in some chosen base year. Currently, GDP statistics in the UK use 2003 as the base year…
It’s an election winner
Politicians see growth as very important. Elections are won or lost on the state of the economy. Look what happens if growth disappears and recession looms. People get very concerned about falling incomes and rising unemployment…
Growth can’t buy love
Greater consumption does not necessarily make you happier. There are some pretty miserable wealthy people. Economists have tried to develop ways of measuring happiness and, in most cases, once people earn above a certain level of income there is not a lot of connection between happiness and income. GDP doesn’t measure happiness; it measures output…
John Sloman is director, Economics Network, the Economics subject centre of the Higher Education Academy, based at the University of Bristol. He is author of Economics, Essentials of Economics and various other textbooks.
(16 October 2008)
Klare: The Crisis and the Environment
Michael T. Klare, Foreign Policy in Focus
Given the magnitude and scope of the current economic crisis, the world will no doubt experience a significant economic downturn — of what degree and duration, no one can say — profoundly affecting all aspects of U.S. and international society. Of the many areas that will be impacted by the downturn, the environment stands out in particular. It’s closely tied to the tempo of resource consumption, and significant efforts to ameliorate environmental decline will prove very expensive and out of reach for already-stretched budgets. The question thus arises: Will the crisis be good or bad for the environment, especially with respect to global warming?
To put this question in perspective, it is necessary to first look at the environmental situation prior to the crisis.
Gathering Crisis
By all accounts, the steady growth in the world economy — much of it driven by phenomenal economic expansion in China, India, and other nations — was producing a corresponding increase in demand for energy of all forms, especially greenhouse-gas emitting fossil fuels. According to the latest pre-crisis projections by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), combined energy consumption by all nations of the world was expected to grow by 22% between 2005 and 2015, from 462 to 563 quadrillion British thermal units (BTUs). Most of this increase, almost 90%, was expected to come from fossil fuels — oil, coal, and natural gas.
(17 October 2008)
