Green growth, Post Growth, De-growth, Steady State Economy

[Deleted]

Green growth, Post Growth, De-growth and Steady-State Economies are much-discussed ideas being used to describe the types of economic systems that will be needed if climate change (CC) is to be adequately addressed. In this podcast, Jason Hickel, author of 'The Great Divide' and 'Less is More' explains what the key conditions are for sustainability and what these ideas mean. 

I follow Jason Hickel on twitter and find his writings the most lucid and informative. 

open.spotify.com/episode/5YApmr85nrXASaE8pp87uY?si=Wh-XHgt7RqStlh-IdG-j-g

[Deleted]

Summarising key parts of the talk

Global north nations cannot continue to grow as they are now - they are the ones driving ecological breakdown. They need to actively scale down certain parts of the economy.

Green growth - This holds that you can continue to pursue GDP grow while at the same time reducing ecological impacts like resource use to sustainable levels: all we need is the right technology and improve the efficiency of our economy and that will deliver the results we want. However, GDP growth is very tightly coupled with energy use and resource use. This is how capitalism actually works. So Green growth is not feasible to achieve.

Post-growth economics is simply the claim that we need to shift away from a structural addiction to economic growth and focus instead more on wellbeing and ecologocal stability.
Post-growth policy begins with the very principle that should inform all ecological policy: greater equality. By sharing what we already have more fairly, we won’t need to plunder the Earth for more.

A Steady State Economy (SSE) is the claim that we need an economy that is fundamentally in balance with the living world. Essentially, you cannot take more from ecology than it can regenerate or sustainably replenish, and you cannot waste more than eco-systems can safely absorb. So, you basically run the economy in a way that is consistent with the principles of ecology.

None of these are incompatible with de-growth.

De-growth - The objective of de-growth is to scale down aggregate resource use, energy demand and emissions with an emphasis on rich, high-consuming nations, and to do this while improving people’s well-being. How do we make this happen? Here are five first steps:

1. Abandon GDP as a measure of progress
2. Scale down throughout
3. Shorten the working week
4. Expand universal social goods
5. Distribute national income more fairly

More detail on the above here - www.jasonhickel.org/blog/tag/post-growth

De-growth is not about actively reducing GDP. But we have to be aware that the GDP will be affected and we have to be prepared for that.

[Ava]

Thank you, @astrokeen.

I will check this out later.

Just a thought, unlimited growth is not healthy, is it? Yet we are conditioned to want that. It's out of balance. In the most basic terms, I see this world as a place of excessive force and compulsion. We are forced to do things we don't want to do; going against our own willpower is normalized...this can break the independent spirit and create excessive dependencies on the "hive"...which requires excessive fuel and energy to maintain itself (think of all the fuel required to maintain a city, grow and transport food. Rural areas are not used wisely enough, for the feeding of local communities. Personal frugality is under-emphasized. Natural medicine is trivialized despite its efficacy, availability, and affordability.)

In the excessive-force paradigm, excessive productivity is a matter of course. One needs to keep up with the rat race just to keep a roof over their heads. This is basically about the eradication of the true middle class. Those who are in alignment with reigning institutions have the most earning potential and potential for over-consumption. Seems that in the current time, virtually everyone else is struggling just to keep their heads above water.

So I think what needs to happen on the psychological level is, for one thing....people have to detoxify from their adaptation to excessive force and refuse to yield to it so readily. A society of self-sufficient souls living in tune with nature is the only hope. (As I used to say back in college, the only way to progress is to regress. Rekindle Native wisdom.) But that requires a tremendous mentality shift that so far, people have not voluntarily made; it's like dependency becomes a downward spiral. You may need the institutions to break free of them. And then how do you get by?

One upside of the Covid crisis is, as commodities become scarce, we might awaken from this dream where we thought unlimited production, consumption, and waste was okay. That might be a frightening transition, so hopefully people can lean on each other and share resources (even if it's just chainsaws, ladders, or moral support). I think this is in line with what is meant by "Post-Growth" well-being.

Sorry if that's off topic or pedantic/obvious.

The issue of de-escalating consumption is very interesting to me, though.

[Deleted]

A society of self-sufficient souls living in tune with nature is the only hope. (As I used to say back in college, the only way to progress is to regress). 

One upside of the Covid crisis is, as commodities become scarce, we might awaken from this dream where we thought unlimited production, consumption, and waste was okay. That might be a frightening transition, so hopefully people can lean on each other and share resources (even if it's just chainsaws, ladders, or moral support).

Yes, exactly! Staying within our ecological footprint, i.e., in tune with nature, is what a steady-state economy is about. Am trying to transcribe key definitions by Jason Hickel. He clarifies the terms and ideas very well. It is important that one becomes familiar with these terms as they will be discussed and become more dominant.

The Covid crisis does indeed demonstrate how we can break away from the incessant cycle of consumption and continue to live our lives in a more humane and convivial manner. Here, technology as in social media can be put to good use, such as using Whatsapp groups for mutual support and sharing of resources.

[Deleted]

Some key facts:

* The North is responsible for 92% of global CO2 emissions in excess of the safe planetary boundary and yet the South suffers the vast majority of climate change-related damages (in terms of both monetary costs as well as loss of life).  

- The USA is responsible for 40% of excess global CO2 emissions.

-The European Union (EU-28) is responsible for 29%.

-The Global North as a group is responsible for 92%.

* High-income countries rely on a large net appropriation of resources from the rest of the world (equivalent to 50% of their total consumption). In other words, resource consumption in the North has an ecological impact that registers largely in the South.