Paul presented us with a nice list of common-sense recommendations for increasing efficiencies and lowering consumption. The list probably shouldn't be posited as growth-neutral, though. Paul used the phrase "regardless of whether the economy is growing or not" to introduce the list. I'm afraid that that type of indecisive framing is not conducive to the macroeconomic policy reforms necessary for environmental protection. It doesn't quite square with the list of recommendations from a logical standpoint, either. That's because cutting consumption does not occur "regardless of whether the economy is growing or not."
Indeed and ceteris paribus, declining consumption in the aggregate amounts to a smaller economy. The fundamental identity of national income accounting is Production = Income = Expenditure (i.e., primarily on consumption). And before all the monkey business in the monetary sector, Say's Law (Production = Consumption) was the conventional wisdom. So I think it would be appropriate, for the sake of environmental protection and ecological sustainability, to support responsible consumer ethics AND macroeconomic policy reform. They go together like peas in a pod. Brian Czech, Visiting Assistant Professor Natural Resources Program Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center 7054 Haycock Road, Room 411 Falls Church, Virginia 22043 ________________________________ From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Paul Cherubini Sent: Sun 2008-11-23 03:50 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Economic Growth Seems to me that regardless of whether the economy is growing or not, footprints and consumption will not soon substantially decline unless the public is pursuaded to make sacrifices in their material standard of living, comfort, convenience and safety. Examples of sacrifices that could immediately and substantially reduce ecological footprints and resource consumption without the need for new research or technologies: 1) Reinstate the National 55 MPH speed limit to cut gasoline consumption and carbon emissions 15-20%. 2) Sharply downsize vehicles and engines like we did in the late 1970's in response to the 1974 Arab oil embargo, further cutting gasoline consumption and carbon emissions another 15-20%. 3) Offer the public major tax incentives for buying and living in 2 bedroom, 1 bath, 1 car garage, 1,000 square foot homes like the public was willing to live in during the 1950's and 60's. 4) Implement major tax penalties for buying and living in larger homes. 5) Stop funding new road and road widening projects designed primarily to improve highway safety. 6) Stop funding roadside mowing and spraying designed to improve highway safety. In the 50's and 60's mowing and spraying was rare. 7) Abolish the recent new laws that in some States require homeowners to mow or spray a 100 foot perimeter around their homes for fire suppression purposes. A major problem with proposals of this nature is that ecologists and environmentalists themselves havn't been receptive to these sorts of low tech, immediate footprint and consumption solutions that don't involve new research and technologies and do require sacrifices even though the "sacrifices" merely involve acceptance of the material standard of living, comfort, safety and convenience they had back on Earth Day 1970. An inherent problem of what the ecologists favor (advanced technology solutions) is that successful solutions (e.g. GMO corn successfully delivered 25% better yields) inevitably end up feeding the increased consumption treadmill (e.g. the 25% yield advantage was used for increased consumption purposes instead of being used to cut the acreage planted in corn by 25%) which in turn feeds the "advanced technology solutions" treadmill all over again. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
