Try Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins. By its nature, it cannot be corroborated down to every detail, but the details aren't as important for the general relationship you are wondering about.
As I recall, Global Spin by Sharon Beder did a good job of this as well, and is well-documented. Brian Czech, Visiting 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 James Crants Sent: Sun 2008-11-23 13:47 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Economic Growth I've heard many times that the wealth of developed nations rests on the exploitation of the third world. It occurs to me that this is one of those things that I've left to other people to know anything about. Are there any books people would strongly recommend to someone who wants to better understand this relationship between the developed world and poorer nations? On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 7:07 PM, joseph gathman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bob, > > I think your concerns about arguing against economic growth are very > understandable. Politicians and the media portray growth as the life-blood > of the economy. Most Americans probably agree, in part because they've > never been exposed to any alternative. So challenging economic growth seems > like a political non-starter, and maybe you're right that a less-direct > approach would be more effective. > > But as for your own concerns about the validity of the underlying premise, > I'd ask you to consider just how much of the economy depends on physical > things: food, water, fiber, land, metals, minerals, petroleum, hydroelectric > dams, nuclear reactors, etc. > > Yes, it can be argued that a certain percentage of economic growth comes > from humans using their brains (and computers) more efficiently, thus > costing nothing extra in physical goods, but I think that percentage is > pretty small. No matter how smart computer programmers are, their lives are > still dependent on all the above-mentioned things. And the manufacture of > one gram of their microchips costs the energy equivalent of hundreds of > grams of oil. And lots of clean water too. > > We can't just look at developed countries in isolation. Our relatively > luxurious lives are very significantly supported by the exploitation of > "third world" people and resources, and by their debt-dependence on Western > financiers. Habitats and individual species are "collateral damage" in > these countries, so even if the wildlife in my backyard seem to be doing > alright, our big Western economic "feet" are stomping on non-human organisms > all over the world. > > Joe Gathman > > > Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:02:45 -0800 > > From: Robert Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Economic growth > > > > Hi List, > > I'm a little concerned with this emphasis on limiting > > economic growth. It > > seems to me to be to be, politically, a losing proposition > > from the start, > > and I'm not sure the underlying premise is entirely > > valid. Of course there > > have to be some ultimate limits on economic growth, but the > > average person > > who wants a better life sees economic growth as a positive. > > Is it possible > > for all those people to have better lives without net > > environmental damage? > > It would seem to me that, at least in a developed country > > like the US (wher= > > e > > much initial damage has been done) the answer could be yes. > > The resources > > and capital at the bottom of the economy don't > > necessarily have to grow for > > the economy to grow, do they? Instead, the relative > > values, uses, and > > efficiency of use of the resources can change. Presently, > > the economy is > > fueled to a large extent by consumer purchases of products, > > most of which > > use natural resources and are basically disposable. What > > if manufacturers > > were to largely switch to 'greener' products that > > also lasted longer? This > > would mean purchases through the year would be less, and > > presumably the > > economy would shrink. However, it seems that rises in > > other sectors, such > > as services, education, and food could make up the > > shortfall and allow > > average standard of living to rise, albeit under a somewhat > > different value > > system where people buy more durable and efficient goods, > > are better > > educated, eat better, and live closer together on average. > > > > It seems to me that it would be much more politically > > effective to take a > > stand against wastage of natural resources, energy > > inefficiency, and the > > like than to decry economic growth. Perhaps the scenario > > I'm suggesting > > will lead to less economic disparity among people, and > > resulting slower or > > no net growth, but an emphasis on limiting growth per se > > seems ineffective > > to me. > > > > Best, > > Bob Miller > > > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Neil K Dawe > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Just a reminder that, while climate change may be a > > proximate cause of > > > biodiversity loss, it is not the ultimate cause. > > > > > > A number of recent studies have pointed out the > > fundamental conflict > > > between economic growth and biodiversity loss and a > > recent study by > > > Canadell et al. (2007. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA > > 104:18866=A8C18870; > > > http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18866.full), > > discussed the connection > > > between economic growth and increasing CO2 emissions: > > > > > > Recent growth of the world economy combined with an > > increase in its carb= > > on > > >> intensity have led to rapid growth in fossil fuel > > CO_2 emissions since 2= > > 000: > > >> comparing the 1990s with 2000=A8C2006, the > > emissions growth rate increas= > > ed > > >> from 1.3% to 3.3% /y/ ^-1 . The third process is > > indicated by increasing > > >> evidence (/P/ =3D 0.89) for a long-term (50-year) > > increase in the airbor= > > ne > > >> fraction (AF) of CO_2 emissions, implying a > > decline in the efficiency of > > >> CO_2 sinks on land and oceans in absorbing > > anthropogenic emissions. Sinc= > > e > > >> 2000, the contributions of these three factors to > > the increase in the > > >> atmospheric CO_2 growth rate have been =A1=D665 > > =A1=C0 16% from increasi= > > ng global > > >> economic activity, 17 =A1=C0 6% from the > > increasing carbon intensity of = > > the > > >> global economy, and 18 =A1=C0 15% from the > > increase in AF. > > >> > > > > > > The increasing intensity suggests that technological > > efficiencies appear = > > to > > > be losing their effectiveness (i.e., technology is not > > likely to solve th= > > e > > > problem), while a decline in the efficiency of CO2 > > sinks on land can also= > > be > > > at least partially attributed to the economic growth > > driver (e.g., > > > deforestation). > > > > > > Climate change is essentially a symptom of the > > problem, the ultimate caus= > > e > > > of which is economic growth. Czech ( > > > > > http://www.wildlife.org/publications/wsb2801/2sc_czech.pdf) > > points out > > > that, because of the enormous breadth of the human > > niche, the human econo= > > my > > > grows at the competitive exclusion of wildlife in the > > aggregate. As long = > > as > > > the economy continues to grow, more and more > > biodiversity will be lost > > > through competitive exclusion. > > > > > > He uses an ecological analogy derived from > > Liebig's law of the minimum, a= > > nd > > > suggests economic growth is the limiting factor for > > biodiversity > > > conservation. Recall that a limiting factor is a > > factor whose presence or > > > absence controls a process such as the success of an > > organism. It's a fac= > > tor > > > that, if not addressed, will affect the success of the > > organism no matter > > > what other benefits are provided. > > > > > > With respect to biodiversity conservation, unless the > > limiting > > > factor--economic growth--is addressed, it doesn't > > matter what else we do = > > in > > > terms of conservation effort, the likelihood of our > > success is essentiall= > > y > > > naught. > > > > > > If we are truly concerned about biodiversity loss, now > > is the time for > > > ecologists to speak out about the ultimate cause of > > this loss: economic > > > growth. > > > > > > It's also important that we not assume that > > economic growth is more off > > > limits or inaccessible as a policy issue. A wide > > variety of public polic= > > y > > > tools are adjusted to stimulate growth. Those can be > > gradually re-set fo= > > r > > > lower growth rates, moving toward a steady state > > economy. Then, addition= > > al > > > public policies will come into play as well, including > > cap-and-trade > > > frameworks that will overlap with lowering greenhouse > > gas emissions. And= > > of > > > course education on the perils of economic growth > > should help to reform t= > > he > > > consumer ethic, affect growth rates from the demand > > side as well. > > > > > > Neil K. Dawe > > > > > > > > -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (734) 474-7478
