Andrew Park has commented on the crux of the economic growth matter,
that economic growth is exponential growth.
China's economy, for example, has grown at an average of around 10% per
year for the past 17 years. This means their economy has doubled every 7
years. Their services sector produces about 40% of the GDP leaving 60%
for the production of goods.
Now, economic growth is an increase in the production and consumption of
goods and services. Since thermodynamics precludes us making something
from nothing, the production of goods requires raw, low entropy
materials (goods are also required to support the services), which, more
often than not, come from the structure of ecosystems.
So economic growth can also be considered an increase in the throughput
or flow of natural resources, through the economy and back to the
environment. When the economy expands it removes structural elements of
ecosystems thereby reducing ecosystem services, depletes non-renewable
resources, displaces healthy ecosystems & services, and degrades
remaining ecosystems with waste.
What is significant is the fact that this resource use is growing
exponentially. This means that every time there is a doubling of
resource use, China uses more resources over that doubling period than
they've used in their entire history of resource use. Such is a
characteristic of exponential growth and in no way can it be sustainable.
And what about improved efficiencies? As Andrew notes, "efficiency with
which we use stuff would have to improve exponentially too for there to
be a zero net effect of growth." This has not happened, witness the
current state of the environment at a time when we are the most
technologically advanced civilization in history.
There's a reason: Jevon's famous paradox, "the proposition that
technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a
resource is used, tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of
consumption of that resource" has been known since the late 1800s.
In fact, the World Health Organization, in their contribution to the
Millennium Ecosystems Assessment concluded, "In the 200 years for which
we have reliable data, overall growth of consumption has outpaced
increased efficiencies in production processes, leading to absolute
increases in global consumption of materials and energy. … in practice,
economic growth tends to increase consumption of energy and materials."
Even if our technology was growing quickly, as Andrew notes, "a ceiling
of all efficiencies must be reached," according to the second law of
thermodynamics.
There is little doubt that economic growth is driving most, if not all,
of the environmental problems we are facing today from climate change to
biodiversity loss. It's that growth that must be held in check from an
ecological viewpoint, if we hope to maintain the ecosystems and their
biodiversity that support all life on Earth. An economy in balance with
the regenerative and assimilative capacity of the ecosphere--a steady
state economy--would allow us to do just that.
Neil K. Dawe
Qualicum Institute
qualicuminstitute.ca
Andrew Park wrote the following on 01/12/2008 7:48 PM:
Of course there is always a good IMMEDIATE reason to keep the engines
of economic growth going. The contributors to this thread raise valid
points. Increased efficiency in our use of raw materials, energy, and
the land needed to expoloit them might offset the tendency of a
growing economy to exploit all of this stuff.
But for how long........
The problem is that economic growth is exponential. Two percent growth
today represents substantially more production (be it actual or
virtual wealth) than two percent growth in 1960, or even 1990. So to
keep pace with growth in GDP (or whatever standard mesasure of
production you want to use), the efficiency with which we use stuff
would have to improve exponentially too for there to be a zero net
effect of growth.
Maybe some processes (the material hardware needed for computer
memory, perhaps) have kept pace with exponential growth. Other
processes, e.g. fuel efficiency, agricultural production, materials
intensity of car manufacture have improved, but not exponentially I
think. Of course, we COULD have increased fuel efficiency a good deal
faster (why didn't we? - one of life's little mysteries, but GM is
about to find out that it should have). Ultimately however, a ceiling
of all efficiencies must be reached.
What will we do then? Rationalization of the "need" for economic
growth is a symptom of denial. Eventually, we are going to be faced
with limits imposed by thermodynamics, and the fact that, no matter
how efficient you are, houses, cars, and even computers will have to
contain certian minimal ammounts of material to remain viable. If we
were to exercise forethought, we would be researching ways to wean
ourselves off of exponential growth before some of those hard limits
arrive at our collective doorstep.
Best,
Andy Park
