Scott, thanks for the shout out to my post!

Cheers,
Joshua

I suspect most of us reading at this site are here because we are convinced that economic growth is unsustainable. What would be really helpful is more commentary on the transition from our current growth paradigms to a steady state paradigm. I did read Herman Daly’s 10 steps to sanity that were published a while back in the midst of the economic implosion. That was very useful. What would be nice is further amplification (speculation) on how the transition could happen and what dislocations it would involve.

What really troubles me is that I can’t imagine the system making the changes that need to be made at the paradigm level. If that’s true, are we simply waiting for current system to crash and burn so we can start over?

However, a question: is all human life “brown”? I understand the need to redress the balance, make a statement against nauseating greenwash. However: human life by definition requires resources. Surely we are not against “moderate” consumption thereof for survival and small pleasures!

Being a communicator by trade, I worry about the need to make “steady-state” (or as I prefer “equilibrium”) economy attractive to people and not to play into the stereotype of dour austerity.

Great post! And well-written too. I think this bit is really the heart of the matter: “They questioned the use of “green” to describe any kind of consumption. They concluded that “greening” an economy really entailed a lessening of consumption.” And isn’t this also the message behind thinking of the problem of growth in terms of thermodynamics? That ultimately there’s a limit to efficiency? (Not to mention when net growth overwhelms per unit efficiency in the first place). Joshua Nelson blogged about this topic nicely: http://steadystaterevolution.org/decoupling-demystified/

I remember reading “Natural Capitalism”, and coming away thinking of an production/consumption loop that was somehow divorced from natural resources – think green buildings, biodegradable packaging, solar energy, and so on. But that’s not really true, right? There’s a limit to the growth of even THAT kind of economy – as the production of anything, no matter how efficient, is still tied to resource use somehow.

The use of “green”, in that context, is kinda dangerous in a certain way – in that it could lull us into believing that consumption and cultural change aren’t really necessary. That it’s an innovation problem best left to entrepreneurs, Silicon Valley, and the GreenBiz.com folks. Am I on the right track here? (Not that they’re not key movers, too – just not the only answer.)

Thanks for launching this series – really looking forward to hearing more from Dr. Daly, yourself, and others. Your work makes a big difference, believe me, even if it hasn’t made the mainstream yet!

Scott

@MaryJo, another benefit of a steady state economy will be the refocusing and redistribution of energy, resources, and wealth. The new economics foundation (nef) recently released a report on redistributing work called “21 hours” (here: http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/21-hours). The concept is great and would work in any country, not just the UK. I would happily work 10% less to eliminate our 10% unemployment here in the states – there is more than enough work to go around.

Great kick off of the new blog!

Cheers,
Joshua Nelson

(1) what replaces the idea of looking at a growing economy (def 1) to determine if there are significantly more resources available to a population on a per capita basis (leaving aside the distribution issues)?; and

(2) in order to reach a steady state economy globally, does that mean that we need to reach a steady state global population and if so, do we know what the carrying capacity of the natural ecosystem is for that population?

Just trying to understand how these pieces fit together.

I propose that the term “economic growth”, used in the second sense, be changed to “fruitful sufficiency.” This term implies that, when everyone has what is needed, there will still be life
galore.