These are the CASSE blog articles on economic policy.
In its simplest sense, inflation is an increase in the prices of goods and services. For instance, if the price of a certain good is $10 and in the next month the price increases to $12, the inflation on that item over one month is 20%. Many economists consider low levels of inflation sustained over time to be normal in a functioning economy. However,
Almost half of humanity lives below $6.85 per day. This population does not consume goods and services at a rate exceeding Earth’s capacity. Yet here we sit, on the wrong side of six of the nine planetary boundaries identified by the Stockholm Resilience Centre.
How did we get here? Via the economic activity of the other half of humanity. The planet, and all its inhabitants,
With the core meetings of the United Nations Biodiversity Conference (COP16) starting next week, it’s time for a primer on the relationship between economic growth and biodiversity conservation. The last thing we want is a COP16 devoid of discussion about the conflict between growing the economy and conserving biodiversity. In fact, the “800-pound gorilla”—GDP growth—ought to be front and center.
Devoted Herald readers may feel a tinge of déjà vu,
“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” The Western-led international development sector, born in the aftermath of World War II, has evolved according to this (ironically) Chinese proverb. To better reflect the status of international development, I would append the following sentences to the worn-out proverb: “Use advanced extractive technology to harvest all the fish from the man’s ocean,
“Harris wiped the floor with Trump.” At least that’s how today’s Washington Post kicked off a discussion among in-house columnists. But for voters who prioritize Planet Earth for present and future generations, the 2024 presidential election is a classic example of seeking the lesser of two evils. Neither Kamala Harris nor Donald Trump is a student—much less a champion—of sustainability. They probably think “limits to growth” pertains to poll results or crowd size.
Working long hours? You aren’t alone. Forty-one percent of U.S. workers reported working more than 45 hours a week in 2021. Sixteen percent said they spent more than 60 hours per week at work. Working long hours has been shown to degrade quality of life and productivity. But there’s a bigger problem with full-time employment: It isn’t environmentally sustainable.
Additional economic growth is the only way to generate full-time employment.
Mention the steady state economy at a gathering of friends and a predictable concern is sure to arise. “I couldn’t possibly manage on a flat income, much less a reduced one. I can barely make ends meet now!” Heads will nod all around. The idea of a nongrowing economy—not to mention degrowth—quickly sours the party mood.
The objection is understandable from people long accustomed to ever-greater levels of consumption.
Promulgating the steady state economy via federal legislation has long been a primary goal at CASSE. However, even a primary goal isn’t necessarily pursued from the get-go. Much of the CASSE run thus far has been focused on raising awareness of the need for a steady state economy. Raising such awareness was even higher on the list of goals, because drafting statutory law is of limited use if there is no knowledge of the need for it.
Bayfield County, Wisconsin is situated on the shores of Lake Superior, the largest freshwater lake in the world by surface area. Deep in the heart of the Great Northwoods, the county is unique in its glaciated beauty. It also happens to be a rare example of a county in harmonious balance between its natural and constructed communities.
Bayfield County has been refreshingly free of growth controversies and displays key attributes that approach the characteristics of a steady-state county.
What U.S. federal agency is responsible for identifying and reducing the environmental and social costs of economic growth? None, really. The government has plenty of agencies and programs devoted to conservation, natural capital accounting, “green” industrial policy, and just transitions. But none address the elephant in the room: economic growth. Growth is what causes a nation’s ecological footprint to exceed its biocapacity.