Unfurling the Banner at the Steady State Herald

~Steady State Herald Premiere~

By Brian Czech

It’s been quite a run with our CASSE blog, the Daly News. Regular readers will recall a consistent weekly column from March 2010 through late 2015. Then for a couple years it was hit-or-miss, for reasons already explained (in a Daly News entry, naturally.) Now we’re back to blogging regularly under a new banner: the Steady State Herald!

Well, almost regularly. We do have a technical glitch to overcome first. The CASSE website has gotten bogged down with old plug-ins, programming bugs, and a generally creaky platform. We must fix it, thoroughly, and that process begins this week. This also means our blog (which happens to be at the center of the technical difficulties) will be static for the time being.

We will notify our subscribers and signatories when we’re rolling again with the next article of the Steady State Herald, most likely before summer is officially upon us. Meanwhile it won’t be such a bad thing for readers, new and old, to reflect a bit on the topics and events we covered with the Daly News. This article should help us do just that.

So as we unfurl the new banner of the Steady State Herald, let’s toot the old horn one last time for the Daly News.

“Daly News” was a play on words for capitalizing on the good name of Herman Daly, the champion of steady state economics. The Daly News was the flagship communications tool for CASSE during our formative stages. We published approximately 246 Daly News articles, with Herman Daly and yours truly penning 60 apiece. Brent Blackwelder wrote 50 more, and Rob Dietz (serving concurrently as CASSE executive director) another 40. We’ve had dozens of guest authors and semi-regular contributions from James Magnus-Johnson (20) and Eric Zencey (15).

With the Daly News, we proved there is plenty of news – not to mention opinion – on limits to growth and/or the steady state economy. Even given that theme, our articles ranged far and wide in style and in substance. We came at our topics from philosophical, theological, ecological, economic, historical, political, sociological, and psychological angles.

We used every tenor from sober prescriptions for public policy to hyperbolic parody. We celebrated anniversaries and we posted obituaries. We covered the terrain from local to global. Through it all, we kept to the tenets of a 501(c)(3), non-profit educational organization. We never lobbied for a candidate, but we sure critiqued a number of them, all across the political spectrum.

We should all – producers and consumers of the Daly News – thank Herman Daly for the privilege of using his name. Those familiar with Herman’s modesty won’t be surprised that he was never comfortable with the moniker. But “Daly News” helped to put us – CASSE and our blog – on the map, especially in the field of ecological economics and in the surrounding, broader terrain of political economy.

With Herman’s name gracing our blog, each new article came out of the starting blocks with the traction of credibility. The name also compelled our authors to take their task seriously and to seek… if not perfection, the best of our abilities and perhaps a more civil discourse. The quality of articles was such that the Daly News was often cross-posted at the request of other organizations. It compelled or provoked many follow-ups; numerous articles still do. The Daly News helped CASSE win the 2011 Best Green Think Tank Award.

So yes, we did capitalize – in the best sense of the word – on Herman’s name. We also recognized some trade-offs from the beginning. One of them was the opportunity cost of not being able to send other valuable signals with the name of the blog. And so we come to the naming of the Steady State Herald.

Naming a blog is a bit like designing a logo. With a logo, you only have so much space, and the image must send a clear and instant message. Ideally it will also pique the curiosity required for further contemplation, and in the process convey additional nuance.

With a blog, you only have so many syllables, and they must send a clear and instant message. Ideally they will also pique the curiosity for further contemplation, and in the process convey additional nuance.

“Steady State Herald” has five syllables and readily rolls off the tongue. It’s a phrase that clearly conveys what our blog is about, especially with the subtitle, “Ushering in the Steady State Economy.” Now it’s true that “steady state economy” is not yet in the vernacular. So, just as some had to contemplate the meaning of “Daly News” (because not everyone knew of Herman), “steady state” won’t instantly connect with everyone. Yet the phrase remains the best thing we have going to convey, very quickly, the concept of a stabilized, sustainable economy. (See how quickly the syllables add up without using “steady state”?)

We’ve analyzed the rhetorical properties of “steady state economy,” as well as the technical and linguistic. We’re committed to using the phrase. We are, after all, the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy. We remain confident the phrase “steady state economy” has the potential to be writ into public policy as well as implanted in the vernacular. We come a step closer, we think, by using the phrase as the very title of our blog.

That said, you can’t just call a blog “Steady State,” or even “Steady State Economy.” A blog is not a state (unless you really want to argue), nor is it an economy. So what else could you call it? We considered many examples, and among them were:

  • Steady State Times
  • Steady State Chronicles
  • Steady State Gazette
  • The Steady Statesman
  • The Steady Statement

You get the picture. We thought of the usual suspects; the news-papery nouns to couple with “Steady State.” We considered a few minor plays on words, too. We ultimately chose “Herald” as the proper coupling.

We’d all be happier if “Chronicles,” for example, was the appropriate coupling. Such would be the case if there was enough public awareness about limits to growth. Things would be happening toward steady-state policy reform and steady statesmanship in international diplomacy, and these happenings would warrant chronicling.

Unfortunately the vast majority of citizens haven’t connected the dots from biodiversity loss, pollution, climate change, noise, congestion – and many other indicators of illth– back to GDP growth. It may be the case that the majority doesn’t even recognize some of the indicators themselves. That seems to be true of climate change, for example, which happens so slowly (so far) as to escape the notice of casual citizens. The human race has become the frog in the metaphorical pot, oblivious to the perils of perpetual economic growth.

So we need a herald to awaken our fellow frogs from their slumber. This herald can’t be just another big mouth. He or she – or it, in the case of a blog – isn’t going to help matters by shouting oxymoronically for “green growth” or belting out a chorus of Kuznets Curve Kumbaya. Some people like to complain about “Cassandras,” but we think it worse to live in an age with so many Pollyannas. Certainly it’s a dangerous world when naïve notions of perpetual GDP growth prevail in the midst of melting ice caps, the Sixth Great Extinction, and the Anthropocene in general.

Let’s also recall that Cassandra was always right – never wrong – with her warnings to the Trojans. Her only curse was that no one believed her. If there were fools in this mix, Cassandra wasn’t one of them. The Pollyanna, on the other hand, is disastrously wrong. Her naïve “optimism” leads others astray, right down the path of least resistance.

So we eschew simplistic notions of “positive” messaging. We’re not optimists, pessimists, or notionists at all. We are, first and foremost, realists. We understand limits to growth, and we know we must do the yeoman work of rowing upstream in the river of political economy. We’re equal parts Cassandra, David, and Paul Revere. We won’t suffer Pollyannas, we’ll fight Goliath, and we’ll awaken you with our warnings. We ask only that you spread them, because we long for the day the Herald may be aptly renamed the Chronicles, Times, or Gazette.

Stay tuned for the blogroll of the Steady State Herald…

 

 

Who’s Going to Lead the Way to a Sustainable Economy?

by Rob Dietz

Dietz_Author_PhotoIn a snarky moment, the late economist Kenneth Boulding said, “Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.” Unfortunately madmen and delusional economists seem to be running the show. That’s why it’s so refreshing to meet someone who can see through the illusion of perpetual growth. It’s especially refreshing when that someone is in the early stages of a promising career — after all, today’s youth will be in charge of the transition to a sustainable economy (thank goodness, since they’re almost guaranteed to achieve a better track record for sustainability than their parents’ generation).

William Niancen Miao is not the sharpest knife in the drawer; he’s the sharpest knife in the whole kitchen, maybe all the kitchens within a fifty-mile radius. As a Fulbright Scholar studying industrial environmental management at Yale, he is synthesizing lessons from economics, legal studies, public policy, and the natural sciences into a solid understanding of what makes a sustainable business and a sustainable economy. His studies are surely shaping his big-picture view, but two other factors have also contributed: his history of worldly experience and his willingness to go against the grain.

Miao was born in 1990 and spent most of his youth in Shenzhen, a Hong Kong neighbor that was in the midst of a startling transformation from a fishing village to a concrete maze of skyscrapers. According to Miao, Shenzhen was built up in preparation for the handover of Hong Kong from the British to the Chinese. He says, “The Chinese government made it a special economic development zone. Hills and mountains were converted to quarries. The surrounding areas became factories.” The river that divides Shenzhen and Hong Kong got dirtier and smellier, and air quality declined to the point that blue became an uncommon color for the sky. After living under deteriorating environmental conditions and expanding stress from crowding and competition, Miao’s family made the decision to emigrate to New Zealand at the time he was starting high school.

The contrast between the lifestyles in New Zealand and China was obvious. Even though he had to learn a new language and culture, the pace of life slowed after the move. Miao de-emphasized his rigorous study of math and science, and took up art, music, and social studies. He found time to explore the beaches and beautiful landscapes of his adopted country. Miao says, “I was a very hard worker when I lived in China, but I became a more well-rounded person in New Zealand.”

Miao enrolled at the University of Auckland where he considered majoring in economics, but decided to specialize in chemical engineering. From his point of view, chemical engineering is more grounded in the real world, whereas economics resides in the theoretical realm (mainstream economic beliefs about the inevitability of continuous growth are especially theoretical). He also believed that a degree in chemical engineering would provide more job opportunities by outfitting him with a unique skill set.

Beat-up Shell Oil Can

Young people entering the workforce have better options than the antiquated fossil-fueled economy.

He was right about the job opportunities. At the end of his third year, he landed an internship at Shell Oil. By this time he was becoming increasingly aware of the principles of sustainability and green chemistry, and in his time at Shell, he realized his values didn’t mesh well with the company’s mission. Miao had been assigned to help with an offshore oil and gas project, and given the climate crisis, he questioned why he was even doing it. At the same time, he noticed that as supervisors climbed higher in the corporate hierarchy, they became more and more bound to Shell’s mission. They didn’t seem to think beyond production and profits, or consider the negative impacts of Shell’s activities. He asked himself, “Do I want to be like one of these folks?” The “no” answer brought another question to mind: “How can I do something greener, something broader?”

Miao knew he could get a six-figure salary if he took a standard chemical engineering job after graduation. That’s quite an enticement, but he concluded, “It’s more important to do what I actually want to do.” The only trouble: he wasn’t sure what that ought to be! Luck intervened. As a volunteer guide at a bird sanctuary (perhaps also a sanctuary for Miao himself from the Shell experience), he regularly hobnobbed with tourists. One such tourist was a professor who suggested that he look into the field of industrial ecology. That suggestion started Miao on another worldly adventure — this time to his current station at Yale.

He is learning to view industrial facilities and economic processes through an ecological lens. His combination of ecological understanding, grounding in the physical and chemical sciences, and love of the natural world (not to mention his work ethic) give him a unique potential to be an agent of change — to fix the broken parts of our industrial and economic systems. He wants to help firms achieve true systems thinking so that sustainability underpins every decision instead of being tacked on merely to create a better image or provide cost savings.

It takes sensitivity to recognize social and environmental problems. It takes insight to understand the systems from which those problems emerge. It takes integrity to align actions with values in an effort to change the systems. It takes courage to confront the mainstream point of view. And it takes sacrifice to put aside comfort and convenience to strive for something more elusive. Doesn’t it make you smile to know that students like William Miao are on such an honorable path?

Five Christmas Gifts that Keep on Giving

by Rob Dietz

Dietz_Author_Photo‘Tis the season for gift giving, and if mainstream economists are right, then the best possible gifts are the ones that contribute the most to economic growth. In recent years, despite financial shenanigans and outsized stimulus spending, GDP growth has remained below 3% per year in the U.S. As the environmental and social limits to growth have asserted themselves, consumption of exponentially more stuff has become exponentially more difficult. That’s why you might hear an economist or a politician say, “Ask not what economic growth can do for you, but what you can do for economic growth.” Fortunately there are plenty of presents you can buy right now in the 21st century that honor such 20th-century thinking. Here’s a list of five gifts that not only increase GDP directly, but also help indoctrinate the lucky recipients into the fossil-fueled, high-financed consumerist culture. Get yours while you can!

1. The holy trinity of lawn care. Why use a rake when you can crank up the decibels and the emissions? Why use a scythe when you can possess extreme RPMs of plant-shredding power? Why use a hoe when you can crush weeds into oblivion with a toxic cocktail? Any gardener will appreciate the power of this three-tool multi-pack: a gas-powered leaf blower, string trimmer weedwacker, and backpack pesticide sprayer. Imagine the gardener’s delight as he or she wages chemical and mechanical warfare on the landscape. Nature never looks better than when perfectly trimmed, blown, and sprayed. But wait, there’s more! These tools are sure to eliminate diversity from the yard and prevent it from functioning like an unwanted, unruly ecosystem. Oh what a feeling to control nature!

blower weedwacker backpack_sprayer

 

2. The dynamic duo of board games. Children of all ages can learn how the world works by using any means necessary to trounce the competition. No games teach more valuable lessons than the all-time classics Monopoly and Risk. The goal of each is straightforward, just like an uber-capitalist, imperialistic economy — amass all the spoils by vanquishing your opponents. These games have remained popular for decades because exploitation never goes out of style. For an exciting twist on standard Monopoly, try the National Parks Edition. You could end up owning Yellowstone, Yosemite, the Great Smoky Mountains, and eventually all the National Parks (privatizing the Parks would surely add to GDP). Then you can charge such high entry fees that you end up owning the other players too! What could be more fun than owning everything and wiping out your friends and family? And if these two classics don’t satisfy your hunger, try to secure a copy of this rare board game.

Monopoly_National_Parks_Edition_box RiskBox

 

3. Magazines that spread affluenza. Not everyone can live life as a super-rich conspicuous consumer, sipping Cristal on the deck of a gold-plated yacht on the way to a private island in the South Pacific. But everyone can read and dream about it! Fill your loved-ones’ magazine racks with the likes of Scene, Hamptons, and Bloomberg Pursuits. They can spend hour after hour learning the right clothes to wear, the right cars to drive, and the right handbags to carry. If you really want to do your part for GDP, you might consider delivering the first few issues of these subscriptions in a diamond-encrusted magazine rack.

SceneMagazine HamptonsMagazine Bloomburg Pursuits Magazine

 

4. Plastic toys that promote proper values. A stunning variety of plastic playthings populate toy store shelves these days. These two toys sport not only a hefty price tag, but also an agenda for joining the fossil fuel frenzy. With a Playmobil Cargo Ship, kids can pretend to burn obscene quantities of fuel while importing cheap goods from China and exporting recyclables and garbage from the U.S. And speaking of burning obscene quantities of fuel, children will love emulating that behavior by rolling around in a motorized toy Hummer. As a bonus, driving the Hummer will help kids avoid burning their own calories — a good start on a lifetime of health problems and medical expenses that will further add to GDP!

CargoShip ToyHummer

 

5. Junior bank account. Open a starter account for that special niece or nephew at the Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, or any other too-big-to-fail (aka unsustainably large) corporate bank that was bailed out in the financial meltdown. Children are sure to take delight in having their savings invested in junk mortgages, collateralized debt obligations, and credit default swaps. It’s never too early to learn the lesson that you can “earn” money by doing nothing.

Photo by Alex Proimos, Wikimedia Commons

Photo by Alex Proimos, Wikimedia Commons

Photo by Sara Goth, Wikimedia Commons

Photo by Sara Goth,Wikimedia Commons

Photo by Lite, Wikimedia Commons

Photo by Lite, Wikimedia Commons

 

During this holiday season, the neoclassical economists want you to get out there and grow the GDP. On the twelfth day of Christmas, my skewed gov gave to me EXPANDING GDP!

If, for some reason, you don’t feel like following the advice of neoclassical economists, then try giving the gift of time — make time for genuine experiences with your friends and family. Or make a donation to a favorite nonprofit in someone’s name. If you feel the need to buy a product, how about a book that describes the needed economic changes?

Click here to receive the Daly News in your email inbox.

Approaching a Steady State Economy, Part 2 — Clean Clothes

by Rob Dietz

Dietz_Author_PhotoTo get a sense of how the broader economy works, it’s useful to analyze one particular sector.  In trying to answer the question of how a non-growing economy could work, Part 1 of this article considered methods (categorized as “economizing” and “innovating”) for achieving a sustainable transportation sector.  But the transportation sector is complex enough that it’s worth drilling down even further and analyzing something simpler. “Economy” derives from two Greek words that translate into “management of the household.” Thinking of the economy as a big household is a useful frame. Likewise, thinking of an actual household as a small economy can be a helpful exercise. I have made or been a party to many decisions in an attempt to run my household as a steady state. For example, my wife and I decided to have a one-child family. We also decided to live in a cohousing community founded on sustainability values. In the spirit of drilling down to the smallest scale possible, I want to describe my recent experiment with one “sector” of my household economy: the laundry.

For years I did laundry American style, fighting dirty clothes in a full-on assault with an army of water, detergent, heat, and electricity.  I would:

  • Dump my clothes in a pile after wearing them once;
  • Use a water-hogging top-loader washing machine;
  • Select the hot water setting because — well, because why not?; and
  • Apply the hottest setting in an electric tumble dryer, including a dryer sheet or two.

As I learned more about conservation over time, I began to shift my laundry habits, by both economizing and innovating. For example, my family began using a front-loading machine that conserves water and electricity. I started sorting my laundry, hanging articles of clothing that were suitable for a second wearing. We began using only cold water for washing with no adverse results. We forgot about dryer sheets (no need to smell like a chemist’s over-scented interpretation of “spring fresh”), and then we forgot about the dryer entirely.

The electric tumble dryer is one of the most energy intensive home appliances, but it’s also one of the most unnecessary. As a friend of mine is fond of saying, “Clothes want to get dry all by themselves. You just leave them alone, and that’s what they do naturally.” Line drying clothes, then, is a simple way to cut energy usage. The folks at Project Laundry List see line drying as something even more powerful — an entryway to the world of sustainable behavior.

In my household, making the switch to line drying turned out to be fairly easy, so I decided to try another step. I wanted to see if I could have a low-water, resource-conserving, electricity-free laundry system that would get my clothes clean. My method is another mix of economizing and innovating.

The setup consists of four pieces of equipment: a five-gallon bucket, a portable clothes agitator that looks like a plunger, a hand-cranked wringer, and a clothesline. The procedure is simple:

  • Put a little soap in the bucket and add a couple of gallons of water;
  • Throw in five or six articles of dirty clothing;
  • Plunge the agitator up and down in the bucket to force water, soap, and air through the clothes for a few minutes;
  • Dump the water on the plants in the backyard and refill the bucket with two more gallons, adding the soapy clothes to rinse;
  • Run each article of clothing through the wringer; and
  • Hang the clothes on a line.
A simple laundry setup in which the wool shirt is the most high-tech item.

A simple laundry setup in which the wool shirt is the most high-tech item.

On the economizing front, the wringer, clothesline, and bucket are old-school technologies that draw energy from only the sun and a bit of personal labor. And there’s much less embedded energy in these tools than in a washer/dryer combo. A note about the labor: I thought it would be a more of a chore, but so far it’s been fun. There’s a degree of mindfulness that comes with washing clothes this way, and it doesn’t take very long. Granted, I’ve been conducting the experiment during the summer when I’m mostly wearing shorts and t-shirts, and the strong Pacific Northwest sun is accelerating the drying sessions.

On the innovating front, the agitator could be considered a new technology, but it’s such a simple device that it’s hard to think of it as being all that innovative. Where technology does come into play is in the clothing itself. This laundry method works much better with quick-drying clothes. I have been experimenting with natural wool clothes. Designers have figured out how to make quick-drying wool garments that are comfortable against the skin and don’t get stinky (as opposed to polypropylene and other synthetic materials). Such clothing can be pricey, but if you’re doing small loads of laundry each day or every other day, you don’t need to own very many of them — another nod toward economizing.

It’s still in flux, but I’ve gotten a good start on changing my behavior in the laundry sector of my household economy, and the change represents progress toward a steady state. Such changes are inconsequential in a numerical sense. My laundry process isn’t going to stabilize the climate or solve the global overshoot problem, but it’s a small step in the right direction. In addition to lowering my ecological footprint, this laundry experiment is helping me understand how the broader economy can economize and innovate to clean up its act.

Approaching a Steady State Economy, Part 1 — Getting Around

by Rob Dietz

Dietz_Author_PhotoSuppose you’re suspicious of the idea of pursuing continuous economic growth on our finite planet. What if you’ve even concluded that an obsession with increasing production and consumption might be a bad thing, especially in the wealthy nations (apparently you’ve been connecting some dots between economic growth and the calamitous combination of climate change, resource depletion, poverty, and inequality)? Having come to such a conclusion leads to a critical question: how would a non-growing economy function? I’ve been thinking about steady state economics most days for the last six years, and I’ve even written a book on the subject, but I still struggle with this question. When in doubt, consult Herman Daly.

Daly has articulated three logical rules that a steady state economy would live by:

  1. Exploit renewable resources no faster than they can be regenerated.
  2. Deplete non-renewable resources no faster than the rate at which renewable substitutes can be developed.
  3. Emit wastes no faster than they can be safely assimilated by ecosystems.

Presuming we can accurately determine depletion and regeneration rates, as well as the resilience of ecosystems, we can use two basic strategies to follow the steady state rules: (1) economizing and (2) innovating. Economizing boils down to reducing the inputs used in economic activities and minimizing the waste outputs. It entails conserving, re-using, maintaining, and generally embracing the wisdom of enough rather than succumbing to the madness of more. Innovating entails doing things more efficiently. It means learning, inventing, adapting, and using appropriate technologies to achieve desired ends. Note that innovation (and the increased efficiency it engenders) is a double-edged sword. In a non-growing economy, increased efficiency can reduce environmental impacts, but in a growing economy, increasing efficiency tends to cause a rebound effect that actually increases environmental impacts. A steady state economy, therefore, will adopt some combination of economizing and innovating to achieve sustainability.

This is all well and good, but terms like “economizing” and “innovating” fall short of painting a detailed picture of day-to-day life in a steady state economy. To paint such a picture, it’s helpful to start with a smaller canvas — that is, focus on a specific sector rather than the entire economy.

The transportation sector of the U.S. economy accounts for about 3% of gross domestic product. The purpose of this sector is to move people and goods to desired destinations. To accomplish this purpose while abiding by the steady state rules requires:

  • Reducing inputs (e.g., using less steel and oil);
  • Developing renewable infrastructure (e.g., using renewable energy sources to power vehicles and renewable resources to construct transportation corridors); and
  • Reducing waste emissions (e.g., decreasing the quantity of carbon dioxide and other pollutants emitted by transport activities).
Wouldn't it be easier (and more practical) to construct some decent bike lanes?

Wouldn’t it be easier (and more practical) to construct some decent bike lanes?

Think tanks like the Post Carbon Institute and the Transition Towns Network provide “economizing” strategies for doing these sorts of things. One of the big ideas is economic localization, which diminishes the need for long-distance transportation by eliminating unnecessary trade. As Daly has pointed out, “Americans import Danish sugar cookies, and Danes import American sugar cookies. Exchanging recipes would surely be more efficient.” The more a community can produce goods and services locally, the less it has to rely on long supply chains and importation of goods from afar. As a bonus, localization curtails the need for workers to undertake long-distance commutes, since the local economy would provide more employment opportunities. Other ideas for economizing in the transportation network include deemphasizing the automobile (World Carfree Day is coming up soon) while promoting walking, bicycling, and transit; paying more attention to neighborhood design; implementing car share programs; and even making more use of sailboats. High parking fees and gasoline taxes are also tools that can curtail the quantity of resources consumed for getting around.

Think tanks also promote plenty of ideas that take the “innovating” approach. The Rocky Mountain Institute suggests constructing ultra-light, low-drag autos and superefficient trucks and planes. The Sustainable Transportation Center at the University of California, Davis conducts research on hydrogen, biofuels, and other energy pathways toward a sustainable transportation infrastructure. And for science fiction fans, ideas about conveyor belt systems first put to paper by writers like H.G. Wells and Isaac Asimov can now be perused in patent descriptions. Even vacuum tubes are entering the discussion… transporter beams can’t be far behind!

It seems, then, that a transportation network in a steady state economy would involve a mix of infrastructure changes, technology changes, and behavioral changes that, in turn, would stem from a selection of policy changes. Given the scope of changes required, it’s still hard to get a handle on how things would turn out (and this is only one sector that represents 3% of the broader economy). Perhaps drilling down further would help.  Part 2 will give it a try.

Bureau of Economic Analysis Unveils Three New Measures of Progress

by Rob Dietz

Dietz_Author_PhotoRobert F. Kennedy delivered a stunning speech 45 years ago at the very beginning of his ill-fated campaign for the office of U.S. President. He stressed the need for new measures of progress, and his devastating critique of the most influential economic measuring stick included this poetic paragraph:

[T]he gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.

It appears that U.S. leaders and their statistically inclined appointees at the Bureau of Economic Analysis are finally catching on. Carl Lemniscate is the BEA’s head beancounter. His graying temples and baritone voice lend him an air of authority as he answers questions about why it took so long for the agency to produce a better measuring stick for American progress.

“The Bureau is a no-nonsense agency. When we see an opportunity to calculate additional economic figures, we get right on it. People just don’t realize how quickly we responded to Bobby Kennedy’s challenge. Why do you think we switched from gross national product to gross domestic product all the way back in 1991?”

Mr. Lemniscate is referring to the agency’s decision to use GDP instead of GNP as the primary measure of economic activity, a change that many economists and citizens have continued to criticize as failing to address Kennedy’s main concerns. Mr. Leminscate says, “I thought a totally objective measure like GDP would suffice, but it’s hard to satisfy everyone. Still, here at the Bureau, we serve the public.” A smile breaks across his face as he leans back in his swivel chair and says, “That’s why we’re so pleased with our three new measures of economic progress.”

In a press release issued earlier today, the Bureau of Economic Analysis introduced the public to GDI, CCI, and FEI. Mr. Lemniscate says, “I have to admit that at first I was against the idea of using measures other than GDP, but given the quality of these new ones, I’m all for it.”

GDI — Gross Domestic Imperviousness

The main plot in the story of progress is humanity’s domination of nature.  Thanks to the magic of economic growth and technological advancement, nature may soon become a distant memory from a bygone era.  Also thanks to technological advancement, there’s now a measure that can capture the essence of this domination.

With advancements in satellite sensors and data processing, analysts can produce detailed maps of impervious surfaces — those areas that have been turned into pavement, rooftops, and other manmade surfaces. GDI adds up the nation’s impervious square footage to provide an accurate indicator of humanity’s victory over untamed lands. Mr. Lemniscate says, “The brilliance of GDI is that it tells us how we’re creating real wealth by converting farmland, forests, grasslands, and other useless landscapes into highways, strip malls, muffler shops, ministorage, and other desirable suburbi-scapes.”

CCI — Corporate Competitiveness Index

Competitiveness is the foundation of American progress. It’s the fuel that has driven America to the winner’s circle in the race for planetary supremacy. And no institution embodies the competitive spirit better than the publicly traded corporation. Even though corporations have trounced so many Main Street businesses and outcompeted all sorts of ecosystems in the cutthroat battle to maximize profits, competitiveness has been slipping. If America is going to retain its position as the highest-consuming nation, it needs a measure that can track competitiveness.

CCI is a composite of key statistics for each publicly traded corporation; it includes profit, degree of influence on political decisions, quantity of externalized costs, and percentage of tax liability avoided. Also dubbed the corporate bootprint, CCI quantifies the progress that occurs as corporations accumulate power and eradicate the need for less profitable institutions in society.

FEI — Financial Extraction Indicator

The FEI is akin to another of the Bureau’s measures — total wetland drainage (TWD) — but instead of calculating how much water is drawn out of worthless landscapes, it calculates how much financial wealth is extracted from real assets. Real assets tend to just sit there doing nothing. Take, for example, a house. Sure it offers shelter, warmth, and a place for a family to do whatever families do, but none of that provides market value. Financial institutions can and do change all that. For example, financiers can chop mortgages into sellable and re-sellable little bits. Before the financiers got involved, there was no money changing hands in the market, and the house had only one owner. Enter Wall Street, and we have money whipping around and thousands of anonymous absentee owners — a supremely creative wealth-generating scheme. With all the undisclosed fees and untraceable flows of money involved in such a process, financial institutions are able to accrue wealth that would have remained locked up in real assets.

The FEI aggregates all the instances in which financial institutions extract wealth from families, communities, and even natural areas — a true measure of how our most capable industry can wring wealth from assets held by others. One only needs to look at how the financial institutions handled the housing crisis to recognize that progress in America is synonymous with progress on Wall Street.

With FEI, CCI, and GDI, the Bureau of Economic Analysis has kicked off a new era. As Mr. Lemniscate says, “We manage what we measure. And you can bet we’ll be managing America a whole lot better now that GDP has a few sidekicks to help show off our national progress.”

Enough Is Enough (Excerpt)

by Rob Dietz and Dan O’Neill

The following is an excerpt from the first chapter of Enough Is Enough: Building a Sustainable Economy in a World of Finite Resources, published by Berrett-Koehler in the United States and Routledge in the United Kingdom.  All rights reserved.

EnoughIsEnough_Final_LoResA game of checkers offers very little insight into how to solve the world’s intertwined environmental and social problems, or so I thought. In one particular game, my opponent opened with a series of reckless moves, placing checker after checker in harm’s way. When I jumped the first one and swiped it off the board, I briefly wondered if I was being lured into a trap. But it was just a fleeting thought. After all, my opponent was only five years old.

I was playing against my daughter. She had just gotten home from her kindergarten class, and I was giving her a few strategy pointers from my limited bag of tricks. Her moves showed some modest improvement, but after a while, we both lost interest in the game. Besides, there are other fun things you can do with checkers, like seeing how high a tower you can build.

At first, we were fast and free with our stacking — we even plopped down two or three checkers at a time. But as the tower grew, we changed our approach. With the light touch and steady hands of a surgical team, we took turns adding checkers one by one to the top of the stack. By this point, our formerly straight tower had taken on a disconcerting lean. On our final attempt to increase its height, the mighty checker tower reached the inevitable tipping point and came crashing down to earth. Like a reporter interpreting the scene, my daughter remarked, “Sometimes when things get too big, they fall.”

I sat back amid the pile of checkers scattered on the floor and smiled. With a simple observation and eight words, she had managed to sum up the root cause of humanity’s most pressing environmental and social problems. Even a partial list of these problems sounds grim:

  • Greenhouse gas emissions are destabilizing the global climate.
  • Billions of people are living in poverty, engaged in a daily struggle to meet their basic needs.
  • The health of forests, grasslands, marshes, oceans, and other wild places is declining, to the point that the planet is experiencing a species extinction crisis.
  • National governments are drowning in debt, while the global financial system teeters on the verge of ruin.

People desperately want to solve these problems, but most of us are overlooking the underlying cause: our economy has grown too large. Our economic tower is threatening to collapse under its own weight, and beyond that, it’s threatening the integrity of the checkerboard and the well-being of the players. The economy is simply too big for the broader social and ecological systems that contain it.

That’s a strong indictment against economic growth, but this indictment is backed up by scientific studies of environmental and social systems. The evidence shows that the pursuit of a bigger economy is undermining the life-support systems of the planet and failing to make us better off — a grave situation, to be sure. But what makes the situation even more serious is the lack of a viable response. The plan being transmitted from classrooms, boardrooms, and pressrooms is to keep adding more checkers to the stack.

The model of more is failing both environmentally and socially, and practically everyone is still cheering it on… it almost makes you want to climb to the top of the highest building and shout, “ENOUGH!”

Crying out in such a way expresses intense frustration at the seemingly intractable environmental and social problems we face, but it also carries the basic solution to these problems. By stopping at enough when it comes to production and consumption in the economy, instead of constantly chasing more, we can restore environmental health and achieve widespread well-being. That’s an incredibly hopeful message, but it opens up all sorts of questions. What would this economy look like? What new institutions would we need? How would we secure jobs? This book attempts to answer these and related questions by providing a blueprint for an economy of enough, with detailed policies and strategies for making the transition away from more.

You probably have some of the same concerns as we do about the environment and the economy. We’re not pessimists, but with all the disturbing facts that confront us, it’s hard to avoid feeling worried about the future we face. Yet there is still hope in the midst of such worries. Once we put aside our obsession with growth, we can focus on the task of building a better economy. Tim Jackson (the author of a brilliant book entitled Prosperity without Growth) has provided this much-needed rallying call:

Here is a point in time where our institutions are wrong. Our economics is not fit for purpose. The outcomes of this economic system are perverse. But this is not an anthem of despair. It’s not a place where we should give up hope. It’s not an impossibility theorem. The impossibility lives in believing we have a set of principles that works for us. Once we let go of that assumption anything is possible.

Enough Is Enough tries to provide a new set of principles that can work for us. We don’t want to mislead you into thinking we have a precise set of directions for fixing everything that’s wrong with the world — after all, the economy and the ecological systems that contain it are highly complex. We do, however, have an economic plan that can help move humanity toward a better future where sustainable and equitable human well-being is the goal, not economic growth. Successful implementation of this plan rests on three requirements:

  1. Widespread recognition that our planet is finite. Humanity (along with all the other species here) draws life and comfort from a limited pool of resources. Recognition of this fact requires us to change the way we regard our relationship with nature, especially within our economic institutions.
  2. Practical policies for achieving a steady-state economy. A set of well-conceived steady-state policies can replace and outperform the obsolete growth-oriented policies in use today. But people need a strong sense of these new policies before they’ll be willing to embrace them.
  3. The will to act. The economic changes that are required won’t materialize on their own. We must dismantle the prevailing institutions and policies that have produced a destructive and unfair economy. At the same time, we must initiate and nurture the required changes.

This book is organized around these three requirements. If you’re already on board with the first one, you may recognize some familiar ideas in the next two chapters. Even so, it’s worth spending some time considering the problem of “too much” before jumping to the solution of “enough.” But the purpose of this book (in fact, the feature that sets it apart from others) is to describe how to establish a prosperous yet nongrowing economy. This is not a book that focuses on problems while relegating solutions to the last few pages.

That said, Part I, Questions of Enough, is more about why than how. It’s where we summarize some of the scientific evidence that condemns the pursuit of continuous economic growth. Part I also considers what constitutes desirable levels of population and consumption, and then makes the turn toward how by describing the defining features of a steady-state economy.

Part II, Strategies of Enough, provides solutions — an escape route from the perpetual growth trap described in Part I. It’s the part of the book that explains how, in a steady-state economy, we can:

  • Limit the use of materials and energy to sustainable levels.
  • Stabilize population through compassionate and noncoercive means.
  • Achieve a fair distribution of income and wealth.
  • Reform monetary and financial systems for stability.
  • Change the way we measure progress.
  • Secure meaningful jobs and full employment.
  • Reconfigure the way businesses create value.

Taken together, the policies described in Part II form an agenda for transforming the economic goal from more to enough. But these policies will sit on the shelf unless we can gain extensive support for, and concerted action toward, achieving an economy of enough.

Part III, Advancing the Economy of Enough, provides the call for action. This part of the book contains ideas for moving past the culture of consumerism, starting a public dialogue about the downsides of growth and the upsides of a steady-state economy, and expanding cooperation among nations. All this discussion leads up to the presentation of an economic blueprint that summarizes the components and steps needed to build a steady-state economy.

This blueprint offers hope at a time when we need it most. It provides a viable way of responding to the profound environmental and social problems of our era. The ever-present drone of what we can’t do has become both tiresome and unproductive. The time has come to figure out what we can do. We can build a better economy. We can meet our needs and care for the planet at the same time. We can live balanced lives, including time for the occasional game of checkers. This is our checkerboard, after all, and we don’t have to play by the old rules anymore. Let’s get to it. Enough is enough.

The first $5,000 in royalties from sales of the book go directly to CASSE.  Please click here to order a copy.

The Top Three Actions to Fix the Economy

by Rob Dietz

Fixing the economy will require more than tax code tweaks and stock market peaks.  Anyone who’s been paying attention knows that we need big changes to the way we run things on this planet. Even a partial list of today’s social and environmental problems sounds grim:

  • An unfathomable number of people (2.7 billion) live in poverty, scraping by on less than $2 per day.
  • Our penchant for burning fossil fuels has increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere such that scientists are throwing around phrases like “runaway climate change.”
  • National governments are drowning in debt, while the global financial system teeters on the verge of ruin.
  • The health of forests, grasslands, marshes, oceans, and other wild places is declining, to the point that the planet is experiencing a species extinction crisis.

ResultEnoughIsEnough_Final_LoRess like these arise because the global economy has grown too big for the broader systems that contain it. We have too many people consuming too much stuff. Sure, the engine of economic growth has driven technological advances and provided a dizzying array of consumable goods. But it’s hard to argue that these material benefits outweigh the costs of social breakdown and environmental upheaval.

So we need a systemic change, but what are our options? We could try to increase the size of the planet, or try to find another one that’s habitable. But maybe it would be more prudent to focus on changing the economy. That means shrinking, and then stabilizing, the economy so that it can meet humanity’s needs while conserving and protecting the ecosystems that support life on Earth. The book I wrote with Dan O’Neill, Enough Is Enough, describes policies to do that, but as Peter Victor has noted:

The dilemma for policy makers is that the scope of change required for managing without growth is so great that no democratically elected government could implement the requisite policies without the broad-based consent of the electorate. Even talking about them could make a politician unelectable.

Victor’s statement rings true. For example, in the last U.S. Presidential election, the candidates sparred with each other over who could grow the economy faster and create the most jobs. Suppose that instead of trying to “outgrow” his opponent, President Obama had run on a platform of stabilizing the economy. You can almost hear President Romney’s inaugural address about more oil pipelines, more highways, more consumption, more, more, more. But to the climatologists, conservation biologists, and ecological economists (and even the butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers) who are tracking the limits to growth, it is becoming increasingly clear that we need to make room for our leaders to discuss economic stabilization. It’s time for them to begin working on an economy that aims for enough instead of always chasing more.

Victor_Managing_wo_GrowthFrom Victor’s quote, we can deduce the top three things we need to do to begin the transition to such an economy.

1. Achieve widespread recognition that our planet is finite and that our economy has to fit within ecological limits. Politicians can’t talk about the limits to growth because most of the electorate remains unaware of the limits. Even with increasing attention paid to climate change and other developing crises, the conversation rarely turns to overconsumption in the economy. Schools are not teaching ecological economics, and people are too distracted by the routines of daily life to pay much attention. We need compelling stories and broad public education to get people discussing critical topics  such as the relationship between environmental and social systems, humanity’s place within nature, and the benefits of a steady-state economy.

2. Provide a set of practical policies for achieving a steady-state economy. All citizens (even the politicians) need to understand what can replace the growth-obsessed policies in use today. As soon as people begin to get a feel for how a well-conceived set of steady-state policies can outperform the obsolete policies of endless growth, politicians will gain the broad-based support they need to overhaul the system. The heart of Enough Is Enough describes this set of policies, but even a quick glance at them confirms Victor’s point: the scope of change required is indeed great. That’s why we need more than just awareness of the problem and a set of policy proposals.

3. Cultivate the will to act. Economic changes won’t materialize on their own. People have to want out of the current system, and they have to demand the transition to a new one. Without such pressure, entrenched elites (in both politics and business) have no incentive to overturn the status quo. There’s an awful lot of networking and organizing to be done.

With these three actions, we can get the economy we want and the planet needs. The unelectable politicians will be the ones who cling to the wishful thinking of perpetual growth. It’s time to take a stand, to put aside the destructive mania for more, and let our lawmakers know that enough really is enough.

Pulling Back the Curtain on Economic Growth’s Magic Act

by Rob Dietz

A good story often includes a touch of magic — just ask Harry Potter or Twilight fans. See if you can spot the magic in the following passage by Charles Wheelan from his book Naked Economics, in which he considers the question, “Who feeds Paris?”:

Somehow the right amount of fresh tuna makes its way from a fishing fleet in the South Pacific to a restaurant on the Rue de Rivoli. A neighborhood fruit vendor has exactly what his customers want every morning — from coffee to fresh papayas — even though those products may come from ten or fifteen different countries. In short, a complex economy involves billions of transactions every day, the vast majority of which happen without any direct government involvement.

Let’s ignore for now that Wheelan’s “right amount” of fresh tuna corresponds to a disappearing fishery (the closure of vast fishing areas in the South Pacific is a story for another time). Wheelan’s argument and the main message of today’s globalized economy is that Twinkies spontaneously sprout on supermarket shelves. Hamburgers originate from the silver stovetops of McDonalds restaurants. Water itself flows from shiny taps, translucent bottles, and fancy vending machines. We don’t need to concern ourselves with trifling matters such as where this stuff comes from or how it arrives. Because of the magic of the market, we only need to know how to get our hands on sufficient cash, credit, or public funds to buy it. In a nutshell, the argument says that all the cheap food, cheap products, and cheap thrills of modern times spring directly from global trade and economic growth.

Is this the guy responsible for perpetual economic growth?
Photo credit: Yang and Yun

To a neutral observer, it certainly can look like magic — like Adam Smith dressed as Merlin, summoning all this visible wealth with his invisible hand. That’s essentially what Wheelan and other economic analysts are saying. Through the magic of free markets, we can produce and consume an ever-increasing amount of stuff (and as a side note, we’ll be rich enough to clean up any associated environmental messes, or at least export them to less enlightened nations).

That’s some trick, but it’s not real magic — it’s just an illusion. If we take a step back and observe what’s happening, we can expose the illusion and see that the market is hiding something up its sleeve: cheap energy. That’s the crowning achievement of a new book called Energy: Overdevelopment and the Delusion of Endless Growth — it pulls back the curtain on the market’s magic act. With photographs that manage to frighten and inspire at the same time, and with essays that provoke both deep thought and deep concern, Energy clarifies how the economy is able to achieve miracles such as the shipment of papayas to Paris, and it assesses the prospects for keeping the magic going.

Every economic transaction is underwritten by a continuous supply of abundant and cheap energy. This supply “supports the entire scaffolding of civilization.” (p. 8) The complex web of trades and transactions and mass consumption have been made possible by the exploitation of energy-dense fossil fuels. And continued growth of such an economic system requires increasing supplies of energy.

Energy presents facts about the fossil-fueled economy that are well known in several circles but ignored in most:

  • One gallon of gasoline, which costs a few dollars, is so energy-dense that it can push a 3,000-pound vehicle twenty miles.
  • If human labor were used to meet the energy requirements of a typical American lifestyle, more than 100 people (dubbed “energy slaves”) would have to work around the clock for each American.
  • Since the dawn of the industrial revolution, energy use and economic activity have increased in lockstep.
  • Fossil fuels are depletable, and burning them produces serious environmental side effects.

These facts help illuminate the predicament of modern society. We’ve built a set of institutions and a way of life that require continuous economic growth. But such growth is entirely dependent on access to cheap energy. And using more and more cheap energy is digging us into a deeper and deeper hole of spoiled landscapes, unstable climate, and biodiversity loss. But politicians, pundits, and the public have swept this predicament away with the insane assumption that economic growth can go on forever because of things like technological ingenuity, market efficiency, and labor productivity (all of which are dependent on access to cheap energy).

It can be a real downer to contemplate the way humanity has used so many energy resources (resources that were given to us by nature) to dig this hole. But the authors of Energy refuse to wallow at the bottom of the hole. Instead, they construct a ladder with rungs made out of ideas for change — ideas like educating the public to develop widespread energy literacy, conserving both energy resources and natural landscapes, and establishing resilient communities. These rungs offer a hopeful transition to better ways and better days. The hopeful conclusion is that we can figure out how to live the good life in a powered-down economy — an economy that accepts enough as its organizing principle rather than more.

In her lyrical and contemplative afterword, Lisi Krall writes, “Perhaps the real question of progress is not how to forge a new energy frontier, but how to forge a different model of economic organization and purpose, a model that isn’t predicated on never-ending growth and a belief that there are no real biophysical limits.” She believes that it’s time to give the magicians the hook. Luckily Krall and her colleagues in ecological economics, along with the authors of Energy, have been working on an economic model that is based on scientific observation and humility rather than magical thinking and arrogance.

The Triumph of Fantasy over Science, Part 2

Restoring Science as the Basis for Economic Policy

by Rob Dietz

Right now “economics” means “neoclassical economics,” especially in the halls of government and business boardrooms.  At the same time, ecological economics remains an under-appreciated and under-utilized sub-discipline of economics. To reverse this situation, such that when people talk about economics, they’re talking about ecological economics, we need to address the three factors described in Part 1 of The Triumph of Fantasy over Science:

  1. The psychology of inclusion drives people to follow the dominant economic philosophy (neoclassical), even if it comes straight out of Fantasy Camp.
  2. Neoclassical economics has become entrenched in the culture.
  3. The fanciful stories that support neoclassical theories are more emotionally compelling than the logic (straight out of Science Camp) that underlies ecological economics.

Overcoming these three factors requires three countermeasures.

Countermeasure 1. Frame the limits to growth and ecological economics in a way that prevents people from feeling threatened.

For decades, the denizens of Science Camp have been broadcasting messages about the shortcomings of neoclassical economics and the problems posed by its obsession with growth. To a lesser degree, they have also been promoting ecological economics (and its focus on well-being) as a positive alternative. But to bypass protective cognition — the defense mechanism that allows people to accept faulty premises — Science Campers need to frame their ideas differently.

Many people, when confronted with the possibility that the economic paradigm they’ve embraced may be harming society and causing significant environmental damage, react defensively. I know that I’ve been called all sorts of names (even the “C” word — communist) for presenting an alternative economic view. The key to disarming the defensiveness that comes along with protective cognition is to focus the conversation on needs that all people share (e.g., subsistence, security, and participation) and how an ecological economy can meet these needs without growth. Such framing can dampen denial and open minds.

For example, one time I was part of an “economic vitality” team tasked with providing ideas to a city council about how to achieve a prosperous local economy. The team included a sustainability guru, a business owner, a representative of the Chamber of Commerce, and a banker, among others. In one of our first meetings, I gave my standard spiel about the difference between a prosperous economy and a growing one. Since it was a small group seated around a table, I could see right away the misgivings some of my teammates had about my ideas. The banker must have set the world record for quantity of disapproving head shakes. We ended up butting heads for the next several meetings until I tried a different approach. I drafted a short document about our “areas of agreement,” which focused on the city’s needs. By steering the conversation toward things we all hoped to achieve in the city’s economy, such as available jobs, meaningful work, sufficient infrastructure, healthy ecosystems, and local production and consumption, we were able to have a constructive discussion and develop useful strategies for the city.  Once the walls of protective cognition have been toppled, people can access their considerable capacity for logic when assessing policy options.

Countermeasure 2. Use student demand to supplant neoclassical economics in universities.

Since this countermeasure focuses on university economics, let’s use a couple of standard economic graphs. First let’s consider the production possibility frontier for teaching in economics departments (see graph). An economics department can offer only a certain amount of economics courses, defined by the production possibility frontier. If it is spending that “certain amount” on neoclassical economics, then it can teach very little ecological economics. The goal is to move along the curve from point A (where we currently reside) to point B where we want to be.

Now let’s use supply and demand to see how to move from A to B. The quantity (and price) of neoclassical economics offered by universities is determined by student demand and departmental supply (see graph). To lessen the quantity of neoclassical economics supplied, students need to lower their demand for it. This is a natural place to start, since neoclassical economics offers students very little in the way of long-term prospects for healthy and happy lives. Student uproar over the downsides of neoclassical economics is already percolating, and activists have begun organizing efforts to increase demand for ecological economics.

If students decrease their demand for neoclassical economics, then the quantity supplied will decrease.

For example, Adbusters started a campaign called Kick It Over that invites students around the world to join the fight to revamp Econ 101 curricula and challenge the myopic views of neoclassical professors. Another outstanding effort is Kate Raworth’s work with Oxfam on the “doughnut economy.” Raworth is trying to unseat neoclassical orthodoxy and replace it with an economic framework based on meeting society’s needs within nature’s limits. Besides offering a sound premise for structuring the economy, she suggests that students engage in a guerilla campaign to rewrite economics textbooks.

As students decrease their demand for neoclassical economics, casting it into the dustbin of obsolescence, economics departments will move along their production possibility frontier to point B where their core will become ecological economics. At that point professors will focus their research on how to achieve sustainable and equitable well-being, and new generations of students will be grounded in the principles of Science Camp.

Countermeasure 3. Tell a better story.

Rob Hopkins, the founder of the Transition Towns movement has poked fun at the standard Science Camp story. He says, “Environmentalists have often been guilty of presenting people with a mental image of the world’s least desirable holiday destination — some seedy bed and breakfast… with nylon sheets, cold tea and soggy toast — and expecting them to get excited about the prospect of NOT going there. The logic and the psychology are all wrong.” We need to tell a more inspiring story about the transition to a steady-state economy.

That’s exactly what CASSE authors have been up to, and two new books will be available in early 2013.  Enough Is Enough (by Dan O’Neill and me) and Supply Shock (by Brian Czech) will serve as a one-two punch to knock out the neoclassical obsession with growth. These two books can accompany the ecological economics textbook by Herman Daly and Joshua Farley to provide options for new economics courses along the path from point A to point B on the production possibility frontier.  As more such books and resources come out of Science Camp, professors, politicians, and pundits will have fewer excuses for remaining in Fantasy Camp.

From reframing to organizing, from protesting to storytelling, there’s a lot of work to do to get past the collective mental block and start walking a sustainable economic path. For decades, we’ve shown ourselves to be incapable of accepting facts, unable to modify failing social institutions, and unwilling to adjust our lifestyles. But now is the time to overthrow the academic programs and economic institutions that got us into this mess in which we undervalue our most important assets. Now is the time to tell the story of ecological economics — the hopeful story of long-term prosperity on a healthy planet. Now is the time to demand the economy that we want and that the planet needs.