Sliding Down the Slippery Slope: A Truth Too Big for Obama

by Brian Czech

BrianCzech“Now, the good news is, we can make meaningful progress on this issue [climate change] while driving strong economic growth.”

With that sentence from his State of the Union address, President Obama capitulated to paltry cynicism. Alas, he will not be the president who finally comes clean on the trade-off between economic growth and environmental protection. Obama is now committed to win-win, green-growth rhetoric.

“Look,” as every politician likes to say, our economy is 90% fossil-fueled. Fossil fueling = greenhouse gases = climate change, says science. So expecting “meaningful progress” on climate change “while driving strong economic growth” is like expecting less gun violence while driving strong sales of assault weapons. The linkage between growing the economy — increasing production and consumption of goods and services in the aggregate — and spewing more greenhouse gases is even more certain than the link between weapon sales and violence.

Obama’s run down the slippery slope dates back to January 18, 2011, when he issued Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” The first stipulation was, “Our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.” Read it fast and it sounds great, but there is a fallacious devil in the details: “Our regulatory system must protect… our environment while promoting economic growth.”

Some of us tried to warn the President, his advisers, and whoever might listen that he had ventured onto a slippery slope. It seemed to begin so innocently. It was, by all accounts, only his first step onto the tantalizing talus, and one foot was yet firmly on the path of truth. He could have pulled himself back like a climber who sensed the danger in time.

But it wasn’t long — halfway between then and now — when Obama started doing the two-step on the slippery slope. That’s when he announced, “I do not buy the notion that we have to make a choice between having clean air and clean water and growing this economy in a robust way. I think that is a false debate.” As if air and water pollution could somehow become “uncoupled” from activities such as agriculture, oil extraction, manufacturing, transportation… you know, just those little sectors that make the whole economy run.

So by January 2012, it would have been difficult for Obama to become the courageous leader we need, the one who tells it like it is about the trade-off we face between economic growth and environmental protection. It would have been difficult, but not impossible. Obama could have gotten off that slope with some skilled slaloming back to the forest where the trees of truth were verily rooted. But no, the vote must have seemed like an elusive leaf, wafting downslope over the talus, and that is the route he chose.

slippery slopeShould we try to get him off that slippery slope of unsustainability? Probably not. He’s out there so far now, sliding downward so fast, that getting him off would be too risky. By “risky,” I mean a tremendous amount of effort could be spent on salvaging the truth for Obama’s legacy. Such effort could easily be for naught, as Obama shows no signs now of propagating the new paradigm of sustainability he once alluded to. He’s uttered the win-win rhetoric one too many times; now he’d have to admit his mistake in addition to explaining the trade-off between economic growth and environmental protection.

It’s a particular problem for politicians, the inability to admit a mistake. Perhaps it’s less a matter of the politician’s personal propensities and more so a matter of political party pressure. Either way, it’s part of political life. You never admit a mistake. That’s why potential appointees get grilled mercilessly in their confirmation hearings. They are made to look foolish for their faux pas by enemies who know they won’t admit they were wrong. “Were you wrong,” Senator Blah asks Senator Bleh, in a tone of voice devoid of inquiry. Senator Blah is making a statement more than asking a question. Meanwhile Senator Bleh wiggles and waffles as if weapons of mass destruction were hiding in his pants.

Don’t put it past the politician to reinvent terms such as sex, crook, tax, and amnesty. Why, a politician confronted with his own mistaken statement will torture a term like a jock on steroids.

This latter propensity – reinventing words to justify fallacious statements or outright lies – helps to explain the otherwise inexplicable complicity of Al Gore in the ignominious win-win propaganda. Such internalized terminological tinkering must have been what allowed Gore to say with a straight face, “There is no conflict between growing the economy and protecting the environment.” Gore surely knew that perpetually growing population and per capita consumption (the two arms of economic growth) was irreconcilable with environmental protection. But he also feared for his political life, so he probably thought something to the effect, “I can use ‘growing the economy’ in a way that means economic activity, just as trees ‘grow’ in a forest without the forest growing bigger.”

But in the real world, economic growth means more economic activity, more population × consumption, more GDP. It means more greenhouse gas emissions, less biodiversity, and a growing ecological footprint. It certainly doesn’t make for “meaningful progress” on climate change.

Now since even Al Gore, Earth in the Balance and all, went the way of the win-win greenwash, imagine how much less inclined President Obama would be to tell the truth about the fundamental conflict between economic growth and environmental protection. The inconvenience of this truth must seem too much to bear. Too much to get elected with and — once elected — too much to stay in favor with the party.

So it’s easy enough to empathize with Obama. But that doesn’t make him a great president. No, Obama is shooting down the slippery slope — Farewell Mr. President! — and it’s time to look elsewhere for bona fide 21st-century heroism. It’s time to look for a future president capable of advancing the steady state economy as the sustainable alternative to growth.

Pulsing Paradigm or Steady State?

by Christian Williams

Seldom do you come across arguments that truly question the premise of a steady state economy. Sure, growth-obsessed pundits make arguments against it all the time, but these can typically be refuted by reviewing a few facts. After all, the world is finite, and there are real limits to growth. However, when such an argument arises from the work of the late, great Howard Odum, it’s worth taking a closer look.

Odum — as with Herman Daly — can be considered a genius. Both quite rightly have inspired large groups of disciples. Odum introduced a whole new vocabulary and way of thinking in regard to energy systems and the interactions between civilization, energy, and the environment.[1] One of the concepts that shows up regularly in his work is the “pulsing paradigm.” He asserts that systems of all scales, from the molecular to the galactic, pulse in order to maximize power, and that pulsing systems tend to prevail. He even states that “seeking a constant level of civilization is a false ideal contrary to energy laws… In the long run there is no steady state.” [1, p. 54]

These are worrying words for any devotee of the concept of a steady state economy, and coming from Odum, they can’t simply be dismissed as the ramblings of a lunatic. But before we abandon our quest and run to pitch our tents in the growth-at-all-costs camp, let’s see if the seemingly conflicting notions of the pulse and the steady state can be compatible.

Turning to Daly, we can first ask, how steady is a steady state? The answer should be: steady enough for stability, but not without room for fluctuation. Daly talks of “boundary-oriented stability” [2, p. 53]. Rather than setting a specific point-goal for the economy’s size, we should establish boundaries, and allow fluctuations within them — small pulses perhaps. Admittedly such small fluctuations don’t seem to be on the scale of the pulse that Odum describes (e.g., the rise and fall of a civilization).

Pulses develop from the accumulation of energy or resources over a long period, leading to a short period of frenzied consumption and climax, followed by descent. In modern society, fossil fuels have given rise to our current global-scale pulse. Certainly, there is much to indicate that we may have a period of descent ahead of us, but a period of descent doesn’t rule out the possibility of subsequently establishing a steady state economy.

In fact many of the policies that Odum recommends for this day and age are very similar to those promoted for a steady state economy [1, pp. 388-391]. They include limits on inequality and income, a stable money supply, low fertility rates, a focus on maintenance, and looser restrictions on knowledge and information.

An important question is whether human consciousness can overcome such natural pulses. Odum saw pulses as a mechanism for maximizing power over the long term. He drew on earlier work of Alfred Lotka who also noted the pulsing nature of predator-prey relationships. It seems that pulsing is an evolutionary survival strategy. Yet these systems are not conscious, or if they are (such as with animals), they are not self-aware.

Maybe humanity’s trait of self-awareness could grant us more control. Instead of being trapped in a frenzy of consumption, perhaps we can intentionally restrain ourselves, and store some energy for later use, thus dampening the pulse to a manageable scale. So far it would appear we have been unsuccessful, as we continue to extract and consume energy as quickly as we can. But perhaps a higher level of energy consciousness can be achieved in the future. The implication of this reasoning for steady state economics is that restricting our supply of fossil energy should be of the highest priority — hardly a new idea.

A final insight from Odum relates to the value of information. Like the physical infrastructure of a modern economy, the development of information requires high-quality energy inputs. With a contracting energy supply, society’s store of and access to information will likely diminish. Again, like infrastructure (or any asset), it requires continual maintenance, and information that is not deemed valuable enough will be lost. A long-term objective for steady state economics is to ensure that valuable knowledge survives any period of descent and remains widely available for use in the distant future. In this respect, we can all play our part to keep the flame alive.

[1] Odum, Howard T 2007; Environment, Power, and Society for the Twenty-First Century. Columbia University Press, New York.

[2] Daly, Herman 1991; Steady-State Economics, 2nd edition. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Christian Williams has a Master’s degree in sustainable development from Uppsala University (Sweden). His thesis focused on the shorter work week as part of a transition towards a steady state economy, including a case study and political analysis from New Zealand, where he now makes his home.

Who Will Get This Economy Going? No One

by Dave Gardner

“We’ve got to get this economy going again!” Unless your cave lacks wifi, cable or satellite, you’ve heard this once or twice in the last four seconds.

Job creation and economic growth dominate the November election in the U.S. — perhaps more than any election in history. Campaign ads for local, state and national candidates all promise jobs. The presidential election this year has become a referendum on who can breathe new life into our economy.

News Flash: Neither presidential candidate will succeed.

What if our unexamined assumptions about the need and possibility of perpetual economic growth are wrong? What if robust economic growth is our civilization’s way of driving off a cliff? What if the planet is incapable of supporting continued increase in global economic throughput?

We’ll excuse almost anything if it happens in the name of jobs. At last count the U.S. Congress had passed 247 anti-environmental measures in its current term. The Republican Party wants to throw environmental regulations overboard because they throttle back the unfettered growth we must have. Across the aisle, many who normally exhibit a stronger environmental ethic are joining the massacre, so strong is the mandate to grow the economy and create jobs. Few, if any, are apologizing for sacrificing environmental protection on the altar of economic growth.

Our Democratic president, who four years ago promised to stop the rise of the oceans and heal the planet, is now approving drilling in the Arctic, promoting hydraulic fracturing, and bragging about his support for fossil fuel exploration in national debates. Climate change has not even been on the table this election year.

Social critic Noam Chomsky observes: “The two major parties both propose that the colossal machine of everyday life in America can not only run indefinitely, but continue expanding, and include ever more member people who trade ever more schwag. All that is required, they say, is twiddling the settings of the machine, to get it back to running smoothly as it did in the good old days before the mystifying crash of 2008. They disagree slightly on which dials to twiddle.”

Politicians are ignoring the cascade of environmental crises, all tied to the huge scale of the human enterprise (population and economy) on the planet:

  • Climate disruption;
  • Species extinctions;
  • Depletion of soil fertility;
  • Collapsing fisheries;
  • Air and water toxification;
  • Fresh water supply crises;
  • Deforestation and desertification.

No question many people are struggling and feeling true pain from this “great recession.” Everyone needs meaningful work, a roof overhead, and a chicken in the pot. Yet throwing our natural world under the bus in an attempt to restore the robust economic growth we knew during the last century is not an intelligent way to secure these things. We ought not burn down the house to keep warm. We must leave for the next generation a world worth inheriting.

What is the business case for destroying the planet?
–Ray Anderson, founder and chair of Interface, Inc.

It’s time to examine the unexamined assumptions, time to re-evaluate our goals, our metrics, and our definitions of success — including what we mean by “progress” and the “American Dream.” They don’t have to mean more stuff. We’ve reached a point where our quest for MORE is detracting from the quality of our lives. It’s time to acknowledge that quality is more important than quantity.

The definition of the American Dream got hijacked.

In my film, GrowthBusters: Hooked on Growth, Raj Patel, author of Stuffed and Starved, calls our society’s infatuation with economic growth a “fetish.” He has many allies in suggesting that GDP growth is a poor measure of life satisfaction. Former World Bank economist Herman Daly tells us growth has become “uneconomic,” meaning its costs outweigh its benefits.

In an empty world, it was a safe bet that growth was making us richer, but we no longer live in an empty world. We live in a full world.
–Herman Daly, Former World Bank Economist

The evidence is compelling enough to convert smart people who spent much of their professional lives in pursuit of growth. Commentaries are appearing in major financial and global affairs publications questioning the possibility of perpetual growth. Financial gurus — Jeremy Grantham, Paul B. Farrell, Jeff Rubin, and John Fullerton, to name a few — are warning us we are hitting the wall of resource scarcity.

We are experiencing The End of Growth, as energy expert Richard Heinberg describes in his thought-provoking book. It’s a brutal truth we must face. We have hit peak oil, peak food, peak biodiversity and peak water. We had a good run, but the party’s over. The days of 3% annual GDP growth and ever-increasing material wealth are behind us. Stimulus packages, tax cuts, deficit spending, austerity — it doesn’t matter what we try, we cannot repeal the laws of physics.

 Yet the political climate demands that our representatives and candidates avoid telling us the truth. We don’t want to hear the truth. Recent history tells us we can have it all; that is all we’ve known for the past 300 years. Ronald Reagan swept into office telling us we could and would have more.

There are no limits to growth, because there are no limits of human intelligence, imaginations, and wonder.
–Ronald Reagan

Chomsky offers: “Reality knows we have entered a long-term compressive economic contraction; that there is no way we can persist in the current living arrangement; and that the necessary outcome to avoid immense human suffering can be described as the downscaling and re-localizing of everything we do.”

We need a modern-day Martin Luther King, Jr., a true leader with the integrity and courage to tell us the truth, and the charisma to inspire us to follow. We hold these truths to be self-evident:

  • The pie isn’t getting bigger, and over 7 billion of us want a slice.
  • We do not get to be materially richer next year than we are this year.
  • Our children don’t get to have more money and more stuff than we had.
  • That’s okay, because money and stuff are not what really matter in life.

Not one of the candidates on the ballot for U.S. President is telling us this. The most hopeful sign in the political landscape is a write-in campaign for two steady-state economics candidates, Rob Dietz (editor of the Daly News) and Bill Ryerson (CEO of The Population Institute and President of Population Media Center). The centerpiece of their platform is to transition the U.S. to a steady-state economy. Of course, this ticket is a few hundred million dollars shy of being a contender. And it’s a cold political reality that today no candidate can win election on a platform that respects the laws of physics on a finite planet.

Regardless of whom we elect as the next U.S. President, in four years we’ll still be in the great recession. The only difference between the two major candidates is how much damage we’ll have wreaked on the environment in our futile efforts to restore growth, and how much the rich will profit while we waste precious time.

We can live sustainably, practicing the intergenerational golden rule, and — in so doing — live good and happy lives. But this requires us to recognize growth is no longer delivering the goods, and it can’t continue anyway. It requires that we seek not a growing economy, but a healthy economy — one that is not liquidating the planet’s resources. The sooner we do this, the sooner we can enter the next phase of true human progress.

Dave Gardner’s documentary, GrowthBusters: Hooked on Growth, includes interviews with Brian Czech, Herman Daly, and Peter Victor. The film is being rereleased this week in a special edition. The “Final Cut” is a lean 54 minutes and includes new bonus features, some previously unseen. For more information, visit

Renewable Ignorance

by Herman Daly

Herman DalyWe are all born pig-ignorant. Upon having accumulated a lifetime of knowledge we all promptly die. Ignorant babies replace learned elders. Knowledge is a depleting resource; ignorance is renewable. Yes, libraries and data banks grow, but knowledge finally has to exist in the minds of living people to be effective and evolve — unread books, unseen videos, and un-accessed hard drives are inert.

Like Sisyphus we push the rock up the hill only to have it roll back down again. Progress is not completely illusory. However, it is 3 steps up followed by 2.5 steps backward. Successive generations repeat earlier mistakes. They also invent new ones. Any solution to a given mistake is usually forgotten within 2 or 3 generations and we have to learn it again. But it is not all bad — after all, babies are delightful and happy while old people are grumpy — ignorance is bliss. Life consists of more than knowledge. Life expectancy has increased, so the old know more when they die, leaving the babies with still more to learn.

A massive transfer of knowledge each generation is an unavoidable necessity. This transfer is not automatic. It requires two decisions. The old must decide what knowledge is worth their effort to teach, and the young must decide what is worth their effort to learn. Some knowledge passes both filters and becomes the basis for guiding the future and for discovering new knowledge. Other knowledge fails to pass one or both filters and is lost. Just as the world is always only one failed harvest away from mass hunger, so it is always only one failed generational transfer away from mass ignorance.

What do we know about these two generational knowledge filters? What do they let pass and what do they filter out? I really don’t know the answer, but I have one speculation, taken from E. F. Schumacher’s reflections on Thomas Aquinas and Rene Descartes. Aquinas said that even uncertain knowledge of the highest things is worth more than certain knowledge of the lowest things. Descartes believed otherwise, that only knowledge that had the certainty of geometry was worth retaining, and uncertain knowledge should be abandoned even if it pertained to higher things. These two filters have very different selection biases. In their extreme forms they represent opposite errors of judgment about what knowledge to keep and what to jettison.

Which error are we most likely to commit today? I believe we overemphasize Descartes and pay too little attention to Aquinas. I take Aquinas’s “higher things” to mean purposes, knowledge about right purposes. Lower things I take to refer to techniques — how to efficiently do something, assuming it should be done in the first place. We have overdeveloped our relatively certain knowledge of technique, and left underdeveloped our less certain but more important knowledge of right purpose. The old seem more interested in teaching technique than purpose, and the young obligingly seem more interested in learning technique than purpose. So we develop more and more power, subject to less and less purpose. As physicist Steven Weinberg says, the more science makes the universe comprehensible and subject to our control, the more it also seems to render it pointless, and the less our control is guided by purpose.

These thoughts remind me of a public debate I participated in at LSU in the 1970s regarding the construction of the River Bend Nuclear Power Plant near Baton Rouge. I presented economic and safety reasons for believing that the plant should not be built, that there were cheaper and safer alternative sources of electricity, etc. After my presentation a nuclear engineering consultant from MIT made his rebuttal on behalf of Gulf States Utilities. It consisted entirely of presenting a scale model of the reactor core and explaining how it worked. He never replied to any of my arguments or said a word about why the reactor should be built. But his exposition of technique easily won the public debate. Afterwards everyone crowded around his model pointing to this and that, asking how it worked. “How to” questions of technique totally displaced “what for” questions of purpose. Maybe I needed a scale model meltdown of a reactor core! Maybe I needed a course in public relations. I might as well have been whistling Dixie.

Also I am reminded of a conversation with a friend who was the film curator for the Library of Congress. He told me that digital recording techniques were now so advanced and cheap that the Library would soon be recording and preserving everything that appeared on TV, or YouTube, or the radio, or Twitter, etc. Historians and scholars could then decide what was important and valuable. Librarians would avoid this difficult qualitative decision, and at the same time feel good about themselves for not imposing their value judgments on future historians. While I understand this point of view I cannot share it because it seems to me yet another example of “how to” questions displacing “what for” questions — a displacement likely to be continued by the “value–free” future scholars for whose benefit this almost infinite attic of junk is to be saved.

Knowledge is offered as a panacea these days. Young people are urged to go deeply into debt to “get a degree,” and are assured that the growth economy will allow them to pay it back with interest and still come out ahead. Many have been disappointed. As one who has spent over forty years in universities I am doubtful about this exaltation of knowledge, even though in arguing for a steady-state economy I have appealed to physical limits, not knowledge limits, leaving open the question of how much qualitative development could be supported within a biophysical steady state without quantitative growth. Also the “knowledge limits” I have appealed to are themselves knowledge — knowledge of physical limits, mainly the laws of thermodynamics, rather than any inherent limits to knowledge itself.

Although I am eager for knowledge to substitute physical growth to the extent possible, the basic renewability of ignorance makes me doubt that knowledge can save the growth economy. Furthermore, knowledge, even when it increases, does not grow exponentially like money in the bank. Some old knowledge is disproved or cancelled out by new knowledge, and some new knowledge is discovery of new biophysical or social limits to growth. New knowledge must always be something of a surprise — if we could predict its content then we would have to know it already and it would not really be new. Contrary to common expectation, new knowledge is not always a pleasant surprise for the growth economy — frequently it is bad news. For example, climate change from greenhouse gasses was recently new knowledge, as was discovery of the ozone hole.

One thing I have learned about universities is that much of what is taught in them today is based on the labor theory of value — “It was hard for me to learn this, so it must be worth teaching it to you.” This is a poor generational filter, and is even found in economics, which of all disciplines should know better! Also, much abandoned knowledge should have made the cut but did not. Indeed the whole field of history of economic thought has been cut from the curriculum to make room for more econometrics — the art of pretending to measure ephemeral and tenuous correlations among ill-defined variables in a world where the relationships to be measured change faster than the data for estimating them accumulates. The classical economists’ concept of the stationary state economy did not totally disappear, but almost.

Is just trying to save everything a solution? No. Do I have a solution? No. So I will stop here and simply ask that we all, young and old, pause, and calmly consider the proper balance between the “what for” and the “how to” questions as filters for the generational transfer of knowledge. Let’s help the babies deal better with the perennial problem of renewable ignorance.

The Titanic Code

by Dave Gardner

One hundred years ago April 15, the Titanic disappeared beneath the icy waters of the North Atlantic. Several have marked this anniversary by noting the similarities between the Titanic and human civilization. In Titanic: The Final Word with James Cameron, on the National Geographic channel, James Cameron, director of the blockbuster film, Titanic, aptly turned the event into metaphor:

Part of the Titanic parable is of arrogance, of hubris, of the sense that we’re too big to fail. There was this big machine, this human system, that was pushing forward with so much momentum that it couldn’t turn, it couldn’t stop in time to avert a disaster. And that’s what we have right now.  We can’t turn because of the momentum of the system, the political momentum, the business momentum.*

The metaphor is remarkably apt, as the size of the Titanic meant it was not nimble. It could not stop or turn on a dime. The captain needed to look far ahead on the horizon and plan ahead. Doesn’t that sound like the predicament in which civilization finds itself? We have built up an increasingly complex system, and it is a ginormous one (7 billion served), touching all corners of the planet. It’s impossible to change overnight. And looking ahead with only a short time-horizon serves it very poorly.

There’s something else keeping us from changing course, however. It is lack of desire. Our culture is not interested in a course correction because we’re distracted. We don’t see the iceberg ahead because we’re fixated on a cultural story that defines progress as growth, and growth as progress. This worldview has led us to develop a system that depends on everlasting growth.

Fortunately, when Mother Nature says, “enough,” key parts of the system begin to fail. I say fortunately because it’s hard to argue with success. As long as this system appears to be serving most of us well, we are not likely to throw it out. The failure of the system, which we’ve begun to experience, is our best hope for motivation to get moving toward a more enlightened arrangement.

“We’ve written a narrative that was fine in the nineteenth century.  It served us well through much of the twentieth century… but it’s outdated.  And we now need a new cultural narrative.”

— William Rees, ecological economist, in GrowthBusters

In the documentary, GrowthBusters, I refer to perpetual growth as our “operating system,” comparing it to Windows or Mac OS. The belief, the dependence on, and the pursuit of growth are what we’re all about. It’s the computer code that manages everything we do. Many call it our cultural narrative. If we were on the bridge of the Titanic, it would be in our charts, affecting our compass, on our radar. It informs (or misinforms) everything we do.

Without a doubt there are economists, sociologists and activists developing patches for this growth-based operating system. There are also scientists and activists developing apps that help us lighten our load on the planet. Renewable energy, water and land conservation, permaculture, and transit-oriented development are all examples of what I would call improved software applications, but they are still written to run on our old, growth-based operating system. With a system committed to everlasting growth, they will not keep our civilization from running off a cliff.

This is not to disparage them; it is to keep us from relaxing, thinking they will enable our civilization to become sustainable. They can be meaningful parts of a completely new system. But we do have to throw out the old system and start with fresh computer code. Upgrading from Windows 7 to Windows 2013 won’t do — Windows has to go.

“Only the prospect of worldwide mind-change gives me hope for the future.”

— Daniel Quinn, author of Ishmael

Changing our cultural narrative is a tall order. In my film, Paul Ehrlich says, “We’re faced with a gigantic challenge that we haven’t been prepared for, either in our genetic evolution, or more importantly, in our cultural evolution.” I believe it’s the biggest challenge our civilization has ever faced. Who can we call? I’d love to say, just call GrowthBusters. After all, the film is my biggest contribution to the change we need to make.

But this challenge is too big. The film takes only the first step, which is to raise awareness that we have a culture that worships growth everlasting, and to help audiences realize it’s not delivering on its promise. I see the role of storytellers like Daniel Quinn, Dave Foreman, Richard Heinberg and myself as one of preparing our fellow human beings to be receptive to the completely new computer code that steady staters, transitioners, de-growthers and others are developing.

The time is now. The pieces are falling into place. The old system is crashing. We’re not able to reboot and get back to the business of robust growth. It will be key that we don’t rush in with patches or rely only on new apps. We must be relentless in our insistence on adopting a new operating system.

*Thanks to Joe Romm of ThinkProgress for alerting me to Cameron’s words.

Dave Gardner is the director of the non-profit documentary, GrowthBusters: Hooked on Growth, currently screening around the world. CASSE executive board members Brian Czech, Herman Daly and Peter Victor appear in the film. This commentary was published simultaneously here, as part of a series honoring the 40th anniversary of The Limits to Growth. Dave asks that you take his Pledge to Think Small to help speed adoption of a new operating system.