Too Many Jobs

by Max Kummerow

Without doubt unemployment blights people’s lives. Those who want to work need jobs. But an even more fundamental economic problem is too many people beavering away, wrecking our home planet. Politicians and economists assume population growth means more people need jobs, so the economy must grow. Better to reverse that logic, starting instead by calculating the level of output the world’s environmental resources can sustainably support. How can jobs and economic output keep growing on a damaged planet with shrinking resources?

Some economists claim that technology or human ingenuity is the ultimate resource, but such platitudes ignore the realities of technological advance. The truth is that technology both creates and destroys jobs. Labor-saving innovations often increase productivity by reducing employment. And the downsides of technology abound. Fanatics use the “ultimate resource” to build bombs. Nuclear physics gave us an energy source and medical advances, but also atomic bombs and toxic pollution. The Green Revolution that helped double or triple world grain yields relies on fertilizer made from natural gas that will eventually run out. Meanwhile, populations needing food have tripled since the inception of the Green Revolution. Growth enabled by technology puts humanity further out on a limb, increasing ecological and economic risks.

If we are so smart and technology can solve every problem, why hasn’t every problem been solved? Historians list dozens of collapsed societies. Why didn’t brainpower save past empires? Why are carbon dioxide emissions still increasing? Why, after the global financial crisis affected so many people and communities, did banks go back to speculating in derivatives? Why are a billion people stunted by malnutrition? Why are so many species going extinct? Why do war and arms races persist? And so on across a range of unsolved local and global problems.

A sign of too many jobs: this eyesore (a modular worker colony) sprouted at the Bakken shale oil deposits near Williston, North Dakota.  Photo by Ben Garvin, Reuters.

A sign of too many jobs: this eyesore (a modular worker colony) sprouted at the Bakken shale oil deposits near Williston, North Dakota. Photo by Ben Garvin, Reuters.

Perhaps the greatest irony is that even though we are counting on technology to save us, the U.S. is cutting research funding. At the same time, the cost of attending college is becoming unaffordable. In 1992 dozens of Nobel Prize-winning scientists signed a “warning to humanity” saying we should stop changing the earth so rapidly. When the world ignores scientists like Jim Hansen (NASA pioneer climate modeler), isn’t public indifference squandering the “ultimate resource?” What a contradiction: relying on science to save us and then ignoring the recommendations of our leading scientific experts.

The ecological footprint reveals that the world economy is already too big. Ecologists calculate that sustaining current levels of output would require 1.5 earths. If everyone lived like Americans, more than four planets like earth would be required. Scientists have identified nine key areas where the scale of human economies could damage earth’s ability to support us for the long run. Three of the nine “planetary limits” have already been exceeded, reducing the planet’s capacity to support human life. Current levels of economic output require drawing down planetary “savings accounts” (soils, fossil fuels, species diversity, etc.) that are rapidly being overspent and depleted.

We’re caught in a dilemma. We have too many jobs — too many people are consuming too many resources as they go about their jobs — and yet huge numbers of jobless people struggle to meet their basic needs. At the same time, policies are geared toward growing the economy with the hope of adding more jobs, while disregarding the problem of overconsumption. What can we do?

Several commonsense jobs policies could help us achieve full employment within planetary limits. In the short term we could share employment more fairly. The U.S. could achieve full employment by increasing vacation time — we get two weeks where Europeans get five weeks. We could cut back to a four-day work week, lower retirement age (say to 60), offer more part-time work or job sharing, and send more people back to school to upgrade skills. Incomes would be reduced and social security taxes would increase due to these measures, but we would enjoy more fairness in distribution of income; less crime; more leisure time; more time for family, friends and community; and improved quality of life. We might even live longer — people in half a dozen well-off European countries live two years longer than Americans.

In the long run, we must stabilize or decrease population. Society should subsidize the first child and allow a second child without penalty, but require parents who choose to have more than two children to pay the full costs of educating and providing medical care and old age support for those extra children. People who expand population take more than their fair share of everything while imposing costs on the rest of us by collectively pushing up prices for housing, land, food and energy. Crowding makes life more stressful in many ways — traffic congestion, longer lines, more competition for jobs and college admissions, higher unemployment, lower wages and higher taxes. Extra kids contribute to climate change, pollution and resource depletion. Requiring those with large families to bear the costs their extra children impose on others would incentivize responsible family planning decisions. Far from being repressive, having smaller families corrects market failure, liberates women and makes families and children better off. The world’s best educated women voluntarily choose small families as shown by the below-replacement fertility rates in some of the best educated countries.

Reversing direction to optimize the total number of jobs, rather than pursue unlimited job growth, won’t be easy. Economists must accept a major paradigm shift. Such a shift has been described in the literature for over 200 years starting with Malthus, Ricardo and John Stuart Mill. Classical economics theory included limits to growth — a “stationary state.” Sharing jobs and stabilizing population won’t solve all economic and ecological problems. Many other reforms need to be included on the agenda to achieve a steady state economy that features environmental protection and sustainable levels of consumption — reforms like a carbon tax, conservation of species diversity, and redistribution of wealth.

For such laws to be passed in democracies, the public would have to be far better informed to understand why these changes make sense. Pro-growth messages come at us incessantly from mass media, the Internet, and pro-growth lobbyists, politicians and businesses. A keystone reform will be to overhaul the way we fund our information-providing institutions. We currently use information from these institutions to make important decisions. The trouble is that much of the information is actually misinformation, because the institutions obtain their revenues from advertising that pushes the infinite-growth agenda.

Abandoning the ideology of growth so firmly embedded in economic theory, popular culture and the media will be difficult. But economic theory reform, media reform, job sharing and changing human fertility behavior will be far easier than changing the inescapable laws of physics, expanding the land area of the earth, or doing business in cities inundated by rising sea levels. Difficult is still a lot easier than impossible.

Open Borders and the Tragedy of Open Access Commons

by Herman Daly

Herman Daly“Open borders” refers to a policy of unlimited or free immigration. I argue here that it is a bad policy. If you are poor and your country provides no social safety net, you move to one that does. If you are rich and your country makes you pay your taxes, you move (or at least move your money) to one that doesn’t. Thus safety nets, and public goods in general, disappear as they become both overloaded and underfunded. That is the “world without borders,” and without community. That is the tragedy of open access commons.

Some will think that I am attacking a straw man, because, they will say, no sensible person really advocates open borders. They simply advocate, it will be said, “more generous levels of immigration, and a reasonable amnesty for existing illegal immigrants.” I agree that some form of strictly conditional amnesty is indeed necessary as the lesser evil, given the impasse created by past non-enforcement of our immigration laws. Deporting 12 million long-settled residents is too drastic and would create more injustices than it would rectify. But unless we enforce immigration laws in the future there will soon be need for another amnesty (the first, often forgotten, was in 1986), and then another — a de facto open-borders policy. Nevertheless, the policy of open borders should be fairly discussed, not only because some people explicitly advocate it, but also because many others implicitly accept it by virtue of their unwillingness to face the alternative.

Immigration is a divisive issue. A good unifying point to begin a discussion is to recognize that every country in the world has a policy of limiting immigration. Emigration is often considered a human right, but immigration requires the permission of the receiving country. Some countries allow many legal immigrants. Others allow few. As the World Bank reported in its Global Bilateral Migration Database:

The United States remains the most important migrant destination in the world, home to one fifth of the world’s migrants and the top destination for migrants from no less than sixty sending countries. Migration to Western Europe remains largely from elsewhere in Europe.

There are also arguments about the emigration side of open borders — even if emigration is a human right, is it unconditional? Might “brain-drain” emigrants have some obligation to contribute something to the community that educated and invested in them, before they emigrate to greener pastures?

Immigrants are people, and deserve to be well treated; immigration is a policy, and deserves reasoned discussion in the public interest. It seems that neither expectation is fulfilled, perhaps partly because the world has moved from largely empty to quite full in only one lifetime. What could work in the world of two billion people into which I was born, no longer works in today’s world of seven billion. In addition to people, the exploding populations of cars, buildings, livestock, ships, refrigerators, cell phones, and even corn stalks and soybean plants, contribute to a world full of “dissipative structures” that, like human bodies, require not only space but also a metabolic flow of natural resources beginning with depletion and ending with pollution. This growing entropic throughput already exceeds ecological capacities of regeneration and absorption, degrading the life-support capacity of the ecosphere.

The US is indeed a “country of immigrants,” although for American Indians this frequent refrain reflects a less positive historical experience than it does for European settlers. Nor does the term resonate positively with those African Americans whose recent ancestors were brought here as involuntary immigrants. Many Americans, including me, think that heirs of slavery deserve priority in the US job market (including job training) over new immigrants, especially illegal immigrants. Likewise for the many Americans of all races living in poverty. Some other Americans, unfortunately, seem to feel that if we can’t have slaves, then the next best thing is abundant cheap labor, guaranteed by unemployment.

We have in the US a strong cheap-labor lobby that uses immigration (especially illegal immigration) to force down wages and break labor unions, as well as weaken labor safety standards. This is less the fault of the immigrants than of our own elite employing class and pandering politicians. The immigration issue in the US is largely an internal class battle between labor and capital, with immigrants as pawns in the conflict. Class division is more basic than the racial and ethnic divide in current US immigration politics, although the latter is not absent. Progressives in the US, with their admirable historical focus on racial justice, have been slow to see the increasing dominance of the class issue in immigration. The Wall Street Journal, the Chamber of Commerce, and big corporations in general, do not mind seeing the class question submerged by racial and ethnic politics favoring easy immigration as a cheap-labor supplement to off-shoring. It feeds the myth that we are a classless society, even as it contributes to increasing income inequality. Also, given the closeness of recent elections, a bit of ethnic pandering can be politically decisive.

The US is also a country of law, or at least strives to be. Illegal immigration falls outside the rule of law, and renders moot all democratic policy deliberations about balancing interests for the common good. It is hardly democratic to refuse to enforce democratically enacted laws, even though difficult individual cases arise, as with any law. Humane provisions for difficult cases must be worked out, e.g., children brought here illegally by their parents twenty years ago. We have judges to deal with difficult cases, as well as statutes of limitation regarding the time period within which certain laws must be enforced, and this principle could be applied to immigration laws.

Which democratically enacted laws will the open-borders lobby not enforce next? How about laws against financial fraud? We have apparently already quit enforcing those, partly abetted by globalization and foreign tax havens as well as too big to fail or jail banks. Acceptance of illegal immigration is only one part of the broader trend toward impunity, and while impunity for banksters is arguably worse than for illegal immigrants and their employers, the latter still plays a part in undermining the general respect for law.

Map of Bhutan

What would an “open borders” policy mean for Bhutan, sandwiched between the world’s two most populous nations?

Surely our immigration laws could be improved. Indeed, the 1995 US Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by the late Texas Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, made a good start, but was ignored for reasons already suggested. Her commission called for lower legal immigration quotas, stricter family reunification criteria, and enhanced border control, as well as stricter sanctions against employers of illegal immigrants. The last embraced the caveat that ethnic profiling would likely result without a secure national identification system, since employers are not able to adjudicate false documents. A secure identification system would of course make it easier to identify illegal immigrants and is often opposed by open-borders advocates and libertarians. The present Congress should build on the good work of the Jordan Commission, but they seem to have forgotten it.

Would open borders be good for Japan, or Germany, or Greece, or for an independent Catalonia, if that should come about? Do any political parties in member countries advocate open borders for the European Union with respect to the rest of the world? Should the areas of the Amazon reserved for indigenous people be open to free immigration? Should Bhutan, bordered by the world’s two most populous countries and trying to preserve its culture and ecosystems, declare a policy of open borders?

In developed countries immigration boosters are especially interested in opening borders to young workers to help cover social security shortfalls resulting from the older age structure caused by slower natural population growth. The cheap-labor lobby is joined by the cheap-retirement lobby. Apparently the immigrants are expected to die or go home as soon as they reach retirement age and would start receiving rather than paying into social security. Also, while working they are expected to boost fertility and population growth sufficiently to postpone the necessity of raising the retirement age or lowering benefits. Population growth is expected, indeed required, to continue indefinitely.

In addition to the cheap-labor and cheap-retirement lobbies, advocacy of open borders comes both from the politically correct faction of left-wing economists, and from the libertarian faction of right-wing economists. The former consider any limits on total number of immigrants as “thinly disguised racism.” All evil is reduced to racism, often “in disguise.” The libertarian economists label any restriction on immigration as a “market distortion,” their synonym for regulation. We already have open borders for capital (as well as goods), so that open borders for labor would complete the global integration agenda — deregulation taken to the limit. This is not “free trade” or reasonable recognition of interdependence among many separate trading economies, as embodied in the 1945 Bretton Woods Treaty. Rather it is a single global economy tightly integrated on the principle of absolute, not comparative, advantage. It is being imposed top-down by transnational corporations via the undemocratic World Trade Organization.

Net immigration is the overwhelming cause of US population growth. How big should the US population be? We are currently the third most populous country in the world. Do we aspire to overtake China and India? What numbers define a “more generous immigration policy,” and exactly who is being generous to whom, and at whose expense? Our elite is being generous to itself at the expense of both the US working class and of immigrants.

Any limitation of the number of new immigrants still requires selectivity and enforcement of immigration laws. It requires saying “no” to many worthy applicants, which is difficult, and is why some humanitarians are tempted to favor open borders. It is easier to pretend that unlimited “economic” growth can support an unlimited population, including immigrants. Never mind that growth in the US has, at the margin, become uneconomic, increasing social and environmental costs faster than benefits. The idea of a steady-state economy goes out the window, and customary growth-mania is reaffirmed.

If the US could just set an example of how a country can live justly and sustainably within its ecological limits (i.e., in a steady-state economy), that would be a splendid contribution to the rest of the world. We are far from setting such an example — indeed we are not even trying.

Obama’s Top Priority Will Intensify Environmental and Social Crises

by Brian Czech

“Our top priority must be to do everything we can to grow our economy and create good, middle-class jobs. That has to be our North Star. That has to drive every decision we make in Washington.”
— Barack Obama, Economic Report of the President, March 2013

If I wasn’t fair I’d quote Obama thusly: “Our top priority must be to do everything we can to grow our economy… That has to be our North Star. That has to drive every decision we make in Washington.” Then I could say, “See how obsessed the president is with economic growth?” I won’t, because clearly Obama’s growth agenda is intended to reduce unemployment. But that doesn’t mean his growth agenda is scientifically sound or sustainable. Quite the contrary. And, while Obama may not be literally obsessed with economic growth, what should we say about a document that mentions “growth” 371 times, “sustainable” 35 times, and “natural resources” 6 times? The glass is not empty, but it’s nowhere close to half full either.

It’s true that the 452-pager is not straight from Obama’s mouth. Most of the document is really the Annual Report of the Council of Economic Advisers, and probably much of that is written by the staffers of the Council rather than CEA members themselves. But you can bet a document like this is vetted like no other! No president will be quoted, pursuant to his own signature, “Our top priority must be to do everything we can to __________,” unless what fills in the blank is indeed the president’s top priority or very nearly it.

What fills in the blank is “grow our economy” (listed firstly) “and create good, middle-class jobs.” Why not just say ” create good, middle-class jobs and reduce the rate of unemployment”? Better yet, why not “stabilize the economy with a high rate of employment that is sustainable for the long run”? This would allow the president to raise desperately needed awareness of limits to growth, the damage caused by further growth, and the sustainable alternative of a steady state economy. But no, growth is truly at the heart of the president’s agenda, as described in more detail by the Council of Economic Advisers. “GDP” is used 197 times; “ecological footprint” not once.

The report does include a chapter called “Climate Change and the Path Toward Sustainable Energy Sources.” This chapter summarizes the science of climate change — cup has some drops — and makes the conventional economic argument that climate change is a “negative externality” of economic activity. It advances the equally conventional approach of “internalizing” this externality and obviating it by replacing fossil fuels with alternative sources of energy. To summarize the position, “The Administration is committed to a comprehensive energy strategy that supports economic and job growth, bolsters energy security, positions the United States to lead the world in clean energy, and addresses the global challenge of climate change.” We may as well demand better dental hygiene and more money from the Tooth Fairy all at once. In a 90% fossil-fueled economy, a top priority of doing “everything we can to grow our economy” is to climate change what it is to biodiversity loss, water shortage, and pollution: a guarantee that it will worsen.

We can’t blame President Obama or the CEA too much. They are, as noted in the report, driven to some degree by the Employment Act of 1946 as amended by the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978. That’s exactly why we need the Full and Sustainable Employment Act and its apt acronym, “Full SEA,” to remind us that the “rising tide” to lift all boats was as sustainable as a Ponzi scheme. We’re out of water and boat-building material.

Pursuant to the Full Seas Act, we’ll have an annual Report to the President on Population, Production, Consumption, and Capacity to help monitor how sustainable our economy is. With population data from the Census Bureau and production data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, a slim new Bureau of Population and Consumption (BPC) will calculate our ecological footprint to determine how sustainable GDP is. The President will summarize the Report in the annual State of the Union Address. The hope is that one day we can quote something more believable, doable, and laudable:

“Our top priority must be to do everything we can to stabilize our economy and maintain fulfilling jobs for all who need work. This economy has to fit on our planet along with those of other nations, leaving space for other species as well. That has to be our North Star: a steady state economy that is fair, sustainable, healthy and happy.”

Real Dichotomies Are Not Made “False” by Soft Science or Political Pandering

 by Brian Czech

It’s a good thing, the proliferating discussion about economic growth and environmental protection among ecologists. Such discussion was sorely lacking just ten years ago. Without addressing the subject of economic growth, the ecological professions would be but marginally relevant to society and doomed to extinction. Money is running out for research that appears benign at best and wasteful at worst in the days of fiscal austerity, otherwise known as the 21st century.

Much of the discussion about economic growth may be attributed to scientific, professional societies that got the ball rolling by developing technical reviews and position statements over the past decade. Some of these positions are scientifically sound, while others stop short. None are perfect, of course, yet some of the professional societies have described in rigorous detail the “fundamental conflict” between economic growth and environmental protection with the fortitude of their scientific convictions. A short list would include The Wildlife Society, U.S. Society for Ecological Economics, and American Society of Mammalogists. The leadership provided by these societies has been invaluable and is finally reaping rewards for students, faculty, programs and universities.

How about an ice-cold glass of "sustainable growth?"

A few other professional societies haven’t yet run out of green Koolaid. The Ecological Society of America, for example, still calls for the supremely oxymoronic “sustainable growth.” Many ESA members who get it about limits to growth have been, to put it perhaps too frankly, victimized and embarrassed by a vocal and influential minority that refuses to shed their political training wheels on the racetrack of economic policy matters.

And so it came as no surprise to see the recent exchange (February and March, 2012) on the “Value of Nature” between Bernd Blossey and Michelle Marvier in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. The fact that they carried out this discourse in Frontiers suggests exposure to ESA deliberations, publications, and politics. An ESA background can make an author susceptible to muddling the message on the relationship between economic growth and environmental protection. Consider Marvier’s second-from-last paragraph:

“I have found that many conservationists view striving for material gains and the prioritization of people above non-human nature as societal pathologies that need to be cured. This is an unproductive and misanthropic attitude…”

So far so good, for the most part. Her first sentence would be hard to argue with. Her second one has a large dose of truth as well. On the other hand, “liquidator syndrome” is every bit as misanthropic, as I described in Shoveling Fuel for a Runaway Train. Liquidator syndrome occurs when a conspicuous consumer gets psychologically mired down in Maslow’s fourth level (the pursuit of self-esteem) rather than progressing to the fifth (self-actualization). Liquidator syndrome manifests in such behaviors as Hummer driving, McMansion building, fur-coat wearing, etc. Let’s face it: it’s bad for the environment, biodiversity, and the grandkids.

But neither Marvier nor I are psychologists. We shouldn’t quibble about which end of the spectrum – extreme conservation or extreme consumption – is more misanthropic. We’re ecologists and, therefore, economists of nature. Therefore the bigger bone to pick starts with the next sentence:

“… Setting up dichotomies between economic growth versus protection of nature is a dead-end for conservation. In a separate survey of 800 American voters… 76% felt that ‘we can protect land and water and have a strong economy with good jobs for Americans at the same time, without having to choose one over the other.’ Only 19% felt that ‘sometimes protections for land and water and a strong economy are in conflict and we must choose one over the other.’ However, when the question is framed such that people are forced to choose, the economy wins handily.”

There is enough wrong in these sentences to fill a small textbook, but let’s start with the most obvious. “Setting up dichotomies” sounds too close to “making up dichotomies” or “inventing dichotomies” for comfort. It reminds me of the time some colleagues and I were attacked for supposedly “assuming” there was a conflict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation, when in fact our group had concluded, after many years of study, that indeed there was such a conflict. Meanwhile the accusers had virtually no background in the subject of economic growth.

In ecological terms, due to the tremendous breadth of the human niche, the human economy grows at the competitive exclusion of nonhuman species in the aggregate. That’s sound, peer-reviewed science. Those individuals and organizations that have conducted due diligence on the topic have invariably concluded as much.

We can’t make a dichotomy a false one by wishing it away and ignoring the ecological and physical sciences. But we can sure confuse readers by conflating economic growth with a “strong economy.” Unfortunately, that is exactly what Marvier does.

An economy can be strong, with low unemployment, fiscal soundness, and a stable currency, regardless of whether it is growing or non-growing. Ultimately, in fact, the only sustainable alternative is a steady state economy; neither growth nor recession may continue perpetually. More importantly, long before a growing economy breaches its long-run carrying capacity, economic growth starts causing more problems than it solves. In that sense it is “uneconomic growth” and not worthy of the label “strong.”

It behooves ecologists who want to weigh in on economic growth to stop and think about precisely what it is. Of course you can always try to reinvent the phrase when your argument is failing. But that’s unproductive because economic growth is what it is, and the policy maker knows what it is. Economic growth is increasing production and consumption of goods and services in the aggregate. (It’s not the growth of the bicycle sector while the SUV sector crashes.) Economic growth absolutely entails a growing human population and/or per capita production and consumption. It is indicated by increasing GDP, or gross domestic product. It’s a policy goal with clear-cut fiscal, monetary, and trade policy levers and buttons. It’s also a policy goal with widespread public support.

Which brings us to the final flaw (for our brief purposes) of Marvier’s editorial. Her argument seems to be: “The public is enamored with economic growth. Therefore, we should not talk about the trade-off between economic growth and environmental protection.” But that slope is so slippery that we should expect someone further down to chime in, “Yup, in fact we should say that there is no conflict between economic growth and environmental protection.”

Now that’s a dead-end for conservation. Yet that is exactly what many ecologists — not to mention economists and politicians — have said for decades. It is a fallacy of epic proportions and, in my opinion, the single biggest failure of the ecological professions and the environmental community thus far.

It’s also a failure that is being rectified as one professional organization after another puts its scientific integrity where its mouth is, clarifying the fundamental conflict between economic growth and environmental protection.

Let’s not underestimate the public’s ability to deal with a conflict, once it’s been clarified. The American public eventually dealt strongly with the use of organochlorines, the deterioration of the ozone layer, and even with smoking. In each case, step 1 was coming clean on the science and refuting such revolting rhetoric as “I believe that nicotine is not addictive.”

In this case, step 1 is coming clean on economic growth, refuting the revolting rhetoric that “there is no conflict between growing the economy and protecting the environment.” Let’s tell it like it is, plainly but also with the nuance earned by studying the matter. By telling it like it is, we’ll have a message that resonates with the public’s common sense. That’s what produces respect, relevance, and ultimately effectiveness in the policy arena.

Presenting the Economic Policy of the Occupy Movement

by Brian Czech

If there is one thing the Occupy Wall Street movement has generated, it’s the opinion that there is no unifying agenda or policy being advanced by the Occupiers. Perhaps that explains why we (CASSE) have been asked repeatedly to contribute to that agenda and identify that policy. And perhaps the time has come to oblige.

No one can claim to represent the entire Occupy movement or all its concerns. The wide-ranging movement has taken on local, grassroots issues as much as national, systemic concerns. I got a taste of that recently during a visit to Bloomington, Indiana, where the local Occupiers were camped out on the perimeter of Indiana University. I was in Bloomington to give a talk about steady state economics at the university, and happened upon the Occupiers’ camp my first night in. They had little to say about Wall Street, GDP, or national unemployment. Maybe it was just my timing — which happened to correspond with Halloween– but the Bloomington Occupiers seemed pre-occupied with surviving the annual student “Zombies” march that apparently threatens the security of Indiana University every Halloween. The Occupiers were equally concerned with aggressive Zombies and the police assembled to confront said Zombies. (They feared the police would use the Zombies as an excuse to clean house all around the campus.)

It’s hard to blame the Occupiers for focusing on local issues and forces. Police suppression alone saps the energy from many movements, as I recall from the days of World Bank demonstrations. Yet despite the inevitable localization of Occupier concerns, the Occupy movement needs a national identity to survive, and it needs a macroeconomic policy goal to unite around. That policy goal should be a sustainable and fair steady state economy. Let’s see why.

The Occupy movement is, first and foremost, an objection to the rule of Big Money; big corporations, big banks, and big-time rip-offs of the taxpaying public. It’s all about economic justice. But at this point in history, economic justice is complicated by limits to economic growth. The old notion that a “rising tide lifts all boats” has become morally inadequate and physically irrelevant. In a world of over 7 billion people and an economy over $73 trillion in gross world product, the Wall Street Bull is tromping through an ecological china shop with increasingly endangered glassware. It’s not only that the Wall Street Bull is kicking Occupiers and the rest of the 99% out of the way; the Bull is destroying the planet. It spans the globe but the globe is full.

The Occupiers need to get this, discuss it, and emphasize it. Otherwise, they could be unfairly portrayed as just the latest brand of populists seeking to expropriate the expropriators. Wall Street could point out that everybody has always wanted “theirs,” including Nazis, Bolsheviks, and French revolutionaries known today as “The Terror.”

The Occupiers can do better. They are better.

The Occupy movement can do better especially by adopting the steady state economy as its macroeconomic policy goal. That means an economy with stabilized levels of production and consumption, which means stabilizing population and per-person consumption. It means an economy that fits on Earth without threatening present and future generations with its overbearing, bloating size. It means an economy of stable size that, when accepted by national governments and sought in international diplomacy, replaces war as a mode of getting “theirs.”

Only sound economic diplomacy — steady statesmanship — can ensure that everyone gets enough without killing thy neighbor. Wall Street doesn’t get that. To the corporations and banks, the world is a china shop to buck around in, and good luck to the kicked.

The ball is in the Occupiers court. They’ve got to concern themselves with more than the local food, zombies, and police. Occupiers must decide if they really want to distinguish themselves from the growth-at-all-costs corporations, banks, Democrats and Republicans that really and permanently occupy Wall Street. Can they distinguish themselves with steady statesmanship?

I think they can, and I’m one of them!

Why Do So Many People Believe in the Fantasy of Infinite Growth on a Finite Planet?

by Rob Dietz

How do you feel about the economy these days? How about the environment? Do you think we’re sitting in a better spot than we were ten, twenty, or thirty years ago? It’s hard to find folks who are satisfied with either economic or environmental conditions. In the first place, the way we run the economy is producing appalling results. We have a mix of financial fiascos, unacceptable unemployment, and a dismal disparity between the haves and the have-nots. And if you’re not soiling yourself (or at least somewhat concerned) about what’s happening on land, sea and air, then you’re not paying much attention to the omnipresent signs of environmental breakdown.

Each day it becomes more apparent that we are on a misguided mission. Pursuit of perpetual economic growth is not a winning proposition for a lasting prosperity. Building a bigger economy can make sense in some circumstances, but always aiming to build a bigger economy means taking an ever-bigger chunk out of the earth’s ecosystems and the life-support services they provide. Why, then, do so many people believe in the fantasy of infinite growth on a finite planet? Is it because we can’t come up with a better idea? Is it because the rich and powerful have trapped the rest of us in their web of conspiracy? Is it because people are hopelessly greedy and materialistic?

At various times and places we might answer these questions affirmatively, but we can more commonly answer, “No, no, and no.” Putting aside conspiracy theories for the moment, there are three honest (but bogus) reasons why we pursue economic growth past the point of effectiveness and reason.

Bogus Reason #1: We think we have to have economic growth to create jobs.

People, and especially politicians, want jobs. We’ve used the blunt tool of economic growth to create jobs for decades, but do we really need economic growth to have good jobs? It’s true that there are typically more job openings in a growing economy, but there are other, less costly ways to make sure jobs are available. Growth, however, gives corporate elites an easy out. They can point to economic growth as the job creator while doing what they want without considering the impacts of their decisions on jobs.

If jobs are really the priority, then we wouldn’t replace people with machinery. And we wouldn’t eliminate service jobs to shift more and more burden onto people to serve themselves. My friend Chris works as a gas station attendant and provides a valuable service pumping gas for customers. He wouldn’t have a job, however, if he lived elsewhere. He happens to live in Oregon where the law says that only professional attendants can pump gas. In most states, gas station attendants have been replaced by customer labor and credit card readers. This sort of substitution has become commonplace in the name of efficiency — policy makers find it easier (or at least they’ve found it easier in the past) to avoid considering jobs explicitly. Just grow the economy and let Chris find a job elsewhere — that’s just the way it goes if his job is eliminated and the customer is forced to pick up the slack.

The truth is that we can have good jobs without producing and consuming evermore stuff. For starters, we can institute policies to make job-sharing an attainable reality. Many people would gladly trade some salary for more time. We can also stop the process of eliminating jobs through outsourcing and machinery-for-people swaps. Of course stopping this process would require a change in corporate incentives…

Bogus Reason #2: Screwy corporate incentives require growth.

Shareholder corporations are severely flawed. In my household, let’s say my overriding goal is to maximize my earnings. What would I do? I would take the highest paying job I could get. I certainly wouldn’t be involved in public policy or a not-for-profit enterprise. I wouldn’t spend much time with my wife or daughter — that would be time away from my career, and it could eat into my earnings (cue the Cat’s in the Cradle). If the goal is so single-focused, the results aren’t surprising. Profit maximization, whether it occurs in my household or in a corporation, produces perverse outcomes.

We know this about shareholder corporations. We know there are better ways to set up productive enterprises that have more worthy goals, but we don’t make the change. The reason is that we are addicted to two things corporations do well. First, we’re addicted to consumer novelty. We’ve gotta have the latest and greatest. People chase after I-phones, I-pods, I-pads, and plenty of other I-wants. Second, we’re addicted to receiving unearned income from investments in stocks or mutual funds. People who can afford it are invested in corporations. Their personal wealth is tied to the ability of corporations to grow. We’ve become accustomed to the idea of passive investment — we put extra money into an account and do absolutely nothing but watch the size of the account get bigger. Are we really entitled to get something for nothing?

Bogus Reason #3: We refuse to pay attention to the downsides of economic growth.

Few people are studying ecology and understanding how economic growth is degrading environmental resources. In fact, a whopping 21% percent of college students are business majors. And as Dr. Seuss noted in his classic book, The Lorax, “Business is business, and business must grow!” While we continue to tempt fate by disrupting and dismantling natural systems that we only partially understand, our attention is locked on the results of reality TV shows, Tiger Woods’s sex life, Jennifer Anniston’s and Justin Bieber’s haircuts, fairytale weddings of figurehead monarchs, and other matters of critical importance.

While we’re failing to pay attention, those who benefit most from growth — the corporate elites — will keep on doing what they do, and they’ll keep on selling it to the rest of us. If we don’t start asking, “why?” real soon, our kids will one day be asking “How did we let this happen?”

¡Buenas noticias! ¡La recuperación económica se frena!

Publicado por Dave Gardner, director del documental de próximo estreno GrowthBusters

Artículo original traducido del Inglés al Español por Bosco Gámiz.

Las noticias económicas del pasado viernes fueron bastante positivas. El crecimiento anual del PIB de EE.UU. fue inferior al uno por ciento en el primer semestre de 2011.

Sin embargo, me atrevería a decir que …ehmm, un 99,9 por ciento de todo el mundo considera esto una mala noticia. El New York Times [1] lo calificó como “paso de tortuga”. Periodistas y comentaristas de todo el mundo con toda probabilidad están escribiendo palabras como debilidad, anemia, malestar general, sombrío, triste, abatimiento, y el estancamiento.

Entonces ¿qué tiene de bueno? ¿Acaso me produce un placer perverso y morboso ver a mis compañeros humanos desempleados, ahogados en sus hipotecas, o comiendo en comedores de beneficencia? No, no me lo produce. Las consecuencias de la recesión son reales; es doloroso, y es triste. Sin embargo, que el PIB sea constante o que baje un poco, no es una mala noticia. Tampoco es la caída en el gasto de los consumidores [2] que se dio a conocer el martes.

Aunque muchos de los impactos de la recesión son trágicos, son la cara negativa de adaptación a una nueva realidad: el fin del crecimiento. Son una parte necesaria de una fase temporal. Podríamos llamarlo la fase de crisálida, hasta que nos transformamos en algo más bello.

Considere estos titulares de los últimos dos años. ¿Son buenas o malas noticias?

  • La recesión pone a los bebés en espera
  • Movimiento por casas pequeñas prospera en medio de crisis inmobiliaria
  • Se construyen menos casas durante el frenazo de la economía
  • El uso mundial de carbón se estanca a pesar del creciente mercado chino e indio
  • Total Municipal Waste Generation Dropped
  • Caída de la generación residuos en el municipio
  • La contaminación por carbono de la UE cae
  • GM cierra la fábrica donde se producen los Hummer
  • Gasoline Spike Fuels Surge in U.S. Bicycle Sales
  • La subida de gasolina en EE.UU. aumenta las ventas de bicicletas
  • El tamaño medio las casas en EEUU se estanca tras 30 años de continuo crecimiento
  • El gasto en publicidad disminuye
  • Las aerolíneas dejan en tierra más del 11% de sus aviones
  • Los implantes mamarios se desinflan junto con la economía
  • Más de 400 de congresos cancelados en Las Vegas
  • El mercado de segunda vivienda cae un 30%

Si leemos estos titulares a través de una lente arcaica – la visión del mundo propia del siglo pasado en el que el crecimiento es el Santo Grial – estas historias parecen malas noticias. Pero a través de una lente más moderna, del siglo 21, que valora la verdadera sostenibilidad, son el anuncio de un mundo que se ralentiza hacia un nivel responsable de actividad humana.

Piensen en ello. Casas más pequeñas significa menos deforestación, menos hábitat partido en subdivisiones, menos hormigón (cuya producción emite mucho CO2, y menos espacios vitales que calentar o enfriar (una vez más, reducción de emisiones de CO2). Un menor uso del carbón es una buena noticia en el aprtado de gases de efecto invernadero – como lo son los aviones en tierra, no más Hummers y el cambio a favor de las bicicletas. Curiosamente no vemos señales de que los políticos, los expertos y los periodistas estén pensando tan en serio acerca de los temas.

No soy el primero en reconocer la recesión como una oportunidad. Grandes mentes como Gus Speth y David Korten están haciendo todo lo posible para convertir esta recesión en una corrección del rumbo. “¿Por qué esta crisis puede ser nuestra mejor oportunidad para construir una nueva economía” de Korten [3], y “Hacia una nueva economía y una nueva política” de Speth [4] son buenos ejemplos de esto. Incluso Jay Leno se ha apuntado, felicitando al Presidente George W. Bush por frenar la economía en 2008 y por tanto hacer más a favor de la lucha contra el cambio climático que Al Gore. Por supuesto que los impactos del crecimiento económico afectan a mucho más que el clima. Nuestra actividad económica en aumento está causando la destrucción del hábitat, la extinción de especies y contaminación [5], y está liquidando recursos críticos como el suelo fértil.

No conozco a ningún periodista que buscase a Speth, a Korten, a Daly, a Czech, a Victor o a Heinberg para contrastar una visión alternativa de las noticias del viernes. Una historia sobre la fusión de los hielos incluiría comentarios de parte de auténticos científicos del clima y de parte de negacionistas del cambio climático. Pero en la historia que conocemos sobre el PIB no hay discusiones en las redacciones para garantizar todos los puntos de vista – nadie que dijera lo buena noticia que es que el producto interior bruto se pueda estar acercando a un estado estacionario. Se supone que crecimiento del PIB es una buena noticia y la contracción económica es una mala noticia – para todo el mundo. Ni siquiera se les ocurre cuestionar esa suposición. La fe ciega en la antigua visión del mundo todavía tiene un férreo agarre sobre los periodistas y editores. Esto tiene que cambiar.

¡Quiero ver la mariposa!

Dave Gardner es el realizador del documental, GrowthBusters, que se estrena a finales de octubre. La campaña de esta película sin ánimo de lucro en Kickstarter [6] para recaudar fondos se encuentra en su última semana. Para más información sobre la película o para organizar una proyección, visite [7]. David puede ser contactado en



[2] https://steadystate.orgdrop in consumer spending







Good News: Economic Recovery Stalls!

by Dave Gardner, director of the upcoming documentary GrowthBusters

Economic news last Friday was quite positive. Annualized U.S. GDP growth was less than one percent in the first half of 2011.

However, I would hazard a guess that, oh, some 99.9 percent of the world considered this bad news. It was characterized in the New York Times as a “snail’s pace.” Journalists and commentators around the world are predictably typing out words like weak, anemic, malaise, gloomy, bleak, doldrums and stagnation.

So why would I celebrate? Do I get perverse, morbid pleasure at seeing my fellow humans unemployed, upside down in their mortgages, or dining at soup kitchens? I do not. The fallout of the recession is real, it’s painful, and it’s sad. But steady or declining GDP is not bad news. Nor is the drop in consumer spending reported Tuesday.

While many impacts of the recession are tragic, these are the pains of adjusting to a new reality: the end of growth. They are a necessary part of a temporary phase. We might call it the cocoon phase, as we metamorphose into something more beautiful.

Consider these headlines from the past two years. Are they good news or bad?

  • Recession Puts Babies on Hold
  • Tiny House Movement Thrives Amid Real Estate Bust
  • Home Production Falls as Economy Languishes
  • Global Coal Use Stagnates Despite Growing Chinese and Indian Markets
  • Total Municipal Waste Generation Dropped
  • Home Depot Calls a Halt to Rapid Expansion
  • European Union Carbon Pollution Drops
  • GM to Close Hummer
  • Gasoline Spike Fuels Surge in U.S. Bicycle Sales
  • Bottled Water Consumption Growth Slows
  • 30-Year Growth Spurt Ends for Average American House Size
  • Ad Spending Down
  • Airlines Ground More Than 11% of Their Jets
  • Breast Implants are Deflating Along With the Economy
  • More Than 400 Meetings in Las Vegas Recently Cancelled
  • 2nd Home Market Declined 30%

Looking at these headlines through an archaic lens, last century’s worldview that growth is the Holy Grail, these stories seemed like bad news. But through a more modern, 21st century lens that values true sustainability, they herald a world slowing down toward a responsible level of human activity.

Think about it. Smaller houses mean less deforestation, less habitat converted to subdivisions, less concrete (production of which emits significant CO2), and less living space to heat or cool (again reducing CO2 emissions). Less coal use is also good news in the greenhouse gas department — as are grounded jets, no more Hummers and a switch to bicycles. Strangely we see no signs that politicians, pundits or journalists are thinking this deeply about the subjects.

I’m not the first to recognize this recession as an opportunity. Great minds like Gus Speth and David Korten are doing their best to turn this recession into a course correction. Korten’s Why This Crisis May Be Our Best Chance to Build a New Economy, and Speth’s Towards a New Economy and a New Politics are good examples of this. Even Jay Leno got into the act, congratulating President George W. Bush in 2008 for doing more to fight climate change than Al Gore — by slowing the economy. Of course the impacts of economic growth reach far beyond the climate. Our increasing economic activity is causing habitat destruction, species extinction and pollution; and it is liquidating critical resources like fertile soil.

I’m aware of no journalist who sought out Speth, Korten, Daly, Czech, Victor or Heinberg for an alternative view on Friday’s news. A story about ice melting would include comments from both real climate scientists and climate change deniers. But for this GDP story there was no discussion in the newsrooms about getting the other side — a quote about how terrific it is that gross domestic product may be settling toward a steady state. They assume GDP growth is good news and economic contraction is bad news — for everyone. It doesn’t even occur to them to question that assumption. Blind faith in the old worldview still has a tight grip on the reporters and editors. This needs to change.

I look forward to seeing the butterfly!

Dave Gardner is the filmmaker behind the documentary, GrowthBusters, which premieres in late October. The nonprofit film’s final fundraising campaign on Kickstarter is in its last week. For more information about the film or to organize a screening, visit Dave can be reached at

The Full Seas Act and the College of the 21st Century

by Brian Czech

Brian Czech PhotoIf we aren’t living in an “educable moment,” then we must be dumber than a doggone boot.  Financial collapse, fiscal crisis, skyrocketing gas prices, global warming, revolutions in crowded countries, unemployment all around… let’s graduate from the College of the 21st Century and recognize the old kindergarten lessons about limits to growth were right after all.  All that stuff they handed us later about perpetually growing the “information economy” was like a loosy-goosy high school course conceived by some ideological school board.  Sometimes it takes a hard-core college course to get back to reality, and now we’re all enrolled whether we like it or not.

We just can’t have a perpetually growing population, perpetually growing consumption, or perpetually growing economy.  To think there is no limit to growth on a finite planet (Earth comes to mind) is equivalent to thinking we could have a stabilized economy on a perpetually diminishing planet.  In other words, we could gradually squish the $70 trillion global economy into one continent, then one nation, then one city… you get the picture.  It’s becoming an “information economy,” right?  So eventually we could squish it into your blackberry, leaving the rest of the planet as a designated wilderness area!

Have you ever heard anything so ludicrous?  Yet it’s precisely, mathematically as ludicrous as thinking we could have a perpetually growing economy on Earth.

All this means we can’t have perpetually growing employment, either.  In fact, to strive for perpetually more jobs on a finite planet is to ensure growing unemployment.  (At least it can’t be “perpetually” growing unemployment, because it can’t get higher than 100%.)

So let’s get down to the brass tacks of amending the Full Employment Act before we flunk Sustainability 101.

The Employment Act of 1946 was amended as the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978.   The original and amended versions are commonly referred to as the “Full Employment Act.”  Among other things, the Full Employment Act calls for “full employment and production,” “increased real income,” and “balanced growth.”  By “balanced,” Congress was calling for economic growth under conditions of general equilibrium.  This means an economy growing in concert; an efficiently allocating, circular flow of money with no big eddies of unemployment.

Now let’s look at the assumptions used to underwrite the Full Employment Act.  One obvious assumption post-World War II would have been population growth.  With a growing population, full employment requires economic growth (growing GDP).  Given the assumption of population growth, then, the goal of the Full Employment Act can be interpreted as a policy for full employment and economic growth.

Of course the other highlight (or lowlight) of the historical context was the Great Depression, during which unemployment not only devastated society, but shocked the pants off neoclassical economists.  Pursuant to an arcane theory called “Say’s Law,” they thought the production of goods would be automatically met with the consumption thereof, so they didn’t believe in a sustained or lengthy period of unemployment.  They didn’t believe in macroeconomic tinkering, either.  Then John Maynard Keynes the Brit changed all that with his General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money.  They called it the “Keynesian revolution” and that’s how we got into deficit spending to “stimulate the economy.”

Fast-forward to our educable moment of financial collapse, fiscal crisis, skyrocketing gas prices, global warming, endangered species, revolutions in crowded countries, unemployment all around, and we see that we need another kind of economic revolution.  We need a steady state revolution to move from the old, unsustainable goal of economic growth to the new, sustainable goal of a steady state economy.  We need to heed the steady state economics of Herman Daly like we heeded the general theory of Keynes.

It took 32 years for the original Employment Act to take on the unsustainable baggage of the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act.  It’s been 32 years since then; time again to retool.  We need to draw up a Full and Sustainable Employment Act, which will have the advantage of a useful acronym, “Full SEA.”  Soon enough it will be known as the “Full Seas Act” to remind us that the “rising tide lifts all boats” metaphor is officially defunct.  There’s no more water to rise the tide, and only so many boats can fit.

The Full Seas Act will clarify that there is a limit to population and economic growth, and therefore a limit to employment.  Within the act, “increased real income” will be amended to “sustainable real income.”  “Balanced growth” will be replaced by “sectoral balance” or “efficient allocation of resources.”  Language will be added to describe that the goal of sustainable, full employment requires stabilization of population and per capita production and consumption.  Pursuant to the goal, the Full Seas Act will establish some commonsense educational programs toward stabilizing population and the ecological footprint of the economy.

The Full Seas Act will also call for an annual Report to the President on Population, Production, Consumption, and Capacity (RPPCC) to help monitor how unsustainable our economy is getting.  With population data from the Census Bureau and production data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, our slim new Bureau of Population and Consumption (BPC) will be calculating our ecological footprint to determine how sustainable our GDP is.  The President will help us matriculate from the College of the 21st Century by summarizing the RPPCC in the annual state of the union address.

Now some might say, “What planet are you on??”  They think a BPC, an RPPCC, and the Full Seas Act are figments of a futuristic imagination.  Well I’m right here on a finite planet called Earth, feet firmly on the ground and living in an educable moment of financial collapse, fiscal crisis, skyrocketing gas prices, global warming, revolutions in crowded countries, and unemployment all around.

What planet are you on?

Obama Steps onto Slippery Slope

by Brian Czech

Brian Czech PhotoHe’s finally done it.  Barack Obama has taken the tantalizing trail to a notoriously slippery slope.  In an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal last week, the President promised, “federal agencies (will) ensure that regulations protect our safety, health and environment while promoting economic growth.”  In other words, we will have our cake (the environment) and eat it too (for economic growth), and federal agencies will be there to dish it all up.

Obama was explaining the executive order he issued that day (January 18) and touted in the State of the Union address.  The order was clearly designed with political convenience in mind, and who could begrudge him a bit of that?  He is, after all, a politician.  However, the order – and the rhetoric used to describe it – could tarnish his legacy as a true defender of the environment and the economy.

For much of his first year in the White House, the President steered clear of fallacious win-win rhetoric.  His economic and environmental agendas had clear and separate goals.  His economic focus was on rescuing the financial system and creating jobs.  He seldom used the phrase “economic growth,” and there was even some evidence that he supported a “paradigm shift” away from unsustainable growth toward a truly sustainable steady state economy.  Meanwhile, he promised to protect the environment, period, and the BP oil spill gave him a platform (pardon the pun) to put the environment first.

Some would argue that Obama was necessarily promoting economic growth when he bailed out the banks and called for job creation.  But they wouldn’t necessarily be right.  Bailing out banks and saving the insurance industry was necessary for stabilizing the financial system, which needed to happen with or without economic growth.  It was needed especially to protect the modest lives of relatively innocent borrowers and customers (even though wealthier swindlers benefited too).

As for jobs, it is true that GDP growth is seen as a job creator through the lens of conventional economics.  Technically, though, more jobs can be created while capital expenditures decline.  In other words, employment can increase without growing GDP, and a president can call for more jobs without promoting economic growth.  Such “labor intensification” has its limits, naturally enough, but it can solve short-term unemployment problems while more important issues are dealt with.

And what issues are more important than full employment?  For starters, how about full employment for your kids, say five years from now, or for your grandkids in a couple of decades?  How about the environment – air, water, soil, minerals, timber, fisheries, etc. – the foundation and building blocks of the economy?  How about the other species on the planet?

Unfortunately, it’s too easy for critics to hone straight in on “other species” and rant, “Who cares about other species – we’re talking about the economy!”  But we better care, because these other species are like canaries in the coalmine of the grandkids’ economy, and we’ve been shooting them down like targets at a county fair.  Splat goes the spotted owl, poof goes the polar bear; 1,372 federally listed species on the ropes and, with very rare exceptions, down for the count.  And what took the environmental building blocks from these unfortunate flora and fauna?

It’s not a mystery.  The causes of endangerment in the U.S. are well-documented.  They’re a veritable Who’s Who of the American economy.  They reflect a human economy out of control, sweeping across the countryside, wiping out the economy of nature and using up the building blocks faster than new ones can be crafted by Mother Nature or imitated by Monsanto.

Yet for decades we’ve been subjected to the rhetoric that “there is no conflict between growing the economy and protecting the environment.”  Though developed by environmentalists hoping to counter opposition to environmental protection, such rhetoric backfires incessantly.  It results in policies (such as regulation-loosening executive orders) that allow us to pluck the grandkids’ goose while presuming to protect it.

Fortunately, the days of this rhetoric are numbered.  Recent research has demonstrated conclusively the fundamental trade-off between economic growth and environmental protection, as so many prominent scientists have agreed.  The trade-off is fundamental because it is based on physics and ecology.

What we need now is a president who will parlay this knowledge into public support for policy reform.  The President can clarify once and for all that we can’t have our cake and eat it to.  Can you almost hear him?  “We need to balance our concerns about environmental protection with our concerns about full employment, and that doesn’t square with growth everlasting.  What we need is a healthy, steady state economy balanced with a healthy environment, not an overgrown economy and a shrunken environment.”

How would a president and other policy makers help concoct a steady state economy, even if it was publicly supported?  First, policies designed to “grow the economy” would be discontinued.  Next, steady state policy tools (such as resource capping) would be employed.  There is no shortage of policy options.  But the horse must come before the cart.  The steady state economy has to be a goal with widespread public support before a suitable policy framework can be constructed.  Presidential leadership is needed to generate such support.  Then, with widespread public support, a steady state economy would be engendered from the “demand side,” too, with temperance trumping conspicuous consumption.  In other words, with widespread public support, less policy reform would be required for establishing a sustainable steady state.

It’s not too late for Obama to be the Truth Teller in Chief.  He’s tested the slippery slope of win-win rhetoric – gotten his foot muddied a bit – but he hasn’t committed himself to a mudslide yet.  The trade-off between economic growth and environmental protection is perhaps the most inconvenient of all truths to acknowledge, but it’s better than a full slide down the slippery slope of green growth rhetoric.  That could be a legacy breaker.