Growth and change: the debate continues

The environmental case for balanced, low or zero economic growth and a stable state economy is strong, in terms of reducing impacts from ever-expanding resource use. However, there are problems. Competitive pressures, one of the main drivers for growth, are not all bad.  The need to compete with rivals in the market place leads to technical innovation- so as to cut costs. In itself, cutting costs by reducing resource use and waste, and increasing efficiency and productivity, are good things, as long as that is achieved by technology improvement, not by increasing the level of exploitation of labour or the ecosystem.  But if its done just to expand sales and sustain profits in the face of others trying to do the same, regardless of real needs and planetary limits, then we are headed for social and eco-disaster. 

In a stable state economy, it would still make sense to improve the efficiency of resource use so that needs could be met while using less resources and minimizing impacts. In a Science as Culture journal paper looking back at the history of Alternative Technology (AT), Peter Harper talked of using efficiency increases ‘to reduce environmental and other impacts’ and sees this as ‘one working definition of AT, shared with steady-state or de-growth proposals for modern economies as a whole’. He contrasts this with the present situation in which he says ‘extra efficiency is invariably used to expand functionality in congenial but ultimately unnecessary directions.’ www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09505431.2016.1164406  

This may only be partly true- the main driver at present is surely to sustain and expand profits and market shares with improved ‘functionality’ only being a means to that end, and with real needs often not being considered.  Under a no-growth ecologically limited needs-based system, technological improvement could allow some increase in what is available for sustainable use, qualitatively and also possibly quantitatively, within the eco-defined limits. That would be a social and ecological decision, not an economic one, although, unless we want to impose some form of totally planned and constrained consumer society, with quota’s and rationing for everything consumed, there may well still be markets and price differentials to enable people to chose amongst qualitatively different products and services, within regulatory eco-limits and subject to fair trading labour protection rules. However, the main driver for innovation would not be commercial success, it would be environmental success and social needs and costs, broadly defined. If consumption is not to be micro-managed, that implies some overall limits, assessment processes and planning frameworks, operating locally, nationally and globally, on the supply side. We can see something like this happening in the emerging global agreements on carbon emissions, although they are fought at every step by those wishing to retain free global markets and unrestricted growth. Assuming this opposition could be overcome, could regulation be expanded effectively and equitably to cover everything? With the best will in the world, regulation can be very bureaucrats and potentially open to corruption…Can that be avoided? Is there an appetite for change?

 Optimists look to the rise of new or revived grass-roots political movements in the West and elsewhere, but the scale of the problem is daunting- going well beyond just eco-issues and with populist movements as likely to go to the right as to the progressive left, given how easy it is to promote simpleminded explanations of what the problems are. We live in troubled times. But that does mean that change is likely. Let’s hope we can make it for the good, with the Green movement playing a key role. That’s one thing that does need to grow. It helps to create a new climate, in all senses. And while there is so much more to do, we should remember just how far we’ve come e.g. in the energy policy area. Even if its still mainly about replacing old tech with new tech, it has cut emissions and the shift in what’s now seen as possible is dramatic: www.mng.org.uk/gh/scenarios.htm As is the shift by the bastions of the old economy, with the Economist saying ‘Britain should cancel its nuclear white elephant and spend the billions on making renewables work’. Next- can they, and the rest of us, look to a change in attitudes to growth and a move to a stable state economy? That debate is a live one: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271506217_Degrowth_A_Vocabulary_for_a_New_Era and  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-4446.12181/full

A key element in the debate is the question of how much lifestyles will have to change Interestingly, in his Science as Culture paper, Peter Harper says that, ‘for entirely pragmatic reasons’ in its Zero Carbon Britain, the Centre of Alternative Technology ‘emphasise technical solutions, and try to avoid the need for lifestyle changes’. He goes on ‘There is no doubt that changes of customary practice will be essential, and that the recent historic period of rapid growth is over. Nevertheless the reports’ abandonment of lifestyle change as the key component is a considerable shift. This distances CAT from the ‘deep green’ parts of the environment movement, who usually cleave to the doctrine that Small is (always) Beautiful’. He adds ‘For some it is a betrayal of hard-fought ideals. For others it signifies a welcome return to the real world. Many at CAT would say it is imply a recognition that we are running out of time. Had the long slow cultural changes called for in the 1970s taken hold and become widespread, all could have been achieved with ‘alternative’ systems. But of course these changes have not spread, and as various global thresholds loom, the responses have to be more rapid, drastic, infrastructural and ‘one-size-fits-all’, and now ‘there is much more concern for whether new systems can be generalised and applied on a wider national scale’.

Harper may have overstated the scale of CAT’s shift: for example, Zero Carbon Britain did talk about the need for dietary change and a shift from land-intensive meat production to create more space more biomass, for energy use: http://zerocarbonbritain.com/en/ But it’s certainly true that many ‘deep greens’ see social change as much more important and appropriate than what some portray as just technology fixes. Whereas in his Science as Culture paper, Harper concluded that although small scale projects and social change were important, ‘it seems unavoidable that ‘high-tech’ must do the heavy lifting, at least in the short term. Thus two different forms of socio-technical transition need to run in parallel’. So it's not all low tech and small scale.  That also seemed to be the conclusion that emerged from the Radical Technology Revisited (RT 2.0) conference in Bristol in Sept- which looked at CAT’s Zero Carbon Britain scenario as one way forward. That certainly included a mix of technology scales. So, although just how much large scale high technology is needed remains unclear, we have moved away from ‘small is (automatically) beautiful’.  But then as was pointed out at RT 2.0, Schumacher didn’t ever say that only small was beautiful: it was a question of context.

Radical Technology 2.0

The 40-year on retrospective conference held in Bristol last Sept, looking at the ideas in the famed Undercurrents ‘Radical Technology’ book and their relevance now, was great fun. Not just a nostalgia fest. And not all about technology- though choices about that shape social choices, or is it vice versa? Certainly, as was clear at the conference, there’s a polarisation between what some call ‘ecomodernism’ and deep green thinking, with tech and society looking very different in each.

The vision offered by some eco-modernists involves centrally run intense technology, based on nuclear plus hydroponics/vertical farming- almost ‘space colonies’ on earth!  With the selling point being that these almost sealed cities can be high tech concentrated population centres, leaving the rest of the ecosystem more or less alone to revert to wilderness. All sorts of problems: a living urban consumerist hell, run by technocrats, with growth central. The other extreme is the very deep green wilderness view, with no growth and low impact tribal groups scattered around using low tech in bioregionally defined pockets. Sounds like Wales as George Monbiot would like it!  Lots of problems there too..it needs low population. 

Less extreme is a mix of smart high tech and decentralisation, but with stablised human activities distributed across the ecosystem, except in a few (large) protected areas, in the belief that we are part of the ecosystem and should remain so as long as we learn to live in it better. Lots of problems- can we balance populations and resources fairly? And limit growth?

RT2 explored some paired down versions of the above:

1 A ‘surprise free innovation’ global scenario in which clever new high tech deals with eco limits and problems and supports continued growth (for some!).

2. A low tech decentralist future, based on sharing and deeply green and humanitarian values. Something most would like, but which may be a long way off.

3. A rapid transition approach based on the best green tech, using CATs Zero Carbon Britain model.

There were no definitive conclusions at RT2, but the debate on the options was lively. No 1 inevitably was pretty unpopular, but might be where we are heading as things stand. For some 2 was lovely but unlikely, except perhaps in niches, although it might spread in time. 3 was maybe more technically credible, but still politically hard to achieve.

There was surprisingly little debate about the technologies themselves. Although some clearly felt that some of those in 1 were suspect, it seemed to be assumed that technology could deliver a viable, if a little quantitatively frugal, lifestyle in 2, and a coherent system in 3. Much less clear was the exact mix, the basic social structure and the scale of the systems it relied on. How much localization? How much high technology? Who decides?

The debate on the way forward seemed to focus mainly on consumption, with, in the energy area, the good news being that some energy consumers are now also energy producers, although these prosumers (and energy co-ops) will of course have to buy in PV kit manufactured somewhere- most probably in China in sweat shops! That opens up all sorts of issues about global trade and working conditions. But also automation. Some say that production can be done by automated plants- as US libertarians like Bookchin and the Goodmans once thought. It seems unlikely, but who knows.  A new work-free world! Though can personal services also be automated? Will we see bands of redundant aromatherapists storming the RT2 Bastille?

The focus on consumption does of course lead back into the debate on growth, a key issue at RT2, and also of course more widely – see my last post. Can it really be halted?

Which brings us back to the deep green view. Technology could help avoid some resource and impact limits, but, it is argued, given a finite planet with limited carrying capacity, no amount of technical fixing could deal with our eco-problems, or our social and political problems, if we remained in a growth-reliant economy based on continued and ever accelerating expansion of resource use. The Guardian came up with a similar view- renewables weren’t enough, big economic system changes were also needed: www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/jul/15/clean-energy-wont-save-us-economic-system-can  

So we are talking about a move to a steady-state global economy: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652615010471

However, as noted above, many RT2 enthusiasts still felt that new cleaner greener technologies could help make this possible -and livable. They could be part of the practical focus for local transitions, enabled by emerging grass roots groups and building up capacity for a more decentralised co-operative society. Radical stuff! Updates on the initiatives and ideas explored were promised: www.radicaltechnology.org

One of the proposed links forward was to the next conference, the 40 years on celebration of the Lucas workers alternative plan, held in Birmingham in November: http://lucasplan.org.uk. In looking for alternatives to job cuts and the dole, the pioneering mid-1970s Lucas Aerospace workers plan had been ahead of the curve, challenging established thinking about what could be produced and what was needed. It identified many social useful product ideas, including a range of alternative energy technologies that have now become mainstream, as we seek to avoid climate change: www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-47fc-The-Lucas-Plan,-then-and-now#.WDr4QFxB_2s

With the social and environmental issues now if anything being even more urgent, current political and economic priorities need to be challenged, and support for, and awareness of, greener approaches to technology is now wider than it was in the 1970s. So the conference asked, what can we learn from this celebrated grass-roots initiative?  Can we do more and better than they did? 

There were some expectations that perhaps were wrong and could not be fulfilled. With Trident in mind, the poster for the conference talked of ‘Jobs Not Bombs’, and depicted Lucas Aerospace as a ‘defence company’, whereas in reality, like British Aerospace now, it was active across the aerospace sector, in civil aviation as well as military systems.  That detail may not matter, but clearly it didn’t make bombs! But like all high tech engineering firms, in theory it could make almost anything. So why not wind turbines and solar systems? Actually it and its parent company Joseph Lucas, had tinkered with ideas like that- Lucas even built a battery electric car.  However, no market existed for that sort of thing at that time. The Lucas workers plan sought to create one, for example by attempting to engage Local Authority support and cash for the alternative heating systems it proposed and calling for government support for other public-sector led projects. That didn’t work - it was a time of cuts. Local Authorities are now if anything even more strapped for cash, but there are some good local projects, often featuring renewables centrally.

A range of local community and trade union groups certainly attended the Birmingham event and some interesting ideas for community transitions and industrial conversion were discussed. It was somewhat more focused than the Radical Technology 2 conference, with a different, more activist and politically committed audience, as you might expect.  There was an interesting debate in Birmingham about automation and its impact on jobs, and also about the role of alternative/radical technology- the main focus of RT2. However, the emphasis in Birmingham was more on political control: www.redpepper.org.uk/what-if-the-workers-were-in-control/ 

So what’s the bottom line? Clearly AT/RT has a place in the transition process, but just switching to new better technology, like renewable energy systems, does not automatically lead to a better society. There are several African and Latin America countries getting near 100% of their power from hydro (Norway too), but that doesn’t make them into utopias. Scotland, now getting over 50% of its power from renewables like wind, was maybe a more progressive country than England, but this technological commitment was a result of that political position, not its cause. Nevertheless, a practical technological focus can provide a tangible context for local action, campaigning and direct involvement via co-ops and conversion plans. It is about a real physical change in how things are done and, to an extent, who decides on how they are done. That seemed to be accepted at both of gatherings, in Birmingham and Bristol. So, although very different, they did come to some similar views, at least on the potential role of technology in social and political change.

An end to growth?

Growth is a dominant economic narrative. But it may be over in the UK and anyway isn’t good for us, says green activist Sandy Irving. He sees the 'shrinking' British economy as creating a real test for Greens. ‘In years of boom, it is easier to critique growth and call for another path. It is harder when actually faced with a 'recession'. The fact remains that we in the UK live, as a collectivity, in a three-planet economy, even if products are unevenly distributed, it is self-evidently unsustainable since there is only one planet.’

So he says the prime need is ‘shrinkage in total economic activity, the very thing that the Bank of England, all orthodox economists and accountants and most politicians, with the widespread support amongst the public, want to reverse. They cry out for action "to get the economy going" (i.e. growing). Yet such growth will doom any chance of combating the climate emergency and the many other symptoms of ecological ruination ahead. There is also solid evidence that, beyond a certain point physical growth creates more social negatives than pluses (sometimes called 'affluenza'). It is evident that across nature, from our very own bodies to ecosystem development, that growth must give way to a steady-state’.

He admits that ‘there is some scope for greater efficiency and better management in the economy. But they cannot get round the limits to growth. Indeed, via positive feedback and the 'rebound effect', efficiency gains are routinely cancelled out. Technological breakthroughs tend to bring all sorts of downsides’. So he claims ‘economic shrinkage is actually the name of the game if there is going to be any chance of building a sustainable society. The selling of that message, unpalatable in many quarters, is another matter, one separate from the logic and evidence behind the message itself. The challenge is to find ways of making such contraction palatable’.                                 

He goes on ‘One way is to focus on quality of life, on matters such as health, community vitality, basic security, and, yes, happiness. Japan has had, roughly speaking, a comparative steady-state economy for a number of years, albeit one at too high a level of economic throughput. In wartime, there have been strong limits on what people can consume. It does not necessarily bring social collapse if the trappings of consumerism shrink. In Britain many people were actually healthier during the Second World War, if the deaths and injuries of war are put on one side) Acceptance is easier if fairness in distribution of a more limited largesse is ensured. Our tragedy is that most people cannot/will not see that today we face threats on a scale even greater than those of wartime. Certainly, the impact of unchecked climate change will be greater than World War 2’

He adds that ‘a smaller economy is not only needed to meet that challenge. More positively, there could still be investment in certain activities that really do deliver social well-being and environmental security. Sustainable economy activity will also tend to be more labour-intensive compared to ones dependent on high inputs of fossil fuel energy and comparatively scarce raw materials (high grade metal ores, rare earths etc). To that extent it is the better option for job creation (alongside work-sharing). A smaller economy would leave more physical space for non-human species, so many of whom are now threatened by extinction’.

He concludes ‘the current threat of a recession will test whether those who in the past have talked about a 3-planet economy and its unsustainability really meant what they were saying or whether it was all just hot air. Instead of calling for the economy to be 'kickstarted', we should be pushing for radically different policies, for better not bigger, e.g. http://steadystate.org/discover/policies/’                                                                                                               

There are some alternatives to, or at least modified versions of, this deep green view. For example, if the focus is set worldwide, then some say that, for many of the poor in the world, growth is the only realistic hope of being able to rise above (or even to) subsistence-level existence. That in part is due to the horrifically imbalanced global pattern of wealth, power and access. Change that and maybe the poor would not have to rely on pathetic ‘trickle down’ economics topped up by growth - the main aim of which is of course to maintain high levels of wealth for some by keeping the system expanding. In a global system based on ruthless competition, rival chunks of capital (the assets owned and controlled by companies and the investment capacity of speculators) fight it out for market shares. If the rival companies are all to survive and prosper then the overall global market has to expand. So demand has to be stimulated by any means possible. This process can be tamed a bit (by governments nationally and internationally, pressured by green NGOs) to limit the worst excesses of resource misuse, abuse of the environment and human exploitation, but the world’s affluent consumers continue to feed it, their greed for ‘more’ (ideally at less cost) being enlisted in its support. Attitudinal changes, voluntary simplicity, ethical trade and the like, can help undo some of that, but materialism and ever expanding consumption is so deeply entrenched in our view of what represents a good life, changes may remain marginal, until they are forced on us by adverse environmental or other pressures.

At present, although everyone is complicit, it’s the rich minority who consume most and generate most emissions. That has to change, so the poor can share in a degree of affluence. But its nature also has to change: we all need to change our materialist expectations - and also avoid runaway population growth, or some say even aim for a reduced global population over time, to stay within earth’s carrying capacity. 

In the deep green view, the process of change must happen soon, ideally voluntarily, and anything that offers alternatives that seem to avoid that are dangerous illusions and diversions. So renewables are sometimes portrayed as ‘technical fixes’ avoiding the need to reduce energy use, while possibly creating new eco-problems, especially if introduced in unchanged social and economic contexts. Even energy saving technologies are sometimes seen as illusory: we just need to use less.  That’s not to say that such things will not be valuable in the steady-state, balanced and decentralised society they look to, but on their own they are not sufficient- we need radical and global social and cultural change. To a small degree that has happened: green values are now quite widespread and some of that is due to the emergence and adoption of new eco-technologies. But in the main all they do is enable life to go on much as before, with the new technologies in the main being produced and sold in the same old way. Some market relations may have changed, challenging some parts of the supply/retail system (the big utilities), but PV solar domestic ‘prosumers’ are still consumers, buying in PV kit probably manufactured in sweat shops in China!  

Can we do better? What tools do we have? In the energy context, the basic technologies exist now, or are being developed, but we are only just starting to put them together in ways that challenge the old economic model, via grass roots initiatives, energy co-ops and community owned distribution grids. It’s patchy. Germany is a leader, and local Transition movements are spreading. But its huge task. Though they can challenge rapacious competition, these local initiatives don’t really tackle the key issues of production and consumption-led growth. To take this all on fully would require a wider movement for social, cultural and political change. A big project.