Support a Sustainable Economy
The way we run the economy in the U.S. and around the world is damaging the life-support systems of the planet. The grow-at-all costs mindset is creating profound environmental problems (like climate disruption, species extinctions and deforestation to name a few). At the same time, our financial systems have entered a crisis mode as people are losing their jobs, homes and security. In the quest for continuous economic growth, the nations of the world are locked in a tragic competition for the planet's remaining energy and natural resources.
A better way is possible. We need to show support for a sustainable and fair economy -- a steady state economy with relatively stable population and consumption. We need to focus on development rather than growth, getting better rather than getting bigger. Urge President Obama's top advisors to make real changes by signing the following position on economic growth...
Whereas:
1) Economic growth, as defined in standard economics textbooks, is an increase in the production and consumption of goods and services, and;
2) Economic growth occurs when there is an increase in the multiplied product of population and per capita consumption, and;
3) The global economy grows as an integrated whole consisting of agricultural, extractive, manufacturing, and services sectors that require physical inputs and produce wastes, and;
4) Economic growth is often and generally indicated by increasing real gross domestic product (GDP) or real gross national product (GNP), and;
5) Economic growth has been a primary, perennial goal of many societies and most governments, and;
6) Based upon established principles of physics and ecology, there is a limit to economic growth, and;
7) There is increasing evidence that global economic growth is having negative effects on long-term ecological and economic welfare...
Therefore, we take the position that:
1) There is a fundamental conflict between economic growth and environmental protection (for example, biodiversity conservation, clean air and water, atmospheric stability), and;
2) There is a fundamental conflict between economic growth and the ecological services underpinning the human economy (for example, pollination, decomposition, climate regulation), and;
3) Technological progress has had many positive and negative ecological and economic effects and may not be depended on to reconcile the conflict between economic growth and long-term ecological and economic welfare, and;
4) Economic growth, as gauged by increasing GDP, is an increasingly dangerous and anachronistic goal, especially in wealthy nations with widespread affluence, and;
5) A steady state economy (that is, an economy with a relatively stable, mildly fluctuating product of population and per capita consumption) is a viable alternative to a growing economy and has become a more appropriate goal in large, wealthy economies, and;
6) The long-run sustainability of a steady state economy requires its establishment at a size small enough to avoid the breaching of reduced ecological and economic capacity during expected or unexpected supply shocks such as droughts and energy shortages, and;
7) A steady state economy does not preclude economic development, a dynamic, qualitative process in which different technologies may be employed and the relative prominence of economic sectors may evolve, and;
8) Upon establishing a steady state economy, it would be advisable for wealthy nations to assist other nations in moving from the goal of economic growth to the goal of a steady state economy, beginning with those nations currently enjoying high levels of per capita consumption, and;
9) For many nations with widespread poverty, increasing per capita consumption (or, alternatively, more equitable distributions of wealth) remains an appropriate goal.
The way we run the economy in the U.S. and around the world is damaging the life-support systems of the planet. The grow-at-all costs mindset is creating profound environmental problems (like climate disruption, species extinctions and deforestation to name a few). At the same time, our financial systems have entered a crisis mode as people are losing their jobs, homes and security. In the quest for continuous economic growth, the nations of the world are locked in a tragic competition for the planet's remaining energy and natural resources.
A better way is possible. We need to show support for a sustainable and fair economy -- a steady state economy with relatively stable population and consumption. We need to focus on development rather than growth, getting better rather than getting bigger. Urge President Obama's top advisors to make real changes by signing the following position on economic growth...
Whereas:
1) Economic growth, as defined in standard economics textbooks, is an increase in the production and consumption of goods and services, and;
2) Economic growth occurs when there is an increase in the multiplied product of population and per capita consumption, and;
3) The global economy grows as an integrated whole consisting of agricultural, extractive, manufacturing, and services sectors that require physical inputs and produce wastes, and;
4) Economic growth is often and generally indicated by increasing real gross domestic product (GDP) or real gross national product (GNP), and;
5) Economic growth has been a primary, perennial goal of many societies and most governments, and;
6) Based upon established principles of physics and ecology, there is a limit to economic growth, and;
7) There is increasing evidence that global economic growth is having negative effects on long-term ecological and economic welfare...
Therefore, we take the position that:
1) There is a fundamental conflict between economic growth and environmental protection (for example, biodiversity conservation, clean air and water, atmospheric stability), and;
2) There is a fundamental conflict between economic growth and the ecological services underpinning the human economy (for example, pollination, decomposition, climate regulation), and;
3) Technological progress has had many positive and negative ecological and economic effects and may not be depended on to reconcile the conflict between economic growth and long-term ecological and economic welfare, and;
4) Economic growth, as gauged by increasing GDP, is an increasingly dangerous and anachronistic goal, especially in wealthy nations with widespread affluence, and;
5) A steady state economy (that is, an economy with a relatively stable, mildly fluctuating product of population and per capita consumption) is a viable alternative to a growing economy and has become a more appropriate goal in large, wealthy economies, and;
6) The long-run sustainability of a steady state economy requires its establishment at a size small enough to avoid the breaching of reduced ecological and economic capacity during expected or unexpected supply shocks such as droughts and energy shortages, and;
7) A steady state economy does not preclude economic development, a dynamic, qualitative process in which different technologies may be employed and the relative prominence of economic sectors may evolve, and;
8) Upon establishing a steady state economy, it would be advisable for wealthy nations to assist other nations in moving from the goal of economic growth to the goal of a steady state economy, beginning with those nations currently enjoying high levels of per capita consumption, and;
9) For many nations with widespread poverty, increasing per capita consumption (or, alternatively, more equitable distributions of wealth) remains an appropriate goal.
Dear Dr. Rouse and Dr. Holdren:
We the undersigned believe that perpetual economic growth is impossible on a finite planet. We base this belief on fundamental principles of physics (the first and second laws of thermodynamics) and ecology (trophic structures and population dynamics). We also believe that the costs of economic growth have surpassed the benefits as evidenced by profound environmental problems, such as climate disruption, resource shortages, and loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services.
We are concerned that U.S. economic policy is aimed at stimulating growth when it is not a viable goal and will not provide the benefits we want. Even with the environmental problems and threats to the life-support systems of the planet, we still have increasing unemployment and a widening gap between the haves and the have-nots. We do not believe that more growth policies will free us from this predicament. In fact, the economic growth witnessed over the last few decades has exacerbated rather than solved these problems. In light of these facts, we take the following position...
Whereas:
1) Economic growth, as defined in standard economics textbooks, is an increase in the production and consumption of goods and services, and;
2) Economic growth occurs when there is an increase in the multiplied product of population and per capita consumption, and;
3) The global economy grows as an integrated whole consisting of agricultural, extractive, manufacturing, and services sectors that require physical inputs and produce wastes, and;
4) Economic growth is often and generally indicated by increasing real gross domestic product (GDP) or real gross national product (GNP), and;
5) Economic growth has been a primary, perennial goal of many societies and most governments, and;
6) Based upon established principles of physics and ecology, there is a limit to economic growth, and;
7) There is increasing evidence that global economic growth is having negative effects on long-term ecological and economic welfare...
Therefore, we take the position that:
1) There is a fundamental conflict between economic growth and environmental protection (for example, biodiversity conservation, clean air and water, atmospheric stability), and;
2) There is a fundamental conflict between economic growth and the ecological services underpinning the human economy (for example, pollination, decomposition, climate regulation), and;
3) Technological progress has had many positive and negative ecological and economic effects and may not be depended on to reconcile the conflict between economic growth and long-term ecological and economic welfare, and;
4) Economic growth, as gauged by increasing GDP, is an increasingly dangerous and anachronistic goal, especially in wealthy nations with widespread affluence, and;
5) A steady state economy (that is, an economy with a relatively stable, mildly fluctuating product of population and per capita consumption) is a viable alternative to a growing economy and has become a more appropriate goal in large, wealthy economies, and;
6) The long-run sustainability of a steady state economy requires its establishment at a size small enough to avoid the breaching of reduced ecological and economic capacity during expected or unexpected supply shocks such as droughts and energy shortages, and;
7) A steady state economy does not preclude economic development, a dynamic, qualitative process in which different technologies may be employed and the relative prominence of economic sectors may evolve, and;
8) Upon establishing a steady state economy, it would be advisable for wealthy nations to assist other nations in moving from the goal of economic growth to the goal of a steady state economy, beginning with those nations currently enjoying high levels of per capita consumption, and;
9) For many nations with widespread poverty, increasing per capita consumption (or, alternatively, more equitable distributions of wealth) remains an appropriate goal.
We are asking the Council of Economic Advisors, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, and President Obama to consider the merits of a steady state economy with relatively stable population and per capita consumption. We want to participate in an economy that is characterized by sustainable scale, fair distribution of wealth, and efficient allocation of resources. Ecological economists like Herman Daly have demonstrated with scientific rigor the futility (not to mention the physical impossibility) of perpetual growth. We want to get started on the transition to sustainability while we are in a position to manage how it will proceed.
Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this request.
Please and thanks!!!!
See my article on the topic of a steady state economy at: http://sedona.biz/globalization-natural-limits0109.htm
A responsible, phased transition to a steady-state economy - one that buffers vulnerable countries and communities - is the only route to a sustainable society. Ecological economics is at the nexus of environmental conservation, public health, and international development, but we must dramatically increase outreach and education efforts if it is to become a policy priority within the necessary time-frame.
Another Disgusting Example of Undemocratic Government & Big Business Corruption, wasteful spending, discrimination and Crimes against Humanity!!”. AS WELL AS GOVERNMENTS TAKING FROM THE POOR AND GIVING TO THE RICH AND THEMSELVES. Ridiculous Unconstitutional Pork barrel Policy Twisting Environmental Hazard Oil Fanatics!! We Will All Distribute your idiotic to Big Media and Start Letting those “Useless Talking Heads on TV News” know what’s really worth reporting to the world… And they will Report it as we will also through our blogs.. … … I’m sickened and disgusted. I’m sickened and disgusted. I’m sickened and disgusted. I’m sickened and disgusted. I’m sickened and disgusted. I’m sickened and disgusted. I’m sickened and disgusted. I’m sickened and disgusted. I’m sickened and disgusted. It's to bad you're not interested in Windmills, putting them up all over would create Green Jobs all over... It's to bad you're not interested in saving the Animals of the world, because that would also create green jobs. It's to bad you're not interested in Cultivating Marijuana Trees because that would create Green Money. It’s to bad you’re not interested in Helping the Homeless and the Hungry with Socialized Programs, because that create Green Jobs and Green Money, and It's just so to damn bad..
We must turn our focus away from growth before we go too far beyond this limit and bust. We must focus on sustaining what we have now. And in doing so we will focus on the quality of our lives, redistribute wealth to those who require it for basic necessities, and sustain our environment for our children’s future.
It would seem that rapidly depleting energy resources (e.g., oil) will make maintaining even a zero-growth, steady state (let alone, growth-based) economy next to impossible. Adoption of low carbon, renewable energy on an almost unimaginable scale is necessary to prevent economic, geopolitical, military, and climate catastrophe.
This is the only option.
Don't fix the symptom! Solve for a steady state!
Let's leave behind our boom and bust economy and learn to live sustainably.
The natural environment is important to us in many more ways that meets the eye. By looking at the relationships between species and abiological features of natural ecosystems and determining how they work in concert to produce a sustainable ecosystem, humans have learned some valuable lessons regarding how we might live in a sustainable way. The basis for a Steady State Economy is this knowledge of natural ecosystems. Please help us start the very gradual push to institute additional components of sustainability into our economic system following the Steady State Economy model.
Let's get on with it!
The Federal Reserve must go. Corporate personhood must go. Relocalize economies. Our leaders must stop trying to sustain the unsustainable. www.webofdebt.com
You are right to think that it is undesirable to have absolutely free markets. Please do the right thing by expanding this thinking to our impact on the Earth. Treat the planet, our life support system, as our life support system. There is no such thing as smart growth. That is just less dumb growth.
We are clearly in a state of global chaos, and its important that we put coherent voices -- sustainable voices -- front and center during this tumult, so that when new complex dynamic systems begin to self-aggregate, sustainability is a powerful attractor. A steady state economy is obviously a part of sustainable living scenarios for the planet (along with stabilized population and a host of other imperatives).
We must recognize the benefits we receive from nature, and the economic costs we are externalizing onto nature. All the economic growth in the world cannot pay for the services provided to us by trees, by the oceans, by the soil, by complex biosystems of regional animals, plants, & sources of fresh water. The Earth is an interconnected web of systems containing real wealth because it is living. When we extract and consume more and more, for endless economic "growth", at an increasing pace, for a spiraling population, we are killing the only source of real wealth (life) that we have. This must stop. To not stop is madness. It is a collective death wish that pulls us like a black hole toward terracide and humanicide. At some point, we will cross the event horizon, from which there is no return. Please, please have the foresight to see this and choose sustainable development, instead of endlessly increasing consumption, as the goal and purpose of our economic system. We need transformational thinking, not more debt, more complexity, more waste, and more imaginary money being made & transferred. Feel free to contact me for further discussion about these ideas. Thank you.
Zero-growth is incompatible with a global market economy based on economies of scale profits. Therefore, we have to come up with a new, more locally-based, economic system! To advocate for a such a thing in a country like the US seems to me futile, but utopias are good -they stir action-, even if they cannot reached within our lifespan. I wonder though if we already have a clear image of this utopia (the alternative economic system)...
Courage is the road less tread.
A finite planet, with finite resources, cannot support infinite growth. Continuing to believe in the economic growth paradigm is no longer an ethical option, as it will surely rob our children of a livable future.
Steady State Economics is needed now more than ever. Measurement of our wealth must transition into a genuine wealth indicator alongside this shift.
We will not improve matters for anyone on this planet until we completely reject the current economic paradigm, centered around consumption, and replace it with one that is based on the biological realities of life on earth.
I cannot stress enough how critical it is that we replace our pursuit of perpetual economic growth with a sustainable, steady-state model. We clearly cannot preserve ecosystems or reduce carbon emissions without it.
It's really important that we stop the "growth at all costs" mindset that is prevalent in business and government. A finite planet cannot accommodate unending growth.
A steady-state economy is indeed necessary for this country, immediately.
A steady state economy, or minimizing our use of natural resources, is what I have been committed to for a long time. It seems pretty self-evident that this is the only prudent way to proceed.
