Great article!

We can support a more sustainable economy not based on the damaging 'growth' model.
The organizations CASSE www.steadystate.org and the UK-based, peak-oil-oriented Transition Towns Initiatives, which now has a US arm www.transitionus.org, are activists on this issue.

FYI At 945am eastern time there will be a live broadcast of a transitions film to address peak oil and climate change being shown at a Transition Network Conference in London.
I will be watching it at http://www.livestream.com/intransition this morning. If you are interested in grass roots local solutions to our global economic problems and have the time you might want to to view it too.

Update: It seems the audio portion of the livestream was not successful. The film will be posted for viewing soon at transitionculture.org

Thanks, Luis, for bringing a very interesting report to our attention!

One thing that stood out to me was the statement

For the author, the goal of creation and training of a “carbon army” of workers for a vast energy program is to restore economic growth "is a different kind of growth, but growth nonetheless.”

There is widespread belief that we can build a new, very expensive industry, just at the time a drop in oil production and the associated drop in credit through the financial system is constricting growth of all kinds. The idea of shifting from "oil" to "renewable electricity" is somehow seen as good and very possible.

There is a double problem--adding the renewable electricity, and adding electric cars and other vehicles. I hadn't thought about the shift in terms of growth, but it is would certainly be growth in one part of the economy.

Has anyone heard of The Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus project?
There is a rapidly growing awareness among the younger generation that this rigged monetary/growth game is over and they know that they aren't going to get their shot at the "dream".
It is very much aligned with the themes that this site advocates. It is a little bit sci-fi but some of the ideas such as the wide use of hydroponic agriculture are very real but as yet unknown to many.
Anyhow look into it and i would like to see others opinions.

I think we all agree that we will end up with a stable-state, no growth society at some point whether we like it or not. And, there are hundreds of fictional works depicting such societies as well as a few, small actual societies today.

However, I simply don't see it happening until: 1) population growth is dealt with and 2)society collapses so that people are forced to accept a new paradigm.

Todd

yeah "unsustainable" means this damaging system is no longer able to continue, no matter what the corporations and politicians try to do to revive it. but they'll be the last to accept the futility of those efforts.

so we are now watching them fail...to keep two westbound trains apart on the tracks. the accelerating oil price train WILL crash into the back of the slowing finance train. no track action after that.

Looking at figure 6, one priority should be trying to nail down why the people in the former Soviet Union are so unhappy whereas those in China, the Philippines, Latin America, Nigeria (!), etc. are much more happy. Maybe it's something as simple as more capsicums (chile peppers) in the diet.

And then, for everyone else to realize that it takes more and more consumption to make us just a little more happy.

JB

Gail,

What an interesting word: "prosper".

Quickly I realized that, like so many other words we glibly use ever day, I had no idea what it really means.

Of course, the image of Star Trek's Spock, standing with fingers spread in the sign of the 'shin' (the Hebrew W) and saying: "Live long and prosper" jumped into mind.

But what does it mean and what are its origins?

I decided to boldly go where few have gone before, the dictionary.

Among my many stop overs was this, this and this.

There doesn't seem to be any one satisfactory definition. Perhaps one might wish prosperity on a colony of bacteria (i.e. yeast) and say to them: go forth, be fruitful and multiply, flourish, thrive, and succeed greatly with your biological imperative.

So are we humans any more "prosperous" than a vat of yeast? Hmmm.

In Switz. and France, much talks with many on a very local level, all involved in the new paragdim, that is new avenues for growth:

were discussed, all by well meaning ppl, some in positons of power, some local aspirants:

-bio fuels, more are needed

-sustainable development, which includes funding, buying from, local market gardeners. Support for local baker was a big thing in one spot

-stimulating eco-tourism, these decrepit places could use that as a calling card, it is a all ‘natural’ etc.

-building more sports facilities so that ppl can be more active (and come here and spend more money)

-having on offer green services, meaning recycling garbage even when it is all burnt together

-stressing local products and having them better marketed (packaged advertised etc.)

-creating new ecological ponds and waterways for nature observation, boating, and bathing, with special facilities for children

-getting ppl to be more 'ecological' in their home furnishing, thus buying accredited furniture - nobody quite sure what that is...

that was about it. :)

Hey people i make a ad to help poor people from climate change!... see the video and send it to all the people you know, together we can press the world leaders. See the video and send please!!! this is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHRYCjStKr8 (give 5 stars) together we can help!!. Thank u very much

I will go out on a limb here and make a simple conjecture. And that is:

As long as we operate under a financial system in which compound interest on money lent is an integral part, we can never have prosperity without growth.

Why? Because the repayment of principal plus interest (in constant rather than inflated dollars) requires economic growth somewhere, somehow, by someone, and economic growth in turn requires physical growth of production of goods and services somewhere, somehow, by someone. I don't see any way around it.

People love consumption, the ownership of things and the variety of choice.

Native Americans were content, even happy, in a culture that had proven itself sustainable until they were exposed to the products of the white man, with whom they eagerly traded what they had to obtain. Even if there had been no warfare and conquest, Native Americans were undermined by their own human desire - drawn to the trading posts and forts where they could obtain tools and articles they prized. The white man could laugh at how easily the red man was taken for the simplest manufactured articles, but who will have the last laugh? Native Americans lived sustainably for centuries because they did not have the means to create the wealth of things we enjoy. They were forced to conserve because there was no alternative.

To say that growth in consumption is unsustainable is quite true. But to say that it can be curtailed voluntarily is, I believe, dreaming. People will not easily be told what to do, no matter how beneficial it may appear to be for the future. It's well known that we devalue the future strongly; a dollar today is desired much more than a dollar even a month away. Ask the multitude to abstain from this or that or pay more for a 2 degree rise in temperature over 100 years? They will answer: who's telling me what I can do?

I do not believe a democracy will support curtailment of consumption or dictation from an elected government about what they can and cannot do in the marketplace to the extent that such dictation would be meaningful for sustainablity...particularly when other people elsewhere on the globe are not being constrained. Those who have little now will bridle at the wealthy deciding that things must be scaled back.

We find identity and freedom in consumption. Our demand for things drive entrepreneurs to make the best products for the least cost. When those who are elected begin to decide what is best by prohibiting consumption for sustainability and trying to determine what will be produced from any factor other than market price, discontent will spread.

At the moment we are only in the initial stages of limitation. Being denied the use of plastic grocery bags is not big deal, just a small drop in convenience, if that. But as increasingly onerous rules kick in that begin to make things disappear from the market or change in ways that make them far more expensive or less desirable, real trouble will start.

Capitalism is a Pandora's box. Man can live sustainably, but it comes through denial. If Man does not know what he is missing, he can live without it. Disease and early death were long accepted because there was no alternative. Man was denied by his own ignorance of what he could do through technology. But recent years have shown that given the means, Joe Average will pine for a McMansion as surely as any count or duke wanted his own castle in the Middle Ages. And, like that count or duke, Joe Average will spend lavishly regardless of the condition of others.

In the last couple of years we've seen that Joe will even put himself so deeply in debt, willingly and eagerly, that his whole future, not just his house, is mortgaged. This direct danger was disregarded, yet we talk of altering behavior for a few inch rise in the oceans over a century and the disappearance of species most folks have never seen?!

Royalty went a long way toward ruining whole countries countries through consumption and rivalry by way of warfare that brought penury or death to many thousands. Now we have a benevolent Oprah setting the standard for opulent living along with almost everyone else who makes it big and we all see this as unobjectionable because theoretically such unlimited materialism is open to us all. The super-consumers are who the public adores and follows. Deny a connection between wealth/consumption and happiness if you will, most won't buy it, they won't deny themselves in order to see if it is true.

We are enabled by money for the consumption it brings and disabled by the lack of it. We reach for money/consumption as surely as a plant turns toward the light. There are some who can get out of this squirrel cage because of temperament or intellectual realization, but they are relatively few. Capitalism does not thrive because we have been duped, but because it produces the things we long to obtain in dazzling quantity and quality. Steve Jobs has probably brought more pleasure to more people than any philosopher could and millions hang on news of what he might come up with next.

There will be tough times ahead, not because of resource depletion, global warming or reaching capacity per se, but because of rules set by the few for the many that say: you cannot be what you want to be - the promise that has been before you is an illusion and cannot be attained. The lid will be closed on individualism through materialism and that won't go down well, if at all. The consumption genie is out of the bottle and won't be put back in. Praise for and personal testimony to the happiness that can be had from sustainable living won't turn back the tide.

It is obvious that there are physical limits growth,and apparent that at least here on this site that there is something approaching a consensus that we are either at or very near those limits.

So if we have growth in one area, it looks as if we are compelled to suffer(?)or maybe I should say experience corresponding shrinkage in some other area.

Assuming we manage a so called soft landing(possible imo and to be hoped for) the big question becomes one of meaningful employment for the tens of millions of us who earn our livings providing goods and services that will no longer be available or at least sharply curtailed in this new no growth world.

I am sure a good many more people will be needed in certain fields,particularly corn fields,(well it seems funny to me!)but just what are all these people going to do?I can see the construction people moving into building renewable energy infrastructure,etc,but what about all the burger flippers?

We do not need growth to be happy; all we need is fair distribution and adequacy of fulfillment of basic needs. As for prosperity, we do not need that at all, so I think the idea of prosperity without growth is misguided and on the wrong path--as wrong as the current system.

A suitable and sustainable human civilization needs to have a sense of collective responsibility for basic needs; and a sense of individual responsibility for anything beyond those needs.

Our basic needs are water, air, food, shelter, and energy. To meet these basic needs, these things should be considered collective resources, collectively shared, produced, and consumed. Everyone should be required to work to produce and sustain these basic goods. Through division of labor and bartering or trading, some people may spend more time on one or another or these than others, but everyone puts in the "same" work and everyone draws out the same, equal, share as everyone else. Money can be a means to share and trade and distribute these goods.

Once these basic needs are met, the individual is free to do whatever he or she wants with their time and energy. Some will want clothes, some will want entertainment, some will want nothing more. But there will be limits and controls and regulations on what you can do or make with your own time--for example, nothing that harms others, etc. Some will do science, some will do drugs; some will run races, some will watch. Whatever!

Luis,
Even based on a moderate level of growth of 2% per year, meeting 2050 carbon reduction targets would mean achieving a carbon content of no more than 6g CO2 for each dollar spent - a staggering 130 times lower than the average carbon intensity today.

This translates into about 3kWh of FF energy per $1 in US economy(100,000kWh/year/p.person with $30,000 GDP/p.person).
Presently would expect 600g CO2 from this energy(1800g/$), but if replaced by renewable energy would only need about one third(due to X3 higher efficiency of electricity) or 1kWh/$ of GDP.

The lifetime CO2 emissions of wind, hydro, solar are 5-40g/CO2/kWh but when most FF is replaced by renewable will be at the lower end of this, so it is achievable to have 6g/$ of GDP.

A better reading of the chart would say that anybody near Russia is unhappy.

Then the big question arises: Can we build a system that enables prosperity (happiness) of the human being without economic growth?

That's the wrong question.

The problem to be solved is:

"Resources, including energy, are exhaustible and because of medium-term environmental imbalances caused by growth will make human life more difficult or even impossible."

The correct question, then, is one that addresses this problem directly:

Can we build a system that enables prosperity (happiness) of the human being without over-exploiting our resources or environment?

It makes no sense to assume that "zero growth" is the answer to this question. The correct amount of growth may be above zero or below zero; assuming it will be exactly zero is foolish. There's no reason to do that other than due to personal biases, and reasoning based on those isn't a good way to solve problems.

I find this call for a new ethics and a new religion interesting.

Abolishing slavery, brotherhood and equality are not new ideas. These were the values of the French revolution. They were those who wanted to create a new religion around these values back then... but I think it's fair to say these efforts are now seen as quaint.
Luis Queiros also talks about abolishing exploitation. This reminds me more of communism. Communists certainly didn't bill their movement as a religion but I'd say some rather preeminent communist outfits had many of the trappings of organized religion.
Do we really want to go there?
The quasi-religious aspects of these political movements were arguably their worst. If you're hoping for something else than a bloodthirsty dictatorship, I think you'd better hope for a thoroughly realistic, decidedly non-religious kind of revolutionary movement that would value the individual, her freedoms and opinions.
In the last 200+ years we have seen pretty much every idealistic revolution turn on itself after an autocratic power grab. Electoral democracy is not a protection against that: dictators have famously managed to take power through the ballot box by talking a good game as well.

I think that people's ethics are by and large just fine. There are not that many who actually favor slavery, exploitation and such. It seems to me there's more than enough people trying to do the right thing at an individual level out there.
But people of good will can't seem to work collectively at a large scale. For lack of consensus and coordination, even the simplest goals such as preventing destructive warmongers from winning elections seem out of reach. Managing an economic transition to a more sustainable paradigm would be much harder. That, I think, is the real issue.
A effective democracy at a large scale would require, instead a new religion, a new way for people to inform themselves, relate to one another and take genuinely collective decisions. Don't ask me how to bring such a new social organization about or how it would look like.
Following messiahs is much easier.