Zencey gives a good definition of sustainability: a system
that doesn’t undermine the preconditions of its existence. (I recall a TV programme
about farming in Norfolk, where thanks to centuries of intensive arable agriculture
and other erosion factors the soil level had dropped so much that an old farm
house had to have extra steps added, to let the occupants get up to its front
door.)
He says that money is not always a good measure of what is
going on, or what is beneficial, in an economy. Money is an abstraction, like a
mathematical model, and reality is the energy and matter of the Earth, which we
transform to suit ourselves. When fiat money is essentially infinite, but the
world is finite, there is the potential for dangerous modelling distortions
that will lead to seriously incorrect choices. Zencey like the idea of
increasing bank reserve requirements until we get “100% money” (but I fear that
might cause a depression that would result in a backlash that casts off all
restraint).
GDP is flawed: it measures what he calls the “general
commotion of money”, but it has no column for debits. (This reminds me of a presentation I heard at
the BAAS[3]
in Birmingham in 1977, where an economist noted that eating more sweets and
going more often to the dentist both raised GDP. ) Real growth, in the sense of
more net benefit to us, is not the same as increased activity. So he calls for
the adoption of an alternative yardstick, the Genuine Progress Indicator.[4]
Zencey suggests that instead of the classical –theory tripartite division of economy into land,
labour and capital, we should consider four classes of resource or capital: the
built infrastructure, plus natural, social and cultural capital. (I emailed Mr
Kunstler last month to say that the prospects for the US are still good, since
the ratio of population to arable land is higher than anywhere else except
Russia. He agreed, but said in effect that US culture has degraded and the
infrastructure has seriously weakened, so that Americans are not the same
people they were in 1943.)
Our current rate of consumption of “natural capital” is
several planets’ worth; we will, he says, eventually get a sustainable system,
it’s just a question of what kind, and so our task is to give future
generations as many options as possible. The world is not infinite, and our
current agricultural system “turns oil into people”. When the oil runs out (and
like many other commentators he scorns the “100 years of shale” story) we’re
back to the natural resources of 1800 (when the world fed maybe a billion
humans) plus whatever modern technology we can employ to make best use of them.
Perhaps a sustainable human population of 2 or 3 billion?
Current economic measures generally don’t factor-in ecological degradation, but Zencey notes
that the Failed States Index[5]
includes an element for demographic pressure on resources. (And not just
local-demographic, I’d say, if we think about what’s happened in the Middle
East.) One of his chapters is provocatively entitled “Got terrorism? Blame
economists”.
But he agrees with Kunstler that the young, much-maligned
Millennial generation are hopeful, care, are passionate to use their knowledge
to engage with the challenges we’re leaving them.
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
4 comments:
(Yet another typo fixed - wish I could type)
A sustainable technological society would more likely have 250 million or so people. The rub is how must destruction we will suffer in war and the like to get there.
250 million globally, or on the American continent? After all, some say we had 1 billion in 1800.
Total. Bear in mind that we were burning a lot of coal, even in 1800. Also, there were reports even then of whole villages starving to death in France.
Post a Comment