On Oct 4, 2008, at 6:03 PM, Jim Devine wrote:
Quoting Coyle:
So growth needs, and is about, consumption. Growing consumption.
But
growing consumption is destroying the environment in multiple
dimensions.
Then Jim says
Growing consumption doesn't _have to_ destroy the environment. The
development of "green" products (e.g., the Prius) also involves new
consumption while reducing environmental destruction marginally. I
would agree that there are strong vested interests in keeping consumer
demand rising _without_ fixing the negative environmental impact.
Jim, growing income moves people into consuming new things. They
start eating more meat, and better cuts of meat at that. And they
start eating better fish, for example tuna. Tuna are disappearing.
But growing income means more demand for fish, even as the tuna are
being wiped out in response to the higher price people are willing to
pay for tuna. That's why I wrote:
Fish are disappearing, but the "democratization of sushi" expands.
??democratization of susi?? what's that?
BTW, I never said that fish weren't being over-fished.
We can prattle all we want about the Genuine Progress Indicator
(not that it
isn't a useful discussion tool) but the idea of dematerializing
consumption
as a way to save both the economy and the environment at the same
time is
utopian. Utopian as in unattainable.
technically unattainable? politically unattainable??
Yes, both.
So, what is it? More fiscal and monetary policy to power the
treadmill to
the end of the world, or offsetting gains in productivity (whether
from
"technical and scientific knowledge" or learning by doing) with
shorter
working time?
isn't shorter working time an aspect of "dematerializing consumption"?
I thought you said that was unattainable.
Shorter working time possibly could contribute to dematerializing
consumption, but not enough to save the environment. Shorter working
time, give a cultural shift, could cut consumption, rather than
dematerialize it.
It is a good idea to cut working time/year. Getting there would likely
involve a big struggle. If people in China are willing to work 60
hours/week, that makes it hard to cut the work-week here in the US.
It is better to see this the other way around. If we cut the work
week in the US, it would be easier for people in China to reduce hours
of work. If we cut the work week in the US, the French will be able
to reduce hours of work. The French are working too much but we keep
the pressure on them to do so. The focus on cutting must be here in
the US
Gene Coyle.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
