Date post: | 30-Oct-2014 |
Category: |
News & Politics |
Upload: | kasvu-murroksessa |
View: | 5 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Managing without GrowthSlower by Design, not Disaster
Dr. Peter A. Victor
24 September 2010
Summary1. Economy: a subsystem of the biosphere2. Excessive burden of the economy on the biosphere3. Technology helpful but not sufficient4. Must address scale and intensity5. Many questioning growth6. Extreme global inequalities - rich countries should go first7. Managing without growth:
Low/no growth scenario Degrowth scenario
8. Can we adapt?
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Firms Households
Natural Inputs (flows of materials & energy from
SOURCES and
Environmental SERVICES)
Waste Outputs(SINKS)
Bio-physical Cycles
Economic Cycle
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
1. The economy: a sub-system of the biosphere
Financial
Real
Natural
Qui
ckTi
me™
and
a
dec
ompr
esso
r
are
need
ed to
see
this
pic
ture
.
QuickTim
e™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Financial
Real
Qui
ckTi
me™
and
a
dec
ompr
esso
r
are
need
ed to
see
this
pic
ture
.
QuickTim
e™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
OECD Founded in 1960
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
2. Excessive Burden on the Environment:Transgressing Planetary Boundaries
Billiontonnes Global Materials Extraction 1900 to 2005
100%
700%
Peak oil
Production exceedsdiscoveries
Peak Oil
Peak discovery
3. Technology: helpful but not sufficient
1946 1970
1992 2010
‘I would say this is most environmentally friendly cruise ship to date. It is much more efficient than other similar ships.’ (Project engineer)
Energy intensity is declining but not fast enough
0
50
100
150
200
250
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
GDP Population Primary Energy Consumption Energy Intensity
59%
Key message:Environmental impact depends on intensity and scale
110%
24%
GDP
Primary Energy
Energy Intensity
4. Must address scale as well as intensity
0
50
100
150
200
250
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
GDP Resource extraction Population Material intensity
Material intensity: same story
47%
110%
29%
Key message:Environmental impact depends on intensity and scale
GDP
Resource Extraction
Material Intensity
5. Many questioning growth
Real Income per person
Percentagevery happy
6. Extreme global inequalities: rich countries should go first
LowGrow Canada
Can we have full employment, no poverty, fiscal balance,
reduced GHG emissions without relying on economic growth?
LowGrow Canada
You bet!
What makes an economy grow?
• Macro demand (what we spend money on):– Consumption– Investment– Government– Trade
• Macro supply (what we can produce):– Labour– Capital– Productivity
‘Business as usual’
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
GDP per capita Unemployment Debt to GDP ratio
GHG emissions Poverty
GDP per Capita
GHG Emissions
Poverty
UnemploymentDebt to GDP Ratio
What happens if we eliminate increases in all sources of economic growth?
(starting in 2010 over 10 years)
• Consumption• Investment
• Government• Trade
• Population/labour• Productivity
A no growth disaster
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
GDP per capita Unemployment Debt to GDP ratio
GHG emissions Poverty
GDP per Capita
GHG Emissions
Poverty
Unemployment
Debt to GDP Ratio
‘The real issue is whether it is possible to challenge the “growth-at-any-cost model” and come up with an alternative that is environmentally benign, economically robust and politically feasible.’
Larry Elliot (economics editor)The Guardian Weekly 29th August 2008
A better low/no growth scenario
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
GDP per capita Unemployment Debt to GDP ratio
GHG emissions Poverty
How? • New meanings and measures of success• Limits on materials, energy, wastes and land use• Carbon price - more informative prices• Stable population and labour force• More efficient capital stock• Shorter work year• More generous anti-poverty programs• Fewer status goods• More informative advertising • Education for life not just work
GDP per Capita
GHG EmissionsUnemployment
Poverty Debt to GDP Ratio
Generating a Canadian degrowth scenario(in US$2000)
1. Maximum sustainable global GDP• GDP when ecological footprint = biocapacity: 1980 ($17.6 trillion)• With 40% reduction in carbon: 1999 ($30.5 trillion)
2. Maximum sustainable average GDP/capita• Divide by 8 billion ($3,815)
3. Canadian sustainable GDP/capita• Equal to world average ($3,815)• Equal to multiple of world average ($15,260)
(Canadian GDP/capita in 1976)
• LowGrow simulation for Canada
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Poverty
Unemployment
GHG Emissions
Debt to GDP Ratio
GDP per Capita
A Canadian degrowth scenario
The scenarios compared: GDP/Capita
0
50
100
150
200
250
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
BAU LOW/NO GROW DEGROWTH
The scenarios compared: GHG emissions
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
BAU LOW/NO GROW DEGROWTH
The scenarios compared: growth driversGovernment Expenditure Constant Dollars
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
BAU LOW/NO GROW DEGROWTH
Population
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
BAU LOW/NO GROW DEGROWTH
Working Time
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
BAU LOW/NO GROW DEGROWTH
Carbon Tax $97$/tonne
$-
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
BAU LOW/NO GROW DEGROWTH
Entering the Mainstream
“It is possible that the US and Europe will find that…either continued growth will be too destructive to the environment and they are too dependent on scarce natural resources, or that they would rather use increasing productivity in the form of leisure…
Robert SolowNobel Laureate in Economics
There is no reason at all why capitalism could not survive with slow or even no growth.” (Harper’s Magazine, March 2008)