![\"\"](\"http:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/36\/2014\/03\/breakthrough3.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
When environmentalists come out against economic growth \u2013 Bill McKibben called growth \u201cthe one big habit we finally must break\u201d \u2013 they often are referring to the developed world. But with most of the world\u2019s expected growth to occur in the poor parts of the world, such arguments are simply mathematical non-sequiturs. The reality is that to be anti-growth today is actually to be anti-growth with respect to poor countries. In other words, keeping poor people poor. <\/em><\/p>\n Keeping the Poor Poor<\/strong> It has become fashionable in some circles to come out against economic growth. Bill McKibben, the author and climate change activist, asserts that \u201cgrowth may be the one big habit we finally must break.\u201d He adds that this is \u201ca dark thing to say, and un-American.\u201d Such calls for an end to growth are typically advanced in environmental debates and those about economic globalization. But what does it actually mean to be against economic growth? I argue that to be anti-growth actually implies keeping poor people poor.<\/p>\n Economic growth is simply a metric that reflects the accumulation of wealth over time, usually based on universalized US dollars. Economists define economic growth in three parts: (a) growth in labor, which refers to an increase in the number of people working; (b) growth in capital, which refers to increases in the availability of things that can be used by labor in the process of producing goods (like food) and services (like surgery); and (c) increasing productivity, which can be thought of as improvements in the efficiency with which we turn labor and capital into goods and services.<\/p>\n We can use the three components of economic growth to better understand what it means to be \u201canti-growth.\u201d<\/p>\n Anti-Labor Growth, The Neo-Malthusians<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n One sort of objection to growth sits squarely in the tradition of Thomas Malthus and is focused on global population. Neo-Malthusians most recently rose to prominence and influence in the 1960s and 1970s, with Paul Ehrlich the most famous US advocate for population control. Today the neo-Malthusian moment seems to have waned, likely due in part to the fact that UN population projections now foresee the end of population growth later this century, followed by a decline in some scenarios. Even so, the Neo-Malthusian movement has its adherents. As Alan Weisman wrote in a book released last year (see In Review<\/a>): \u201cFrom the instant we\u2019re born, even the humblest among us compounds the world\u2019s mounting problems.\u201d Neo-Malthusians see anti-growth as limits on population.<\/p>\n Anti-Capital Growth, The Peak Earthers<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Another branch of anti-growth thinking focuses not on the number of people, but rather their consumption of resources. The Peak Earthers, as I call them, present their views through a suite of concepts, such as ecological footprints, planetary boundaries, and natural capital. Such concepts reflect valid concerns, but it turns out that, with respect to limits on continued economic growth, humans have had a tendency to break through physical limits through gains in efficiency and substitution. A good example is \u201cpeak oil,\u201d which seems ever on the horizon yet keeps retreating as we tap new petroleum sources. Peak Earthers see anti-growth, rather than efficiency gains and substitution, as a solution to resource constraints.<\/p>\n Anti-Productivity Growth, The Luddites<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The term \u201cLuddite\u201d refers to an industrial protest movement of the early 1800s, and derives from Ned Ludd, one of the lead protestors. \u201cLuddite\u201d is commonly used to mean anti-technology, a reference to the fact that the original Luddites destroyed industrial machines \u2013 but that\u2019s a misreading of history. What the Luddites were protesting was the effect of productivity gains resulting from the introduction of machines into factories as a consequence of the industrial revolution. Today, we see Luddite concerns in other sectors. For instance, in December 2013, The Washington Post ran an article with the headline, \u201cEight Ways Robots Stole Our Jobs in 2013<\/a>.\u201d Luddites see anti-growth as a way to stop the effects of technology on the economy.<\/p>\n When we break down the idea of anti-growth into its component parts, we very quickly see that \u201canti-growth\u201d is not a particularly coherent concept. For instance, those favoring what is often called \u201csustainable growth\u201d \u2013 such as using renewable energy technologies, rather than using fossil fuels, to power growing material wealth \u2013 would not fit any of the three categories presented above. Sustainable growth clearly is not anti-growth.<\/p>\n In the near future, economic growth and its consequences for the planet will be dominated by today\u2019s poor countries. The OECD estimates that between 2013 and 2030 82 percent of economic growth will occur in what are today considered to be the \u201cpoor\u201d parts of the world, with just 18 percent of growth occurring in the United States, Western Europe, Japan, and a few other wealthy countries. Similarly, in January BP released its 2014 \u201cEnergy Outlook to 2035,\u201d which projects that 95 percent of growth in energy consumption worldwide to 2035 will occur in poorer countries.<\/p>\n Some try to sugar-coat their anti-growth arguments by focusing their attention on the rich world. But with most of the world\u2019s expected growth to occur in the poor parts of the world, such arguments are simply mathematical non sequiturs. The reality is that to be anti-growth today is actually to be anti-growth with respect to poor countries. The fact that very few, if any, anti-growth activists are openly demanding that poor countries remain poor tells us how powerful a force growth is in today\u2019s global politics.<\/p>\n Ultimately, debates over growth tend to mask more fundamental debates about ideologies, values, and what kind of world we wish to see in the future. Breaking concerns about growth into its component parts helps to focus such debates on questions that can be addressed empirically, and those which cannot. So when you encounter an anti-growth advocate, ask him or her, which kind are you, Neo-Malthusian, Peak Earther, or Luddite?<\/p>\n This article originally appeared in the Spring 2014 edition of Earth Island Journal, www.earthislandjournal.org<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" When environmentalists come out against economic growth \u2013 Bill McKibben called growth \u201cthe one big habit we finally must break\u201d \u2013 they often are referring to the developed world. But with most of the world\u2019s expected growth to occur in … Continue reading
\nAgainst Anti-Growth Environmentalism<\/strong>
\nby Roger Pielke, Jr.<\/strong>
\nMarch 11, 2014 | Breakthrough Institute<\/a><\/p>\n