Why does South West Debates look like this?
Your browser cannot find our style and presentation information. You can use the page as is, or upgrade your browser to its latest version. See your browser’s website for more information.





Skip Navigation


  Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin
 
Environment
 South West Debates Forums : South West Debates Chat : Environment
Message Icon Topic: How much growth do we need? Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 2
Author Message
James
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 14 Dec 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17
Quote James Replybullet Posted: 14 Dec 2006 at 11:55pm
Ian

Challenging stuff. While not disagreeing with the sentiment, I am troubled by how it might be achieved. I am a bit of a pragmatist and I feel that we have to start from where people are and how the economy actually works now. That surely has to be the starting point.

People (we) will only shift our position when we feel it is to our advantage or when we are forced to. I don't imagine that we can simply wish away the market-based economic system, we have to find a way of working with it to try and help it produce beter results that up to now.

In terms of what is probably the most pressing of the environmental limits - climate change, how carbon is priced becomes key. In effect it becomes a scarce commodity which the markets price accordingly. Those sort of increases are likely to change behaviours pretty quickly.

Porrit's recent book: Capitalism: As If The World Matters provides a way of using the system to bring about change. Not sure I am as optimistic as he is about the outcome, though.
IP IP Logged
Ian Jones
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 06 Dec 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6
Quote Ian Jones Replybullet Posted: 15 Dec 2006 at 8:15am

Yes we live in challenging times.  We are going through a major transition that is multi-layered not just a linear adaptation within one frame of reference, although we are trying to micro-manage it in that manner. The way the economy actually works, as I mentioned in a previous post, is a creation and fabricated artefact of our culture and not an absolute reality.  We have to recognise that economists have theories and not realities just take a look at the thought experiments and practical applications of those tests that Milton Friedman undertook.  I am still aghast that people don’t understand the relationship between the economic illusion of unending continual growth and exponential growth that can destroy.

Here is an example from Derek Deighton on exponential growth which is what underpins our concept of a successful economy.  Taking the old chess board analogy put 1 post-it note on the first square 2 on the second etc. - by the 7th we have 64, which is measured at 6mm. By the final square, one would have a stack of post-it notes, which if a laser light was shone down from the top would take approximately 48 minutes to reach the bottom as it takes 8 minutes for sun light to reach the earth that is an awful big pile!

When we continue to talk about yearly percentage growth we are in fact talking about exponential growth, do we really understand this and what it means for our planet?


We face complex interrelating environmental, economic and social, issues but I feel that there is a lack of recognition of the more fundamental changes that will have to take place in how we operate our society. No one really understood how the agricultural revolution would turn out and it was the same with the industrial revolution and even more so now. Both the agricultural and industrial revolutions were underpinned by similar economic concepts that one could have unbounded growth (it has though, and has always been the case, that such growth would be at a cost to something or someone else). In my opinion the first was driven by changes in land usage, linked to the development of machinery which then impacted on the social aspects of community.  The second radically altered social interactions driven by mechanistic innovations which started to impact on the environmental. I think now we have change where the environmental feedback into the social and economic is undermining our current models we have been relying by for the past two hundred years and the solution now has to be a systems one and not primarily through technology.

Even if we look at the current economic and social models that underpin our culture we face real problems due to scarcity of resources.  Interest rates go up as costs increase and as our culture is underpinned by cheap energy principally oil then the higher costs of fuel leads to inflationary increases.  Interest rates increase borrowing increases jobs our lost, debt is not repaid and the system grinds to a stop.  There is a growing belief (except by Exxon) that we are at Peak Oil or nearing it which means we will then be on the downward slide of the bell curve. 

 

With climate change and resource depletion we have to look at new ways to do things.  I think that in the social arena there is a growing unease with what is happening and the increasing interest in localism and wellbeing is a sign of this. Complex systems have attractors which might be stable but then suddenly swing to a new dynamic alignment. One can also have trajectories that swing between two attractors which can become chaotic.  We must not loose sight of the fact that we are part of this multi-layered complex system and do not stand outside it but are part of the causality.  If we do not start to influence the system by actions then it might well become very chaotic indeed.  Yes looking at pricing of carbon is part of the jigsaw but there must also be an understanding that we have to find new solutions on different levels, local, national and global.  As Einstein said “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”

 

Have a good Christmas and let’s hope things move a bit quicker in 2007 especially our supposed leaders.

IP IP Logged
alister
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: 14 Nov 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 21
Quote alister Replybullet Posted: 15 Dec 2006 at 9:00am
So here's my concern:

(i) there is a long history of governments and other actors not quite understanding how the complex system it is governing works
(ii) therefore, interventions - no matter how well intended - are not always the right ones to correct the system
(iii) if the current view of what is happening is correct, then the complex system is shifting from one point of equilibrium to another
(iv) ...which makes it almost impossible to figure out what interventions will work
(v) and anything we do is likely to be nugatory anyway

Too bleak?
IP IP Logged
alister
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: 14 Nov 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 21
Quote alister Replybullet Posted: 15 Dec 2006 at 9:02am
Sorry - meant to add to my last post -

James, are you suggesting taht it is only the market that will change behaviours?
IP IP Logged
Ian Jones
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 06 Dec 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6
Quote Ian Jones Replybullet Posted: 15 Dec 2006 at 9:26am
Alister no not too bleak at all I think you have summerised the situation very well. One things that Governments do like is when the systems does become chaotic then they can just act.  This is the approach that underpins the 'fight' against terrorism as politicians like to identify define order in how things work and if they can't then it is considered chaotic and not complex so the solution is to intervene strongly in the situation.  Perhaps this will be the case for Climate Change and Peak Oil especially as our system always invests reactively. 
An example of reative expenditure is some work I was involved in with a community police team who used complex system approach and communities of place, interest and practice to engage young people.  The police team made their boundaries 'fuzzy' as they worked with 300 young people and the interactions shifted.  It costs £170,000 to keep a young person in the Criminal Justice System. Well within a year after this new approach has taken 10 of the young people who were in that system out, saving £1.7 million.  But could we get any money to try and undertake further work, no!  It is fine to spend money when problems arise but more difficult before they occur.

A good quote on government inaction is from George Monibot:
"Government policy is not contained within the reports and reviews it commissions; government policy is the reports and reviews. By commissioning endless inquiries into the problem and the means by which it might be tackled, the government creates the impression that something is being done, while simultaneously preventing anything from happening until the next review (required to respond to the findings of the last review) has been published...Governments will pursue this course of inaction - irrespective of human impacts - while it remains politically less costly than the alternative."
George Monbiot, Heat, p213

I am ever the optimist (except when I am depressed!) so I will continue to work through networks and dynamic systems creating awareness at the grass roots assissting solutions from the ground up.  Perhaps when more people start questioning and demanding real action or more importantly start taking action themselves
will things  improve.
I still say we are sadly lacking in leaders who have transformational and long term ideas and objectives.
IP IP Logged
Manda
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2
Quote Manda Replybullet Posted: 21 Dec 2006 at 10:08am
I'm not sure who Alister is but yes yes yes and yes with knobs on to the question "Simon, Leslie - are you suggesting  that what we really need is less growth and more redistribution?
(actually  well planned and sustain-able resource use, if that can perhaps mean the same thing as redistribution).
Ian - do you think that a region like the South West can unilaterally decide to pursue policies for wellbeing (in the way you describe) rather than economic growth.

I wonder what would happen if all the RDAs chose to do that...?
"
 
To the first -absoutely. And this is now an economic imperative, not just a moral preference.
To the second - yes it can, I think it has to start, and it is extremely well placed to do it. The alternative is to continue as we are until we are obliged to come up sharp against the limits we operate  in. This is about managed descent instead of  a crash landing. And our world size will start to shrink very soon - it will be more about locally self sufficent systems, and less about intra-regional competition.
 
If all the RDA's did that? Now there's a thought. I once had a chatty conversation with a very bright chap from our very own RDA and asked in an equally chatty way (ie I wasn't giving him a hard time) why they "did" economic development  - I expected a reasonably well thought-through reply about its purpose being to deliver social well being and environmental health - he simply stared at me in silence, and slowy began to flush. No answer. I'm not sure who was more shocked that he didn't  know - me or him. That has to change, me thinks! Economic development is the means, not the end. If it is no longer delivering the end, we need to change what we're doing.
 
I think these debates are a fantastic sign that there is more thought going into this at regional statutory level than ever before - can we aim high enough to start doing what needs to be done in a planned way,  before we're forced to do it because we run out of cheap resources? Now that would be a very fine thing indeed. )


Edited by Manda - 21 Dec 2006 at 10:08am
IP IP Logged
alister
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: 14 Nov 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 21
Quote alister Replybullet Posted: 05 Jan 2007 at 6:50am
Hi Manda

I'm helping the RDA to run the Debates (I'm an external consultant).

I've just started George Monbiot's book, so I don't know what his solution is yet, so...

What are the first three things (say) that you think the South West should be doing now?

Edited by alister - 05 Jan 2007 at 7:04am
IP IP Logged
Leslie SSW
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 06 Dec 2006
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3
Quote Leslie SSW Replybullet Posted: 05 Jan 2007 at 7:53am
We can um and ah about exactly where 'limits'exist (& that's a valuable & enjoyable thing to do via this debate) - however, meanwhile, we clearly do have a challenge which needs to met with a solution and fast. I'd like a discussion about what sort of leadership we need to tackle this challenge - a Churchill , a Gandi , a grassroots internet global community movement ....??   
IP IP Logged
Manda
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2
Quote Manda Replybullet Posted: 11 Jan 2007 at 12:59pm
Hi Alister - I thought about your question and in fact there are so many things - Leslie has a point when she says we do need to look at what we need in order to deliver this change. The old form or function first argument...but I do think we need to do a number of things on the strategic AND practical front sharpish. If we could only tackle 3 at a time - I would suggest, amongst others...
1 ensure the issues of climate change and oil depletion are considered as central issues in every local and regional strategic and policy document and discussion (for example even the convergence docs have as yet only got as far as carbon emissions as an issue - still haven't begun to grasp fuel depletion consequences). If we can;t do that - then we need a bespoke climate change and peak oil strategy (already being developed by the North East and Scotland).
2 ensure we have a means of measuring resource inflow and outflows of the region, showing our net needs, and our overall wastage of resources, working on the Best Foot Forward type of work but also combining social and economic with the environmental for a comprehensive triple bottom line capacity/footprint model
3 signifciantly rethink transport infrastructure as this will be a weak spot when we have to beome more canny with existing local resources - and look at current investment sacred cows, such as the airport, and develop an intelligent means of measuring their actual value in the face of carbon taxes and oil prices
4 consider skills needs combined with land-use issues as a priority
5 reconsider what we mean by "growth" and "high growth"
6 grasp the opportunity to make Cornwall and the region the green peninsula - for real, rather than as a token gesture
 
Ooops. Like I say. Difficult to keep to three...
 
 
Note that the recent request from Caroline Lucas (Green Party EuroMP) to the Cabinet for information on their peak oil and attendant food crisis strategy was met with refusal under exemption from the Freedom of Info Act. That either smacks of  there not being a strategy to show; or a strategy that is in development which may well be rather politically sensitive as it involves a rather primal response involving  ensuring control over as many other resources as possible in the face of diminishing supplies. I may be completely wrong. But the refusal to engage did not fill me with confidence.
IP IP Logged
alister
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: 14 Nov 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 21
Quote alister Replybullet Posted: 31 Jan 2007 at 10:28am
Manda, Leslie

Sorry to take so long to reply....

I think the issue of leadership is so profound in this Deabte that I am going to start a new topic on it...

Meanwhile, on the original question about how much growth we actually need, I am coming to the conclusion that what we need is a Regional Carbon Neutral Strategy, not a Regional Economic Strategy.

That needn't be negative - in the same way that technology didn't destroy jobs, but simply created new ones, maybe we'll see the same here.

Edited by alister - 31 Jan 2007 at 10:30am
IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 2
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum