ECONOMIC

GROWTH: ANTI-
GROWTH
By: Haider Akram

Ghadially

March 24, 2017

 Economic Growth Debates: Against Growth

By 2050, humanity could devour an estimated 140 billion tons of minerals, ores, fossil
fuels and biomass per year three times its current appetite unless the economic growth rate is
decoupled from the rate of natural resource consumption. This is the future that will become
reality, according to a report released by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
in 2011. Without significant actions taken by both emerging and established economies, such as
China and the U.S. respectively, economic growth will hold catastrophic consequences for our
home, planet Earth. Resource depletion is happening at a ever-increasing rate, as countries
strive to compete at an international level in terms of labour, production of goods, and economic
stability. However, because economic growth is restricted by finite resources, has negative
impacts on the environment, and would be better limited to zero, it is clear that increasing
growth does not yield the positive social, environmental, or economic impacts that are sought.

Firstly, in order for every single person in the world to have the same level of resource
consumption as the average American, the world resource flow (Daly et al., 1993, pg. 5) would
have to increase sevenfold. However, in Daly and Townsends 1993 book, Valuing the Earth:
Economics, Ecology, Ethics, it is expressed that even expansion by a factor of four is impossible
(pg. 2), because the human economy currently preempts one-fourth of the global net primary
product of photosynthesis (NPP) (pg. 2). Reaching 100% consumption would be inadequate for
projected needs, even when 100% consumption is already an unrealistic concept. Daly
highlights that we are incapable of bringing under direct human management all the species
that make up the ecosystems upon which we depend (pg. 2), once again establishing the
impossibility of allowing every person in the world to have the same access to resources as the
average American. In the status quo, we already face natural resource shortages; from the
potential environmental impacts of oil drilling on the pristine wilderness of the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge to the more general impact of carbon dioxide emissions on global climate
(Krautkraemer, 2005, pg. 10), it is nearly impossible to imagine extractive use of natural
resources (pg. 10) that does not detriment the environment. Additionally, Thomas Malthuss
examination on the nature of population growth compared to resource production adds another
level of futility in the pursuit of sustainable economic growth. Malthus proposes that
mankinds propensity to reproduce ( as cited in Krautkraemer, 2005, pg. 6) and the lands
decreasing marginal utility are the the main contributing factors to the imminent scarcity of
natural resources. He argues that population grows geometrically, while agricultural outputs
increases arithmetically, eventually leading to an overpowering shortage of food for the
exponentially increasing population. The argument of diminishing marginal returns can can also
be extrapolated for fossil fuels and energy generation: As we continue to extract the Earths
natural fuels, we must mine ever less accessible deposits and lower grade ores (Daly et al.,
1993, pg. 5). With all of these factors in consideration, it cannot be denied that economic growth
will be limited by the inevitably finite nature of our planets resources.

Consequently, environmental issues are evolving into a larger problem impacts

everyone in society, instead of just polar bears or people living in coastal regions. In December
2015, Beijing issued its first red alert, causing schools to close due to PM 2.5 levels of 292
micrograms per cubic metre (Sudworth, 2015); in 2002, Australias Great Barrier Reef
experienced its worst-ever case of coral bleaching (Climate Change Causes, 2009) with over
60% of the reef impacted; in the past 50 years, temperatures in the Arctic have increased by 2
to 3 C (Walsh, 2012) and yet companies are still drilling for more oil in the Arctic. All of these
human actions have pushed the Earths natural resources to the limit, which can be clearly seen
in the rising temperatures, extreme weather events, meltdown of ice sheets and glaciers,
worsened smog, and other effects (Greenpeace, n.d.). As Jeffrey Krautkraemer points out in his
paper Economics of Natural Resource Scarcity: The State of the Debate, environmental
resourcesecosystem services or resource amenitiesare not generally traded on markets
(pg. 5); therefore, scarcity signals (pg. 5) are not always adequate or apparent enough to be
acted upon. Can the Earth satisfy ever-growing per capita demand, including demand for
luxury foods and meat-centered diets (Harris et al., 2014, pg. 26)? In their textbook,
Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: A Contemporary Approach, Harris and Roach
offer insight on the increases of energy use that runs in correlation to the growing population:
world energy use has quadrupled during the period since World War II. A 2 percent annual
rate of growth in energy use, barely sufficient to keep ahead of growing population, would
double it again in 35 years. Energy use, especially in developing nations, will more likely
increase at least 4 percent per annum to supply industrial growth.
Economic growth and and success are powerful motivators of the actions of both individuals
and nations. Even though numerous studies have shown that they are not related, it is
commonly held that increased economic growth will lead to higher satisfaction. However, as
economic growth often comes hand in hand with the extraction and use of natural resources, it
is inescapable that unmanaged growth will have serious environmental detriments in the
future. As the consequences may even serve to hinder economic growth in the longterm,
economic growth cannot be allowed to increase unchecked.

Conclusively, it is clear that rampant economic growth is unsustainable, but does this
mean that we should live in a zero-growth economy? Perhaps this zero-growth economy
would be better defined as a zero growth material economy (UNEP, 2011, pg. 34). Daly
proposes a steady-state economy, in which sustainable development must be development
without growthbut with population control and wealth redistribution (Daly et al., 1993, pg.
3), that he asserts will alleviate poverty levels by a significant amount (pg. 3). A zero-growth
economy often sounds absurd and left-wing, but exponential population growth cannot
continue in a finite world and still yield positive outcomes and increase standards of living for
citizens around the world. It is simply not possible. Lets contemplate an excerpt from Imagining
a World Without Growth, an article by Eduardo Porter in the New York Times:
To stay within the 2 degree Centigrade (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) average temperature increase
that scientists generally consider the uppper bound to avoid catastrophic climate change would
require the world economy in 2050 to emit no more than six grams of carbon dioxide for every
dollar of economic output. To put that in perspective, today the United States economy emits 60
times that much. The French economy, one of the most carbon-efficient because it is powered
extensively by nuclear energy, emits 150 grams per dollar of output.
If even the most carbon-efficient countries are aeons away from reaching sustainable levels of
emission per dollar of economic output, how can we continue to propose unchecked population
and economic growth? Countries such as India have also asked developed nations, such as the
United States, to vacate the carbon space (Porter, 2015). Effectively, this is a call for developed
nations to start [delivering] negative emissions (Porter, 2015), so that countries like India can
continue to industrialize. As a whole, zero-growth economies are a modest start towards
reaching a sustainable level of natural resource usage, and de-growth is something to be
considered if radical environmental improvement is desired.
 While many of the pro-growth sides arguments have been implicitly refuted by the
constructive arguments against growth, there are several explicit responses for their arguments.
The pro-growth sides arguments rest on the premise that economic growth results in more
liberal and socialist policies that benefit the people, causing citizens to feel more optimistic and
satisfied with their lives. Benjamin Friedman, a main proponent of economic growth, argues
that economic growth is essential to greater opportunity, tolerance of diversity, social
mobility, commitment to fairness and dedication to democracy (Easterbrook, 2005). However,
we see countless times in history where economic growth was not tied to liberalism in society,
namely the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s and Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 40s. In the Roaring
Twenties as they are often called, Americans prospered at levels that had never been
experienced before; the decade marked the flourishing of the modern mass-production, mass-
consumption economy, which delivered fantastic profits to investors while also raising the
living standard of the urban middle- and working-class (Shmoop Editorial Team, 2008). By the
middle of the decade, however, estimates for national membership in [the Ku Klux Klan]
ranged from three million to as high as eight million Klansmen (The Ku Klux Klan, n.d.),
including average Americans like doctors, lawyers, and ministers. Similarly, Hitler established
an economic miracle in Nazi Germany before World War II; the unemployment rate had fallen
significantly, and Hitlers economic policies that protected industry from foreign competition,
expanded credit, instituted jobs programs, bullied the private sector on prices and production
decisions, vastly expanded the military, enforced capital controls, instituted family planning,
penalized smoking, brought about national healthcare and unemployment insurance, imposed
education standards (Rockwell, 2012) were gaining success in Germany. It cannot be ignored
that even though this period was accompanied by gross human rights violations and an
authoritarian regime, Hitlers policies resulted in economic growth for the country. While these
examples cannot conclusively prove that economic growth harms liberalism, they demonstrate
the lack of certainty in the conclusion that side pro-growth has drawn.

Furthermore, the pro-growth side propagates this idea that economic growth makes
citizens more optimistic and happy because they individually gain part of a share of the wealth.
However, if we look into the distribution of the growth, what proportion is actually going
towards the demographic that needs it the most? If we could have a zero-growth economy, but
redistribute the wealth to effectively combat poverty, would this not be a better solution than
encouraging unsustainable growth levels? The fruits of economic growth are often directly
deposited into the pockets of the wealthiest individuals, because they hold power over business
and corporations that are responsible for this growth. Trickle-down economics does not work,
and has been proven ineffective through numerous studies as well as historically (Etabari,
2003). If we instead implement policies that limit growth and redistribute wealth, this would
negatively impact the top 1% to benefit the other 99%. This economic solution is not only more
effective at lifting individuals above the poverty line, it also leads to sustainability and
environmental protection.

Overall, while the concept of economic growth is stereotypically and intuitively linked to
happiness and prosperity, rampant economic growth is not sustainable for the future. As
mentioned by the UNEP and other prominent environmentalists, the current levels of
consumption are already untenable; if we continue to encourage economic growth so that
everyone on Earth can live like the average American, we will run headfirst into the Earths
barrier of finite resources. With an exponentially increasing population and diminishing
marginal returns from capital resources, nations can only hope to survive in the future by
curbing economic growth and establishing policies for resource redistribution. Definitively,
sustainable economic growth is a zero-growth economy because of the Earths limited resources
and the harmful impacts of economic growth on the environment.

English:

Memorize paragraph

Econ:
Documentary review

Business:
Religious discrimination

Foods:
Nut in
 Works Cited
Daly, H. E., & Townsend, K. N. (1993). Valuing the earth: Economics, ecology, ethics. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Etabari, M. (2003, July 17). TRICKLE-DOWN ECONOMICS: FOUR REASONS WHY IT JUST
DOESN'T WORK. Retrieved February 23, 2016, from
http://www.faireconomy.org/trickle_down_economics_four_reasons
Greenpeace. (n.d.). Climate Change Causes Habitat Loss and Species Extinction. Retrieved
February 23, 2016, from http://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/campaigns/climate-
energy/problems/impacts/habitat-loss-and-species-extinction/
Harris, J. M. (2006). Environmental and natural resource economics: A contemporary approach.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Krautkraemer, J. A. (2005, April). Economics of Natural Resource Scarcity: The State of the
Debate.
PBS. (n.d.). The Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s. Retrieved February 23, 2016, from
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/flood-klan/
Porter, E. (2015, 1 December). Imagining a World Without Growth. Retrieved February 23, 2016,
from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/business/economy/imagining-a-world-
without-growth.html?_r=0
Rockwell, L. H. (2012, 28 June). Hitler's Economics. Retrieved February 23, 2016, from
https://mises.org/library/hitlers-economics
Shmoop Editorial Team. (2008, November 11). Economy in The 1920s. Retrieved February 23,
2016, from http://www.shmoop.com/1920s/economy.html
Sudworth, J. (2015, 8 December). China pollution: First ever red alert in effect in Beijing.
Retrieved February 23, 2016, from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-
35026363
UNEP (2011) Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic
growth, A Report of the Working Group on Decoupling to the International Resource
Panel. Fischer-Kowalski, M., Swilling, M., von Weizscker, E.U., Ren, Y., Moriguchi, Y.,
Crane, W., Krausmann, F., Eisenmenger, N., Giljum, S., Hennicke, P., Romero Lankao, P.,
Siriban Manalang, A., Sewerin, S.
Walsh, B. (2012, 20 July). Its Not Just Spills-the Climate Risks of Arctic Drilling. Retrieved
February 23, 2016, from http://science.time.com/2012/07/20/its-not-just-spills-the-
climate-risks-of-arctic-drilling/
Worldwatch Institute. (n.d.). The State of Consumption Today. Retrieved February 23, 2016,
from http://www.worldwatch.org/node/810#7