- Home
- About
- Local groups
- Community
- News
- Resources
- Offer Support
- Contact us
Dick Smith, Sustainability and Steady-State Economics.
Much time and energy is expended by those concerned with transition initiatives iinto ways of addressing resource depletion. The most obvious one is actually moving to a way of living that we call "sustainable", which we usually define as using resources no faster than they can be replaced by natural ecosystems. That much abused word has spawned a hundred oxymorons courtesy of the sophistry of PR drones in every industry and field of commerce. Even in the certified organic sector, where, to many green consumers, sustainability is automatically implied, we have grotesquely unsustainable practices such as daily alternate row spraying of lime-sulphur on Hawkes Bay apple trees during the fruit forming period this year. This permitted input chemical consumes a huge amount of energy in its production, and sulphur, one of it's constituents, is rapidly becoming a depleted mineral, not to mention the number of tractor passes required to apply it to the crop. Sustainable economic growth must be the ultimate fantasy that is pedalled to us with monotonous regularity by the empty- headed spin-doctors of mainstream thinking.
The single biggest driver in all this, arguably the only driver- is the growth model of economics. Apologists for the growth model will argue that iti is possible to have economic growth without commensurate resource use growth by expansion of non-physical goods such as the knowledge sector but I think most of us agree that the number one desire in the consumer society is more physical goods, as in our society these are encouraged to be seen as talismans of well-being and success.
It was interesting to hear Dick Smith, founder of the electronic goods retail chain on the Kathryn Ryan programme on Radio New Zealand National. He tended to focus on the issue of population growth, but the point he was making was that countries such as Australia, indeed most countries, with the exception of a few such as the Kingdom of Bhutan, I think he mentioned, see population growth as the most reliable driver of economic growth. Advanced countries such as the developed countries of europe (Italy springs to my mind personally) are terribly worried about the economic consequences of the demographic shift of low birthrate. Many see immigration as a solution, but it is a very dubious one, as it has so many cultural implications.
Dick Smith pointed out that, in Australia, the Murdoch Press ridicules and vilifies anyone of note, himself included, that speaks out in opposition to the concept of unbridled economic growth. Interestingly, he observes that the impetus for this positioning seems to come from the executives, rather than from Mr Murdoch, who, Dick Smith says, is a "decent bloke" who has taken the initiative to make his company "carbon neutral".
Here we see again the "tail wagging the dog" as we see in so many relationships between proprietors and executives in both private business and public bodies such as councils. My own personal view is that this is because the executive class is largely composed of up-and-coming individuals who are willing to take a high level of risk (mainly I would add, with their proprietors assets) in order to further their own ambition, and hence are willing to buy into the Ponzi scheme that is unfettered growth. They cross their fingers and hope the house of cards doesn't fall until they've made their fortune. The proprietor class, being already very wealthy, tend to display a high level of risk-aversion in times of instability. One can only surmise that the proprietors, and in this category I would include the citizens of democratic nations and the electorate of local government bodies, have lost control of the game and the executive are wildly out of control. Compare this with Congressman Ron Pauls unofficial state-of-the-nation address recently in the USA. It seems that the executive, or professional managers, have contrived to subvert the relationship they ought to have with their proprietors by bamboozling them with clever "insider" talk designed to intimidate the uninitiated and to portray the notion that modern business administration is far too complicated for anyone without an M.B.A. to understand. In short, they have turned themselves into "indispensable men"
It seems that what Dick Smith is arguing for here is the establishment of a steady-state economy, although I'm not sure he actually uses this term in the interview, he mentions the characteristics of such an economy several times. My feeling is that he was trying to keep the tone of the interview nice and down-homey and not to use too many ideological sounding terms. An interesting observation from him was that of course business would still be possible under zero-growth conditions, but business people would have to be smarter about how they do business and not expect to make outrageous fortunes from their activity. I would add here that one compensation for this would be that business would be less risky without the boom-and-bust cycles that are a feature of the growth model., He observes that "any fool can make money in a growth economy". He is definitely not talking about a Soviet style command economy here. Market forces would still be at work to determine what gets produced and at what price.
Dick Smith did not expound on the minutiae of how to achieve the desired steady-state within the economy, but we know that is to remove the ability of the banks to create new money as debt and have all new money supply added to (or even removed from) the economy by a central authority whose remit is to keep economic activity at a level that is sustainable according to the usual definition as described above, Another advantage of this is that the government would have the right of Seignorage, or first-use of any new money entering the economy, which it could then use for any purpose, but capitalising the transfer from depletive to sustainable industry in the public sector such as transport and power generation would seem like a good place to start.
Naturally the banks aren't going to like this and will fight dirty in order to retain their right to create money. There will still be a banking business, but it will be about managing customers' money according to their wishes dependent on whether they desire safe-keeping or investment for profit at some risk. Of course the bank may do with it's own money what it wishes, but at its own risk, and not by gambling with depositors cash.
At the moment, government is definitely part of the problem rather than part of the solution. This is largely due to the fact that central government executives, as "international players" identify strongly with trans-national corporation executives, a phenomenon known as "status grouping". These executives will continue to promote "business as usual" as they really don't have a strategy for dealing with the failure of the growth model except to presume on taxpayer bale-outs because they are considered to be "too big to fail".
Dick Smith, Sustainability and Steady-State Economics
Great comment and observations, omg, is there something in the water? I've just been compiling something somewhat similar for a biofuel forum I'm a part of, you could almost say some the words have been taken out my mouth, and said somewhat better!
For some reason CO2, climate change etc, carbon credits, forms of un-natural sequestration have become topics of the century. These seem to be driven by forces beyond the power and comprehension of the average citizen.
There's no doubt that climate stability, and in the longer term, global climate change are both serious enough concerns. I guess with our global energy and resource demands due to population, economics, growth models etc, we can't expect not to have some sort of effect on the biosphere.
But there are far greater worries, food, potable water, energy poverty, sustainable resources and materials, pollution mechanisms, quality of fisheries and oceans, emissions such as methane, due to population and economic growth etc that are of immediate concern and consequence for ourselves and our next generations.
"Nature" has a way of balancing cycles in the long term, our global activities appear to be "short-circuiting" these, and "desperate" costly attempts to mitigate large scale emissions industrially seem to be limited by our abilities and resources.
Companies like Lanzatech for eg (a NZ based company) have developed ways to combine biology with industry (particularly heavy steel production), utilising emissions as an input for "bugs", and just as much as "we" would find it incredibly difficult to create honey in the same manner bees collect nectar and pollen, we need to find ways to work with nature, rather than against, especially now that our global population is demanding such growth, trading, consumption, and high energy/resources demands.
Talking about "working with nature", is not about being a tree hugger, hippy, raving environmentalist etc (although Greenpeace and such, have performed incredible and valuable work now seen as mainstream common sense, and I wouldn't truly describe as raving, although a few may see it that way) but just an extension of what we already do, but in a more symbiotic closed loop fashion.
Living organisms naturally sequester carbon, and in the case of plants, going by ecologists/permaculturists knowledge, even when harvested, a large proportion of that carbon remains in the soil and ground infrastructure to be utilised by the natural community of flora and fauna, *if* the soil *hasn't* been sterilised by herbicides, pesticides etc.
Yeasts, bacteria, fungi, algae (on an increasing scale) etc already are also farmed on large scales, and our knowledge is improving all the time, and although techniques such as bio-refining, ethanol and biofuel production, ddgs (animal feed byproducts), biogas, fertiliser, wood pellets for heat and energy, etc are pretty good models, we need to find ways to apply similar models into other activities, and even extend their potential, without competing for food, or land used for food production.
Do this successfully for most of our industrial, urban and rural actvities, and in the process accept some natural limits instead of continuously aiming for only exploitive short-term gains, then we create the opportunity to be "sustainable" nationally, and globally, and bandwagon issues such as global warming, CO2, exploitive carbon credit mechanisms etc, could just drop out as a natural consequence of more sustainable activity on a large scale.
Instead, there seems to be this huge effort and obsessive (and expensive in many ways) focus on costly CO2 and climate change/global warming mitigation/promotion, instead of quietly and steadily working away towards greater and more effective use of environmentally renewable resources and energy, and lower and more efficient utilisation of in-organic and non-renewable resources.
In all this cacophany and chaos, I sometimes wonder who is trying to be convinced of what, and by whom. Big business, "the public", large scale farmers, governments? Keep the people "scared" so that we accept whatever costly and unworthy "solutions" are proposed? Keep profits and growth at a maximum, while raising insurance premiums to account for increased risks?
Distract our attention from "paper-money" profiteering such as carbon credits, land and property acquisition and capital gains through unnatural inflation and easy loans? Justify and ignore rainforest and carbon sequestering peatland destruction on huge scales? Overcrowding, poverty, health, water, pollution, starvation issues by attracting rural populations into the "opportunities" of urban centers, often by reducing opportunities and stewardship in rural areas?
There are pictures here, but unfortunately we are all just part of it, just by wishing to put a roof over our heads, food on the table, raise our children, secure our retirement future etc.
So when it comes back to our communities, what can "we" do, at our scale of influence, capability etc in our own communities and neighbourhoods?
Because although we all have different opinions, situations, axes to grind, perceptions and understandings etc, at the end of the day, there is still this common need for survival, and a common desire for healthy, happy communities, and a desire to provide these for our children, and their childrens' children, otherwise, what would be the point.
Well, I think we can do something. Especially with the power of communication and the internet. Information and ideas can now be shared globally, almost instantly. Not only can we look at our own household efficiencies, such as energy lost in heating if insulation poor, choices in food and products, transport etc, but we can also look further afield into worldwide communities to see where benefits can be gained by acting locally.
I still find it amazing sometimes, even as someone who was around at the fore-front of the internet (and even somewhat bbs!), that I can be sitting here in front of my screen, in a very small town, in very small New Zealand, having this conversation (well ok, in this case, soap-boxing maybe) across continents, oceans and time-zones, and sometimes, I may not even realise, to people in my own immediate neighbourhood.
So lets use this technology to it's maximum potential. It can be risky to rely on technology, but this one is not likely to be pulled out from under our feet except by some crisis or catatstrophe.
There are already people on this forum/in TT who work on sustainable projects at various scales commercially, co-operatively, and/or for themselves. Others who farm, design, build; manage economics, funds, structures and projects at various scales; legislate and understand legislation, local and national body politics etc; understand or have experience in ecologies, biology, physics, chemistry etc, engine and vehicle design and applications, energy gathering and control, practical hands-on skills too, educate etc, - the list could go on forever..
What a pool of talent, and at the end of the day I'm sure, no matter what spread of opinions or beliefs (perhaps except for the very, very extreme, which is not here I think), hold a common desire for sustainable family and community living, with the benefits of modern technology, medical advances, clean water, adequate food + shelter etc and work-like actvities to keep us busy, but not so busy that family, friends and personal interest time is at a premium. A pool of talent that could really pull together nationally, even globally, and build something positive locally.
I believe an awful lot could be achieved(and *is* being acheived) by *doing*, at the coal face, by everyday people given half a chance, and the sharing of knowledge, ideas and possibilities, and inspiration from others.
Lets keep finding common ideas and models. Models that can translate and scale to various circumstances in various communities, and have some flexibility. Nothing is fixed, or can be fixed, because while some things are common, others are different or change in time; our local climate, geo-spatial ecology, understanding, abilities, technology, evolution of skills in applied techniques and industry etc.
Models that are simple to start with, because doing something, anything, is infinity times better than just endlessly doing nothing, and step-by step, community efort, self funded/customer funded/reinvested R&D seem good models to follow.
Models for community investment and ownership of small and large scale energy and bio-refining activities. Local "green-collar", blue to white collar jobs and employment, empowerment, rather than dis-empowerment. Sensible and empowering local policies and legislation, empowering clean-tech activities, independent of imported, inflationary and insecure fossil fuels, yes, and why not.
Preaching to the converted, yes; I know and acknowledge absolutely .. Apologies, yes. Preaching to those already well underway, and much further ahead, apologies again, and deeply acknowledge progress, inspiration and long on-going activity and support to the cause, ideals and enterprise of community resilience.
What I won't say sorry for, is (broadly) espousing these ideals and ideas - they've been in foment and development for at least 30yrs, not as long as many others involved have, and I'm the first to admit, not as thoroughly, deeply or consistently as others have over that time also, but, long enough to give me some overall clarity, and too, awareness, that I'm still at the beginning of my understanding, and have a helluva long way to go.... and can't continue the journey on my own.
Same as many of us on here I guess. We all have many and varied ideas and motivations, but still this common goal, or set of goals, and maybe a common direction. That's where we can work together, with some common purposes in mind, on our own local or personal projects, but share end-end knowledge and expertise in a global community fashion.
I know this is already happening, and is the purpose of this forum, and it's already happening as we speak. I'm not ignoring any of the enormous work and activity that goes on and has achieved so much so far and continues to do so.
Sometimes though, myself inlcuded, the mindless barrage of media induced frenzy and stupidity gets through. It distracts from the path and goal in hand. We end up fighting "battles" amongst ourselves sometimes, or with external "naysayers" that have no real bearing on the outcome desired, and suck a bit of the energy out of our efforts unecessarily.
We need such debate though, to fill in and balance the picture, provide checks and balances, provide motivation, and help think about good reasoning, and answers for outreach, meetings, justifications etc at all levels, from coal-face to policy, funding and involvement mechanisms etc. And to help consolidate our understandings.
And while we can debate away forever, and I'm up for an argument, discussion or debate any time as much as the next man, I also believe our end goals, and the importance of working together when and where we can, trumps all else, no matter what diverts our attentions for a while.
The key to this is like the information you have posted here above. Keeping us all informed and up-to-date about current events, opinions and outlooks. Moving from naivety to awareness, from bottle to garden fork, say. Finding models that account for needs, but account for finite limits, on a finite planet. Real sustainability, not oxymorons.
The power of many, and the power of actions, eventually speaking louder than words, thats what counts in the end.
That's the potential we have here, I think, if we continue to support each other, as we do, on important common grounds. Grassroots progress. Real grassroots progress and positive actions.
Thanks Azeo.
Thanks Azeo, for your encouraging words. There have been a few things lurking around in my head for a while that I couldn't quite hang together coherently enough for a post and this Dick Smith interview contained elements that enabled me to draw the threads together.
The "out of control" executives are a serious issue both in corporate and public governance. They have effectively formed a mediaeval guild, based around their mutual self-interest and the elitist vocabulary they use among themselves which forms a kind of "freemasons handshake" for "insiders". Nothing new in that, per.se., look at the art world with its fanciful terminology. The difference is that in this case it is subverting democracy in public life and proprietory right in business. The executives are meant to be the servants of the proprietors, but the boot is now on the other foot. This is how the Merovingian Kings lost control of their kingdoms, and how the Kings of Nepal became suzerains of the Ranas, their own civil-servants. This is where we are going, by a trick of the electoral process, principally the dominance of the party system, the caucus system within the parties and the party whip- that will only allow members of the "executive class" to pass into high office .
This Executive Guild operates across the divide between government (both local and national) and business and results in the regulatory functions of government turning into a facilitating and rubber stamping exercise for the advantage of corporate players whilst doing its utmost to keep new players out of marketplaces by the use of expensive "one size fits all" compliance regimes. This has serious implications for transition initiatives. Foreign property developers get the green flag and the red carpet treatment, eco-village hopefuls get burdened with interminable costs and regulatory banana-skins. Food resilience is undermined by compliance issues. Why do you think transition gardeners only do fruit & veges? Because dairying, meat and food processing (baking, preserves and so-on) are burdened with so much compliance issues you can only do it privately or as a full-on, quasi-industrial process!. These facets of food are reserved for corporates like Fonterra, Alliance, and the members of the Grocery Trades (Manufacturers?) Association.
Positively the worst case here has to be the string of bankers that dominate the National party. This surely is no coincidence, but "revolving door" politics at its worst. They are there precisely to see to it that no-one attempts to modify the banking regulations to a steady-state model, and to retain the position of the taxpayer as the debt-payer to the banks of last resort in a financial crisis. Disgusting.
Azeo, I think you take the laurels for the longest post-comment on TTNZ. I'm flattered it should be in reply to my post. Perhaps you should put it up as a new post? Regards Kev.
No links yet, I'll add some later- must dash.
No problem, Kev,
I think recent material I've also seen has been a catalyst for collecting some thoughts! Glad the post went down well, it *was* very long after all! A good dose of the verbals! I guess in response too to other topics that have come up around peak oil on this forum, and climate change on others.
Just happened to find this today through an entirely unrelated activity collecting info for a learning project, and immediately thought of your guild observations. How timely, as I probably wouldn't have paused to read it this time, as I was so short of time.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/143051/corporate_america_meets_...
Shouldn't wind you up, but notice who the majority of honours and knighthoods went to this year? Well, I don't know if it was a majority for sure without looking at the list (and does it matter anyway, really?), but listening on the radio today, apart from some decent philantropists and well deserving recipients, there was the ususal business, banking and local body politicians old boys club recipients. A bit of a cringe really. How much "good" do we really know that have "done", or not? Oh well, as they say, don't sweat what you cannot change (or something like that!)
It still comes back to what "we" do, and when I see all the organised community activity that goes on in TT regions, it's truly amazing. Just simple, roll-yer-sleeves-up community initiatives that provide many benefits. I know compliance issues make some possibilities difficult, but perhaps even these could be met by organised enough groups. I guess in some ways, we don't want to start replicating the systems we decry, and not everyone wishes to be permanently involved in some sort of work co-operative business if they already have a primary job or a wide spread of activities, but perhaps enough people and groups who wish to be involved in urban and rural permaculture for community benefits, may just be enough to swing some common sense.
We need to take a look at what is happening in Otaki with their "future energy" ambitions. I think there is potential there for a community model for resilience involving many stakeholders, and with the support of council/local body (fantastic support actually, the council spokesman at a recent meeting said something like "... right, does anyone need an update on Peak Oil?...we all know what it means??.. "! No-one seemed to need to be updated, but we still got a very tight 5min summary of the possible future economic effects! All very well said that everyone perfectly understood - from council!) , several "clean-tech" businesses, interested community sections including TT, and a centralised Clean Tech Centre, it has the momentum, structure, engagement, and involvement of enough people and groups to make it work.
We'll have to watch that space, because it's all about doing, and not waiting for government to "drop the flag" on anything. Graduated progress for sure, and sensible planning etc, but definitely a force that's been set in motion. Without the kings of corporate runing the show. Although I'm sure, some may well sponsor or support certain activities or needs, but good on them if it's done in the right way.
Cheers,
Azeo
Dick Smith's Wilberforce Award
Hi Kev,
Not sure if you had seen Dick Smith's Wilberforce Award - putting up $1M for someone under 30 to become famous for promoting alternatives to consumption and population based growth:
http://dicksmithpopulation.com/wilberforce-award/
The facebook page is here also:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dick-Smiths-Wilberforce-Award/142695472419894
Cheers,
Carl