Degrowth as a Realistic Strategy Option - Assignment Example

Degrowth as a Realistic Strategy Option The recent Green movement and the general increase in social and governmental awareness of the need for humans to reduce their overall impact on the environment has begun what many would term a new phase in the environmental movement. Where before certain individuals were aware of some of the activities that humans engage in that are harmful to the planet and the continued survival of complex ecosystems and threatened wildlife, ground water supplies, air quality, global warming, purity of the oceans, etc, the movement has entered into the realm of common discourse as individuals have become uniquely aware of the ongoing threat to sustainability that many practices that humans engage in effect. These are of course varied and diverse but almost invariably tie back to some type of production or industrialization that can then in turn be connected to consumerism. Due to the fact that consumerism lies at the very heart of nearly all of the factors that work to degrade our current environment (as both a function of improper means of initial production and an ever increasing scale of such production), many individuals within contemporary society have adopted a novo-Marxism which wholeheartedly embraces “degrowth” as a means to stem to litany of negative impacts that humans are causing to the face of the planet. As such, degrowth espouses the belief that rather than seeking to continually grow an economy as proof of development and increasing the overall standard of living for those within the economic system, a better alternative would be scale back the level and size of the growth as a means to seek to make do with less and allow the planet the much needed time to heal from the damage that has thus far been inflicted upon it. As such, this brief analysis will work to consider whether a policy of degrowth would or would not be beneficial to the world at the current juncture. In order to do this, both the economic as well as environmental considerations must be taken. Although a litany of issues exist within the current economic system that the world is currently experiencing, the idea of degrowth is one that has not particularly resonated with many. This is due to the fact that degrowth is a mechanism which will necessarily cause a greater degree of austerity, hardship, and want within the already pressured economic systems of the world (Foster 2011, p. 27). As a function of better understanding degrowth, before delving into the ways in which a degrowth policy would be a net positive or a net negative to a given economic system, the following aspects of manners in which degrowth attempts to solve the following problems will be briefly discussed: resource depletion, ecological footprint, and sustainable development. Firstly with regards to resource depletion, the degrowth theory places a high emphasis on the fact that the current trend of economic development coupled with human population growth is unsustainable. Due to the fact that an ever increasing population places an ever increasing demand on current non-renewable resources, it is only logical to assume that the current era that the world is about to encounter will serve to the be most taxing yet with regards to overall resources use and depletion (Eaton 2012, p. 33). As a way to ameliorate such a risk, degrowth puts forward that the level of production, consumerism, and industrialization that takes place within our current system to a more and more frenetic degree must be stepped down in order to salvage the environment in which we live. One aspect of the resource depletion that fits hand-in-glove with responsible resource management is the issue of the ecological footprint. Also as a function of an increasingly globalized world that relies on more and more complex consumer goods, the size and scope of the way that industry is affecting the environment has done a great disservice to the way that human progress has been reflected on the ecological footprint that industry and consumerism currently makes upon the landscape. As previously mentioned, the ever increasing size of the population driven by a consumerist culture only serves to place more and more demands on an already overtaxed environment that is ill prepared to continue to support expansion after expansion. Lastly, the degrowth theory puts forward that due to the fact that all consumerism and industrial growth cannot be stopped, it is the responsibility of those decision makers to work towards a way to at least make the process more sustainable. Of the three different legs of the degrowth argument, this particular one is the one which has experienced the widest degree of success within mainstream society. It is practically impossible to turn on the television or shop in a local grocer without seeing at least the lip service that is paid to the idea of sustainability. However, although this is the one leg of the degrowth theory that appears to resonate most deeply with the populace, the fact of the matter is that for all of the hype that is oftentimes generated concerning green/renewable/ or sustainable, the fact of the matter is that a majority of these claims are merely cleverly disguised marketing plays intended on engaging the customer with a good feeling about the product they are buying all the while the firm in question is utilizing the same non-renewable business tactics that have likely defined the way the firm has operated since nearly its inception. With regards to the level to which the degrowth theory, as lain out in the above description, would help to rescue the world economy of the malaise that it currently suffers, it is the firm belief of this author that although such a tactic may be laudable with distinct advantages to the environment and certain aspects of humanity, the end result would be even more disastrous than what is currently being experienced. Moreover, like many utopian ideals, the level and extent to which degrowth could actually work to benefit the struggling economies of the world is something that is highly suspect due to the very utopian ideals that such a stance necessarily engenders. As a means of understanding but a few of the reasons why such a mechanism would not work as a policy approach to deal with the economic woes that the world currently experiences, this analysis will critique multiple aspects of the degrowth mechanism and/or theory as a means to determine the efficacy that it would likely have on seeking to remedy the issues of resource scarcity, economic development, environmental protection, and many other factors. From a literalist approach, economists believe that economic liberalism gives way to economic growth. Therefore, economic growth is directly responsible for wealth generation, increasing employment, quality of life etc. As such, this literalists interpret any mechanism that seeks to impede such a process as a vehicle of economic recession. In this way, those that ascribe to this view have very little respect for any type of an economic theory that does not place an emphasis on the continual expansion and differentiation/development of the current economic system by way of growth (Sekulova et al 2012, p.4). Since the degrowth mechanism, as the name implies, is fundamentally in opposition to the traditional liberal interpretation of economics, it is worth the reader/researcher noting that this view of the economic system is most prevalent among policy makers as it is what is being taught in schools and the type of economic understanding that permeates the current world view. In such a way, gaining shareholder support for such a deviation to what can only be deemed a standard belief system would likely be tantamount to impossible. Additionally, another criticism of such a view is that of those who believe that the fundamental concepts of economics and the self-regulation of the markets will serve to guide the way in which resources are allocated and utilized. Individuals who ascribe to such a position understand economics from a pure supply and demand perspective. As the supply for diminishing resources becomes increasingly scarce, it will be incumbent upon economic and business mechanisms to create alternate means of providing for the demands of the consumer base (Schneider et al 2011, p. 655). Although this technique works well to explain the actual mechanism by which unique needs are satisfied, the fact of the matter is that such an approach does little to discuss the means by which the impact on the environment, ecological footprint, or non-sustainable means by which a product is produced could be lessened. Another pertinent criticism of the practice is that of those who espouse and have faith in what is known as creative destruction. Whereas the degrowth theory states that producing more necessarily implies that more energy and raw materials will be consumed in the process, the fact of the matter is the past 100 years of industrial history prove quite the opposite. As technology advances, so too has the ability of industry to become much more efficient, waste conscious as well as environmentally aware (Alexander 2012, p. 356). Although a great distance has been traveled already with respect to these issues, it is without question that a great deal further should also be pursued. However, the faulty premise that merely creating more means necessarily that more energy and/or more raw materials will be utilized is inherently flawed as history has proven that this is not necessarily the case; instead, this process is merely indicative of the business cycle and the means by which industry attempts to generate profits while minimizing costs. As has been previously noted, the rough origins of the degrowth mechanism can trace themselves back to certain interpretations of Marxism. As such, rather than being strictly environmental in origin, much of the belief system that helps to define the way in which degrowth advocates interact with the world has to do with their inherent distrust of the ethical nature of capitalism (Lietaert 2010, p. 579). Since this a legitimate concern, it would behoove the reader to at least nominally consider the fact that portions of the degrowth theory would not be happy regardless of the level of overall environmental sustainment, lessening of ecological footprint, or any other such metric that could be realized. Rather, certain elements who support such a theory wholeheartedly support the belief that capitalism itself is the root evil and therefore no amount of reduction in negative environmental factors will be sufficient to satisfy these shareholders until the economic system by which the world operates is re-oriented. What is most unique about this interpretation of Marx is the fact that Marx himself defined growth in two ways: neither of which specifically mentioned the effect that growth would have on nature and/or the environment. According to Marx, growth could be broken down to types of growth that either benefit mankind or do not benefit mankind. Of course one could take the logical progression that the type of growth that does not benefit mankind is that which destroys or over-extends the environment or earth’s resources. However, it is doubtful if this was the overall intent that Marx was implying when he laid out these two approaches. Of all of the critiques that have thus far been mentioned, perhaps the most damning is that of the level to which the degrowth mechanism would harm the development and growth of the third world. Whereas post industrialized economies have the luxury of philosophizing regarding what approach would maximize public utility, the third world is oftentimes struggling to provide the most basic necessities. As such, depriving them of the fundamental rights as human beings to industrialize is something akin to a unique type of sadism. Although the process is dirty and can have a litany of negative environmental affects, the fact of the matter is that the entire developed world arrived at such a level of advancement due to their own industrialization; accordingly, seeking to deprive non-industrialized nations of the same means to better themselves as has already been enjoyed by the remainder of the developed world is the epitome of unfair and cruel. By means of understanding the critiques of degrowth theory that have thus far been analyzed, it is the belief of this author that although the theory promotes many positive aspects of environmental stewardship, a great many of which would do well to be introduced into the economy, taken as a whole, the theory itself is untenable and would necessarily lead to a worsening of the global economic system. Moreover, due to the inherent issues that such a shift would necessarily entail, it would be doubtless to bring the combined economies that would adopt such a stance to all but a standstill. Rather than attempting to incorporate such a totalitarian approach to an issue, it would be more beneficial to the policy makers to attempt to incorporate key factors that could be beneficial to the environmental health, sustainability, and ecological footprint of their existing industry without affecting a fundamental shift in the way the economy integrates with the rest of the world. References Alexander, S 2012, 'Planned economic contraction: the emerging case for degrowth', Environmental Politics, 21, 3, pp. 349-368, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 15 December 2012. Eaton, JM 2012, 'Degrowth movement exposes folly of ongoing economic growth', CCPA Monitor, 19, 5, pp. 32-33, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 15 December 2012. FOSTER, J 2011, 'Capitalism and Degrowth--An Impossibility Theorem', Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine, 62, 8, pp. 26-33, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 15 December 2012. Lietaert, M 2010, 'Cohousing's relevance to degrowth theories', Journal Of Cleaner Production, 18, 6, pp. 576-580, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 15 December 2012. Sekulova, F, Kallis, G, Rodríguez-Labajos, B, & Schneider, F 2012, 'Degrowth: from theory to practice', Journal Of Cleaner Production, 38, pp. 1-6, Business Source Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 15 December 2012. Schneider, F, Martinez-Alier, J, & Kallis, G 2011, 'Sustainable Degrowth', Journal Of Industrial Ecology, 15, 5, pp. 654-656, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 15 December 2012. Read More