Re: and when we're all rich, then what?

["Barry Brooks" <barrybrooks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Pollution still grows even when the economy slows.

When we talk about economic growth we are talking about growth in the rate of
consumption. (a rate of a rate) The amount of accumulated CO2 pollution (a
stock) grows any time the level of fossil-based economic activity (a flow) is
above zero.  To stop the accumulation of CO2 we would need to do much more than
stopping growth; we would need to slow the economy to cut the consumption of
fossil fuels to a very low level.

>Sven R Larson wrote
> ...Every year cars get more environmentally friendly (except in
> countries where economic growth has come to a standstill).

Do they?  In California the popularity of SUV's and trucks among commuters has
significantly increased co2 emissions per car in the last ten years.  And, the
world's total co2 emissions are still rising.  G. Bush tells us that pollution
is falling, but his data doesn't include co2 as a pollutant... after all it is
"natural."   If you ask a California SUV driver why he has no concern about CO2
they will tell you environmentalists are crazy communists so don't worry, be
happy.

< Every year
> industrial production has lower impact on the environment. Why?
> Because we have more resources to spend on reducing the environmental
> impact of civilization. Progress is being made every day. Let's
> recognize that and stop lamenting.
>
> /srl

Yes we are increasing efficiency some, but growth in consumption is still our
goal.  An efficient economy would imply an end to the consumer economy, which
must increase consumption to make jobs.  Finally, increases in efficiency and
productivity will make us choose between un-employment and waste.  A GMI can
make un-employment a good thing; nothing can make waste a good thing.

The following is from...
http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/resolve/globalcrisis/limits.html
Economists often give the misleading impression that resource availability
depends mainly on the price we are prepared to pay, so that resource scarcity
can be overcome if price and demand rise. There is a tendency for this to
happen, but the important limits are set by geochemistry, i.e., the quantities
and grades of ore in the earth. ... For some items, notably oil, the amount
retrievable is not affected much by changes in prices. The approximately 50
estimates of the total amount of oil resources that have been made yield a
median of about 2000 billion barrels. This would only last about 20 years if
everyone in the world today used it at the per capita rate Americans average.

...If the C02 content of the atmosphere continues to increase at the present
rate then late next century it will probably have risen to around 8 times the
present level. (Which has already doubled since the start of the industrial
period.)

...World energy consumption is growing at about 2% p.a. Remember that the Third
World is far below rich world energy use levels and wants to catch up. In fact
half the world's people average only 1/17 of the rich world average per capita
use. If all the people likely to be on earth late next century were to rise to
the present per capita use levels in rich countries, world energy use would be
about 8 times its present amount.


Also, see "Alienation and Economics," by Walter Weisskopf, which has a chapter
about GNP-Fetishism.