In a recent debate with some fellow 'Hamsters this concept of Steady State Economics was presented. The principles, seemingly agreeable, are as follows:
Achieving a steady state economy requires adherence to four basic rules or system principles:
(1) Maintain the health of ecosystems and the life-support services they
provide.
(2) Extract renewable resources like fish and timber at a rate no faster than
they can be regenerated.
(3) Consume non-renewable resources like fossil fuels and minerals at a rate no
faster than they can be replaced by the discovery of renewable substitutes.
(4) Deposit wastes in the environment at a rate no faster than they can be
safely assimilated.
Text from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_economy
So, is this the same as 3BL (triple bottom line) or People, Planet, Profit?
Thoughts?
Mike,
ReplyDeleteThanks for introducing the Steady-State concept to your blog. To answer your question, I believe the goals of 3BL are similar to those of Steady State Economics; however, 3BL does not consider the primary questions addressed by Steady State:
1) Can the economy be too big in its physical dimensions relative to the ecosystem? In other words, is it possible that the economy can grow so large as to overwhelm the resources and sinks of our finite planet?
2) Are the marginal costs of growth now larger than the marginal benefits? That is, can we reach a point where further growth provides no net benefit but rather a net harm?
I am not aware of another system of thought that recognizes that the economy is a subset of the environment and is limited by the resources (both renewable and non-renewable) and sinks of a finite planet. It is not a question of whether we can grow infinitely (we can't), but rather how close we are to the planet's maximum capacity we already are. According to researchers who began tacking this question decades ago, we are very, very close. The term for exceeding capacity is OVERSHOOT.
One outcome of too much extraction will be the bottlenecking of the human species. Our capacity to grow food (ie. calories) isn't even close to tapped, esp. if we can extract more energy from sunlight.
ReplyDeleteThe bottleneck will happen, it happens in all creatures when overcapacity strains resources. It's really easy to see in deer populations if you want to watch it firsthand.
I was once posed the following while standing in a church lobby: does it really matter, in the end?
Mike, if you have time, I'd like to suggest (again) that you read:
ReplyDeleteThe Limits to Growth: The 30-year Update and
For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward Community, the Environment, and A Sustainable Future
Both are available at the library:
http://wcls.bibliocommons.com/item/show/771634044_the_limits_to_growth
http://wcls.bibliocommons.com/item/show/394893044_for_the_common_good
Larry....contrary to myth, I've already read these books. :-)
ReplyDeleteI once spent a summer with a good man of great intention who came to my door with a simple book filled with extremely complex ideology. Much to his initial consternation I asked too many questions about the assertions in his book. Gradually, over a couple weeks and several meetings he understood that the book was too simple and my questions too complex, so we spent the next few months agonizing over even the simplest turn of phrase or just one word. Funny thing was I didn't and still don't believe a word of what was in his little book and, although I suspect he knows this, we remain friends to this day. Sadly, tho, our summer ended and we only got through a third of the book, which usually takes just a couple hours for most people to complete.
While I wouldn't suggest you try reading literature that disagrees with your position I would offer this, get more critical. Get more cynical and question all assumptions.
The limits to growth theories have been around as long as mankind could fathom the concept, I'd bet many thousands of years now. While I am no expert we aren't even close to the limit, mostly because we haven't yet tapped into the vast majority of this world's resources. It may seem like it, but, again, I challenge you to challenge your assumptions - think in terms of calories, energy, basic resource availability.
By way of example, let me take the plastic shopping bag v. paper shopping bag debate and discuss it simply in terms of energy. It takes 7 truckloads of paper bags to equal one truckload of plastic. Plastic bags use fewer resources in their production. Plastic bags are more reusable if they are recycled. Plastic bag production releases fewer harmful byproducts than paper. So, why do we ban plastic shopping bags?
From an energy standpoint, plastic shopping bags are the big winner environmentally and that is indisputable. But we ban them because we get emotional about the problem of plastic bags that don't get recycled, which may be most of them.
....cont'd below....
....cont'd from above...
ReplyDeleteI realized long ago that I was drinking the cool-aid and it was yummy. It still is. I am probably the most fanatical recycler I know. I even take old tools apart to separate them into their appropriate waste stream. My favorite mug says, "use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without". I get pissed when I see the little 'no-waste' sticker the EU requires on my headphones and I have no outlet like they do to recycle them.
I believe you've challenged me based on assumptions but without a depth of understanding. I've spent the last 20 years studying, researching, learning and questioning all assumptions made by environmentalist peers.
Here's one: Elwha River dam removal. Countless years and $100 million dollars and counting to 'restore' a watershed. This could have been done for much, much less. How? The same way the Toutle and Cowlitz and Cispus Rivers recovered after Mt. St Helens - natural recovery. Blow the dams, ignore the concrete ugliness and walk away. The assumptions there were that the river needed our help - no it didn't, it needed us to get out of the way and leave it alone.
Alright, so the dams are coming out, almost done. K. Sounds good. BUT, $100 million doesn't just come from nowhere, the machinery runs on fossil fuels, the crews need gas to get to work and money for food, etc. etc. Think of all the *energy* inputs needed to remove a river blockage and rebuild that habitat. The ONLY way to get even the $100 million was to take it from the earth somewhere else.
Think about that one little fact - the root of every dollar earned has it's basis in the natural world and the primary industry that extracted it. Even knowledge workers rely on that energy input, except they use and waste even more than the primary extractor digging it up or cutting it down, so the environmental impact of a knowledge worker is even higher than the farmer who grew her food.
I could spend the rest of the week pointing out issues like this one. I could write yet another book to add to the countless ones on this very topic. But why? We, you and I, know the gist of what's going on. That our energy use is way, way too high. That the industrialized world is hastening a serious environmental shift.
You see, we, you and I, agree. You just don't want to think so. :-)
1 - Plastic bags as they currently exist are fossil-fuel dependent.
ReplyDelete2 - people use approximately three plastic bags for the same amount of groceries as one plastic bag
3 - when plastic bags are improperly disposed of, they don't biodegrade, and they kill wildlife.
Yeah, the plastic bag ban makes sense. Of course, we should generally be using reusable bags.
I would say that the key result in "steady state economics" is a *very* strong emphasis on fully renewable energy usage: creating a steady-state, or *sustainable* (these are synonyms) economy absolutely requires a solar economy. After that, it points towards intensive recycling of mineral resources.
This is very different from 3BL, which is frankly fuzzy-headed. I think they're driven by the same goals, but "steady state economics" takes a hard-headed look at what's actually sustainable and focuses on sustainability.
(ugh, correction)
Delete2 - people use approximately three plastic bags for the same amount of groceries as one PAPER bag
Oh. And "bioplastic" bags compete for their production food resources.
ReplyDeleteFrom an energy standpoint, reused cloth bags are the winner and that's indisputable.
But anyway, you have already agreed that for some reason paper bags are routinely recycled and plastic bags aren't. Average human psychology, unfortunately, is another fact which must be dealt with, not "assumed away".