Skip to comments.Environmentalists champion economic ‘de-growth’
Posted on 02/28/2014 4:30:44 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Environmentalists are pushing a new way to deal with global warming and overpopulation: the U.S. needs to de-grow its economy.
What is de-growth? It means forcing people to work less to make them more equal, consume fewer goods and use less electricity. Think of it like camping, but for the rest of your life.
Environmentalists at the New Economics Foundation in London and the Worldwatch Institute in Washington, D.C. argue that cutting the 40-hour work week and using less electricity is necessary. This includes a living wage requirement and a more progressive tax code.
Theres no such thing as sustainable growth, not in a country like the U.S., Worldwatch senior fellow Erik Assadourian told Sierra Magazine.
We have to de-grow our economy, which is obviously not a popular stance to take in a culture that celebrates growth in all forms, he said. But as the saying goes, if everyone consumed like Americans, wed need four planets.
De-growing the economy means working less and consuming fewer goods and electricity the foundation of modern life. Most cheap, reliable electricity that businesses and homes rely to power their everyday needs comes from sources like coal, natural gas and nuclear power which environmentalists argue are killing the planet.
If we had a livable wage and could each work a 20-hour week, Assadourian said, wed have time to choose more sustainable options that are also better for ourselves.
With the world population projected to be 10 billion by 2050, Assadourian and others argue that cutting the work week would allow everyone to have a job and enjoy life more.
Why do we work? What do we do with the money we earn? asks Anna Coote, head of social policy at the New Economics Foundation. Can we begin to think differently about how much we needto get out of the fast lane and live life at a more sustainable pace, to do things that are better for the planet, better for ourselves?
Whether you move to a smaller house or an apartment, downsize to one or no car, or simply have fewer lattes to-go, a smaller paycheck could reduce consumption overall, noted Sierra Magazine, a publication of the Sierra Club, which is an anti-fossil fuel and nuclear power environmental group.
We could cook dinner instead of unwrapping and microwaving it, Assadourian suggests, or hang laundry to dry, which would cut electricity use and let us spend time in the sun, the magazine added.
Assadourian and Coote arent the only ones with Malthusian points of view. About a month ago, former Vice President Al Gore suggested that fertility management was crucial to fighting global warming and promoting development in poor countries.
Depressing the rate of child mortality, educating girls, empowering women and making fertility management ubiquitously available so women can choose how many children and the spacing of children is crucial to the future shape of human civilization, Gore said on an international panel on global warming in January.
Africa is projected to have more people than China and India by mid-century; more than China and India combined by end of the century, and this is one of the causal factors that must be addressed, the failed presidential candidate added.
But one mans paradise is another mans hell. Many of Sierra Magazines commentators did not think de-growth was such a good idea.
At least youre honest about your agenda of lowering peoples standard of living. Very few people on the Left are so honest, one commenter said. But as always, some animals are more equal than others. When Michelle Obama starts hanging the family laundry out to dry on the White House lawn, please let us know.
This is pure Socialist Horse Manure! so we need to spread the money around more evenly, said another.
Secretary of State John Kerry is a rabid environmentalist and is dictating foreign policy based on "climate change."
Obama's new White House policy adviser John Podesta [a Hillary advocate], past President, Chair and Counselor of the Center for American Progress is there to help structure Obama's WH policy EO's toward deep environmental [read "socialist"] aims.
Center for American Progress is the lead on the Democratic Party's liberal superstructure.
J.R. Dunn - July 2012: "..................All the groups involved in the Wisconsin campaign were superstructure groups. The unions, the very core organizations of the superstructure, without which it's no more than a pack of vegetarians and aging hippies. The media, which serves as its propaganda arm. And the judiciary, which is broadly infiltrated by leftist partisans whose allegiance has been awarded to something other than the law.
But it's when we review the Prosser accusations that the picture attains clarity. According to Byron York, the story (which had been held back for nearly two weeks) was first reported by the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism working with Wisconsin Public Radio. (Two guesses as to which end of the spectrum they lean toward.) The Prosser story was billed as the result of a project funded by the Open Society Institute to enlighten the public about Wisconsin government.
The report was picked up by ThinkProgress, the strike force for the Center for American Progress, which both tweeted and posted the story, as well as calling for Justice Prosser's ouster.
The interesting thing here is that the Open Society and the Center for American Progress are the flagship organizations of the liberal superstructure, the outfits that call the shots, handle the funding, and coordinate efforts. They are also funded by Old Spooky himself, George Soros. The left rolled out their big units for this effort. Why? To wreck the career of a junior state Supreme Court justice? To take control of the Dairy State? Perhaps so, but I believe it was also in hopes of testing out the superstructure as a political delivery system in a relatively closed environment."..............Democrats Unveil the Weapon of the Future
Holdren was asked by Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions to cite scientific data that supported claims that droughts and other weather events were being made worse by global warming. Sessions then cited contradicting evidence from climate scientists, including former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer and University of Colorado climate scientist Roger Pielke, Jr.
Holdren countered that the likes of Pielke and Spencer are not representative of the mainstream scientific opinion on this point............................
Excerpted article in Post #2 correction:
When they agree to de-grow their foundations, I will agree to talk to them.
>> Why do we work? What do we do with the money we earn? asks Anna Coote
Well, Anna... if I had to guess, I’ll bet you use your big honkin’ salary on gas for your SUV, designer pantsuits made by slave labor in Sri Lanka, and tony vacations to Nepal and Galapagos.
Green elites are the absolute biggest hypocrites that exist on this supposedly overcrowded planet!
-— Population Bomb” co-author with Paul and Anne Ehrlich (along with other publications -—
After Ehrich’s infamous wager with Julian Simon, this Malthusian should be embarrassed to show his face in public.
But they have no shame, just a very, very strange religion.
Or 1/10th of the government we currently have, so people and their markets could figure out temporary resource allocation problems without meddling by feckless dilettantes.
The Obama Administration is apparently filled with true believers in "de-growth" - they are doing everything they can to de-grow America as much as they can before their term is up.
We’re dealing with eco-Nazis who can’t be reasoned with. If you don’t know how to fight or use weaponry, start learning today. If you’re a skilled warrior, teach others those necessary skills. Finally, if you’re in a red commie state, move to a blue patriot state now. It’s time to muster.
Capitalism provides the opportunity to work hard and become wealthy.
Socialism mandates universal poverty.
".....The scientific establishment has painted itself into a corner over global warming. [Garth] Paltridges explanations for this are depressingly familiar to those who read these columns.
Science changed dramatically in the 1970s, when the reward structure in the profession began to revolve around the acquisition of massive amounts of taxpayer funding that was external to the normal budgets of the universities and federal laboratories. In climate science, this meant portraying the issue in dire terms, often in alliance with environmental advocacy organizations. Predictably, scientists (and their institutions) became addicted to the wealth, fame, and travel in the front of the airplane:......."
People who tend to sit in focus groups and chat on sustainable growth versus unsustainable growth....probably have never worked a day in their lives, and get some kind of paycheck from a foundation, that usually has some kind of agenda that is best not discussed in public unless it’s by their dimwits of public statement.
To make this all simple. Anyone who thinks they’ve got the magic wand, the Holy Grail of control over business, the alchemy of economics, the enchantment of society hope and change, the sorcery of Fed manipulation to save America, and the voodoo of environmentalism to stop that terrible carbon stuff (pretend it’s pollution and it’ll freak out the savages in the village)....then they’d best start looking for a new line of work.
De-growth doesn’t work at the muffler shop. De-growth doesn’t work at Pizza Hut. De-growth has no application to beer distribution efforts. De-growth isn’t an element of NCAA bowl choices or gimmicks. De-growth isn’t something that the NFL would use, or Delta Airlines, or Apple. I frankly can’t see de-growth being applied to Disney World, the Vikings of Minnesota, or Texas State Fairs.
Maybe CNN could use this de-growth gimmick....just grow small enough....that they disappear. Maybe in that sense....we need it.
That “livable wage” has to come from somewhere.
Or they could just cut to the chase and go for the ultimate goal - mass reduction of the human population.
So if these enviro-marxists are oh so concerned about de-growing, why are they headquartered in London and D.C.? Shouldn't they be operating out of tents in an Indian reservation or some other equally low-tech area?
If the “greenies” like the de-growth thing so much, how ‘bout they live in some 10” x 10” cabin subdivision without sewers, heat or running water. No car either. If and when they ALL do that, maybe they’d be almost credible.
Moreover, the Canadian ecologist, who was a member of Greenpeace from 1971-86, admitted that Greenpeace intentionally used faulty computer models and scare tactics in promoting claims man-made gases are heating up the planet. More told the Senate committee that he decided to leave Greenpeace because it was more concerned with politics than it was with the environment............"
Leftists will never have the courage, or the honesty, or the integrity, or the ability to really say what their true intentions are. This means you, Soros. And you, Center for American Progress.
Some quotes from times past that accidentally slipped out but will never be admitted by the leftist environmentalists:
“No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment in a quote from the Calgary Herald
“Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” Tim Wirth , while U.S. Senator, Colorado. After a short stint as United Nations Under-Secretary for Global Affairs. Served as President, U.N. Foundation, created by Ted Turner and his $1 billion “gift”
Man is always and everywhere a blight on the landscape. John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club
Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental. Dave Foreman, Earth First! and Sierra Club director (1995-1997)
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” Steven Schneider, Climatologist, Stanford University. Quoted in Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989; see also (Dixy Lee Ray in ‘Trashing the Planet’, 1990) and (American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996).
A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation. Paul Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, Population, Resources, Environment (W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1970, 323) This quote has also been attributed to John Holdren, Erlich’s co-author, who now works with Obama in the White House.
Isnt the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilizations collapse? Isnt it our responsibility to bring that about? Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations.
We can and should seize upon the energy crisis as a good excuse and great opportunity for making some very fundamental changes that we should be making anyhow for other reasons. Russell Train (EPA Administrator at the time, and soon thereafter became head of the World Wildlife Fund), Science 184 p. 1050, 7 June 1974 “Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public ... and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are.” Petr Chylek (Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia) Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland’s glaciers are melting. (Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001)
People are the cause of all the problems; we have too many of them; we need to get rid of some of them, and this (ban of DDT) is as good a way as any. Charles Wurster, Environmental Defense Fund.
The world has a cancer, and that cancer is man. Alan Gregg, former longtime official of the Rockerfeller Foundation
It's getting near time. Politicians, lawyers, radical environmentalists and liberals. The lowest forms of life. I don't know which is lowest and I don't know which I hate more.
Ill bet you use your big honkin salary on gas for your SUV, designer pantsuits made by slave labor in Sri Lanka, and tony vacations to Nepal and Galapagos.
...someone vacations in Nepal...?
".........In 1969, the year that publishers reissued Alinskys first book, Reveille for Radicals, a Wellesley undergraduate named Hillary Rodham submitted her 92-page senior thesis on Alinskys theories (she interviewed him personally for the project).6 In her conclusion Hillary compared Alinsky to Eugene Debs, Walt Whitman and Martin Luther King. The title of Hillarys thesis was There Is Only the Fight: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model. In this title she had singled out the single most important Alinsky contribution to the radical cause - his embrace of political nihilism. An SDS radical once wrote, The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution. In other words the cause - whether inner city blacks or women - is never the real cause, but only an occasion to advance the real cause which is the accumulation of power to make the revolution. That was the all consuming focus of Alinsky and his radicals.
Guided by Alinsky principles, post-Communist radicals are not idealists but Machiavellians. Their focus is on means rather than ends, and therefore they are not bound by organizational orthodoxies in the way their admired Marxist forebears were. Within the framework of their revolutionary agenda, they are flexible and opportunistic and will say anything (and pretend to be anything) to get what they want, which is resources and power......" Barack Obama's Rules for Revolution - David Horowitz 2009
I’d say they have the right man and the right policies currently in the administrative branch of the federal government to do exactly what they want.
All of this is true, but I wonder if Gore understands the implications. Affluent societies are already doing these things spontaneously. It turns out the affluence is the answer to Malthus. Wealthy societies, and wealthy cohorts within societies, have fewer children for all sorts of perfectly understandable reasons. The sooner we can get the third world up the development ladder, the better.
Of course, if one's real objective is to grow government, population control. limits to growth, and micromanaging other people's choices are just handy excuses.
If they are willing to walk their talk why don’t they move to the Sudan or Somalia.All their wishes will become true.
That will allow us stupid ones to remain and suffer a lingering horrendous suicide,driving vehicles and living in air conditioned misery.
Who realizes Hitler was vegan and big enviro before he become Chancellor?
Nazism's Final Solution was a direct product of German environmental socialism. Their presumptive scarcity of resources introduced a valuation of citizenry ...and the solution.
Ever notice the left’s idea of Utopia always starts with the mass reduction of the human population and that mass reduction of the human population never includes them, it’s always the elimination of people they disagree with.
“...Wealthy societies, and wealthy cohorts within societies, have fewer children for all sorts of perfectly understandable reasons...”
Yes, and the Ted Kaczynski types who live a primitive existence by choice do more environmental harm than those who live the suburban lifestyle. Wood-burning stoves are swell but if you have a whole community using them the smoke in the air is remarkably thick. Those big-ticket items like modern power plant are models of efficiency and very Green compared to many Sierra Club endorsed alternatives.
>> ...someone vacations in Nepal...?
You bet your sherpas they do! Those new-age greenies loves them some Nepal.
There are 7 billion people on the planet.
Demographic projections show that by 2050 Asia and Africa will each add an additional billion and by 2100, Africa will add an additional 2 billion for a total of 11 billion.
I’d like to hear them explain how they propose paying all the social security, medicare and Nat’l debt liabilities when expected growth is taken out of the formula?
Hillary’s thesis should have been known to all Americans years ago.
The connection between Hillary, Alinsky, Machiavellianism and nihilism is essential. It’s everything opposite what the vast majority of Americans desire and hope for.