Usually, the proposed response to global warming is framed this way. We can fix global warming without any impact on the economy. What they mean by economy is that we can fix global warming and still grow forever. Anyone with the slightest understanding of the implications of exponential growth knows this is absurd, but it is absolutely critical that politicians urge or promise infinite growth at least until they leave office.
Al Gore is one of the most significant and well known proponents of this formula. It is generally understood that to advocate fighting global warming without at the same time saying it will not retard growth is suicidal. Even if you don’t believe it, you must pretend you believe it. While a few dare to challenge the tenets of fundamentalist, right wing religion, it is simply not possible to find a politician, whether right or left, who challenges the fundamental tenet of the American religion, growth for growth’s sake, and plenty of it. Growth is good, and for the right, even, and especially, if it does not trickle down below the rich.
I would call growth a cult, but it encompasses almost the entire body of the American citizenry. There are a lot of problems with the growth fetish, but the fundamental problem is that we equate growth with welfare, with well being. The other main problem is that growth describes the growth of gross domestic product, a number which, unfortunately, encompasses both all the goods and all the bads. Within this context, a hurricane can be a good thing, a very good thing, because it will require the expenditure of billions of dollars to clean up and reconstruct everything that was destroyed by the hurricane.
But I digress. Global warming will destroy the earth as we know it. Isn’t it rather odd that we only think we can get action to stop this menace if we promise that it won’t have any impact on the GDP? How about this? There is a meteor heading towards the earth which will destroy most of its inhabitants. The world marshals its resources to stop the meteor. But someone objects. What will happen to GDP if we spend all those resources trying to stop the meteor?
You see the problem. We are so psychotically twisted by greed that an abstract and not terribly meaningful number called the GDP has become more important than life itself. Goddamn it, right before I die, I want to be able to turn to the financial pages that day and see that the GDP increased over the last fiscal quarter.
Very good post, Tom.
When I was young, I recognised greed. I just didn't know how much it influenced people. Unfortunately, now I do know.
As for growth, I can't understand why no one is ever satisfied. More and more is always good? Come on. Once a certain level is reached, many people have jobs, income is adequate, isn't that enough?
You always talk sense,Tom.
Who, in his right mind, would dream up the HUMMER?
Who, in his right mind, would buy one?
When I first read EF Schumacher's "Small is Beautiful" I thought we might finally design economic indicators to reflect authentic wealth. Still waiting.
Yeh, Judy. Back in the 70s, I read Schumacher as well. Somehow things haven't turned out quite as I had hoped.
Posted by: tom street on June 11, 2006 8:27 AMNor as I had hoped, Tom. Glad you're there, for company.
Posted by: Judy Bock on June 14, 2006 3:14 PM