If ever I’ve been grateful to be Canadian – land of “socialism” to some, where we riot about silliness like hockey outcomes (I’m not making light of it, just grateful it wasn’t about regimes), land of regulated banks and a good, strong dollar, land of one of the lowest debt-to-gdp ratios – if ever I’ve been grateful, I am now.

And I’m grateful too for our political tenor. Our talk is far from ideal, to be sure, and often very bitter, but so far on the whole we stop short of the vitriol I see in other countries. And we should. If my brief stint in the heart of politics up here taught me anything, it’s that politicians, even those whose approaches are angering, are trying their best to create a system that (in their opinion) will be good for the city, territory, province or Canada.

Which brings me to Jack Layton. I’m no NDP-er (I’m Green, and far too capitalist). But Jack Layton by all accounts was a thoroughly decent person. And we said that about him before he died! He was somewhat of a Canadian-style Obama. Talked sincerely about hope, but without excess charisma. Was passionate about social justice … yet comfortable with something as ordinary as “Orange Crush” (Orange Crush?!?) as a de facto campaign slogan. No celebrities made amazing mashups and sang songs for him, but his mustache sure made the rounds. All so Canadian.

And finally to send us all a simple letter, written to be published after his death, not filled with polished rhetoric, yet closing with these simple, straight-up words:

My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.

Damn. I’m content to be Canadian.
RIP Mr. Layton.

Photo Credit: Tiffany Trinidad

Peter Victor authored the book Managing without Growth in which he “challenges the priority that rich countries continue to give to economic growth as an over-arching objective of economic policy”.  Peter is an economics professor in Environmental Studies at York University.  As a green party member, I’m very interested in ecological economics.   Here’s the liveblog, ftw!

Last minute disclaimer:  I’m not an economist;  the information was fast and furious;  please construe this liveblog as my inept attempt to capture the evening – double check everything below in his book!

_______________________________

Background:

One way of understanding why we’re not taking good care of our home, the globe, is to understand how we “do” economics.

Economics is:  Firms provides goods and services to Households, who provide land, labour and capital.  If that’s all there is to it, it’s easy to imagine an economy that could grow and grow.  Hard to imagine we would ever question growth as an objective.  Here’s a diagram of this.

Missing:  The Environment.  First thing we have to do is add in the Environment.  Let’s include Natural Inputs – flows of materials and energy from Sources and Environmental Service.    How will these Natural Inputs re-emerge in the economy?  as Waste Outputs.  (Side: the only thing that goes and comes from the earth is Energy.)

Most of the information we rely on to make decisions is PRICE.  But our information is becoming less and less reliable re: Price.

Background #2 re: technology

1820 Population 1.1 billion;  1940 population 2.4 billion; 2009,  6.8 billion.

This population, of course, is not equally catered to.  Most of the wealthy are in NA and Europe.

Geek-out moment:  he’s showing slides of computers from 1946 to present, and also slides of phones.

Note: ironically, miniaturization allows us to build and design much larger machines – they can be computerized.  Eg. world’s largest container ship carries 11,000 containers and only employs 13 people.  So technology can work in many different directions.

_____________________________________

Thesis:  Growth is not possible over the long term.  In fact, growth is disappointing.

Despite reduction in energy intensity,  global primary energy consumption is rising.  (ie. individual units are more efficient, but the scale is increasing).  Same with resource extraction – we’re getting better at using less material when extracting, but the net effect is still an increase of using energy.  Peak Oil:  (money coach shudders)  Production started to exceed discovery in 1990.

We need to make a fundamental energy transition.  We’ve done that in the past:  wood – coal – oil/gas, electricity.  We’ve increased our use of energy by over 20 times in the past 200 years.  In the past, it was not hard to switch because it had more readily apparent benefits – cheaper, better, more powerful.  Renewable options now do not have these characteristics.

If you want to freak out a little (money coach’s words), check out the Stern Review. It delineates the impact of each degree centigrade of average temperatures.

Services from planet earth

Approximately 60% of the ecosystem services examined are being degraded or used unsustainably, for example:

World Grain Production per person: peaked in early 1980′s. In decline ever since.

Canada:  collapse of Atlantic Cod (result of big factory ships – made possible by technology)

Rising evidence that growth does not make us any happier.

Gross Domestic Product v. Genuine Progress Indicator Until 1970, gdp and gpi moved together.  After that, gdp keeps rising, but gpi stayed nearly flat.

Since 1975, real income per person has increased, but percentage stating they were “very happy” stayed flat (money coach loves these kinds of stats).

Canada’s substantial economic growth from 1976 – 2006 – our gdp per person grew by 70%, but:

• Never had full employment in that period
• Had more unemployed people in real numbers
• Reduced percentage on low income, but more in real numbers (now 3.4 million)
• Increased inequality in incomes and wealth

How slowing the rate of growth could help climate change:

1990:  $950,000 GDP, and 592 mt (metric tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions) in Canada.  US, about 10 times this.

Green Growth means starting at 592mt and moving towards less.

Canada now:  747 mt.   We need an 87% reduction by mid-century.   We can achieve that in various ways:

• reduce energy per output down to 13% of current if we don’t grow our economy at all.
• if we have 3% economic growth, we have to get down to 0% (I think I got that right?)

Dilemma – if we don’t spend enough money, more people unemployed.  What makes an economy grow?

• what we spend money on (consumption)
• new equipment
• gov’t expenditure
• trade
• what we produce

If we do business as usual to 2035, what would happen?  Gov’t debt goes doen, gdp per capita goes up, green house emissions go up, poverty goes up (yes, goes up).

What if we eliminate all growth? Disaster:  unemployment, poverty, stabilized gdp per person, gov’t debt becomes unmanageable.

The real issue is whether its possible to challenge the “growth at any cost model”.

A better model is low/no growth scenario.  poverty comes down, gdp goes up, unemployment goes down.   How?  (nerd moment coming up)  Macro demand (C,I,G,X-M) and supply (K,L,t)  stabilized;  Carbon price; Shorter work year;  More generous anti-poverty programs.  What would change:  new meanings and measures of success;  limits on materials, energy, wastes and land use; more meaningful prices; more durable, repairable products; fewer status goods, more public goods; more local, less global; education for life not just work; reduced inequality.

(interesting sidenote of interest to this money coach  about status – it’s a zero-sum game.  One person purchases for status, then another does, so original person back to where they started, so they buy again)
We must knock economic growth off its pedestal.

(Nobel Prize winner) Robert Solo’s endorsement:  “It’s possible that the US and Europe will find that either continued growth will be too destructive to the environment and they are too dependent on scarce natural resources, or that they would rather use increasing productivity in the form of leisure”

Can our universities adapt fast enough to this way of thinking?

Can our religious institutions adapt fast enough to this way of thinking?

Can our legal systems adapt?

Will it take disaster to make it happen, or could we look and think ahead?