Growth

April 3, 2006
      Americans ought to regard the word "growth" with trepidation. When invoked by presidents and economists, it is meant to imply ideas like "more" or "better." It's a habit of thinking left over from the exuberant phase of the industrial age, when there was always more of everything to get.  Nowadays, though, as we enter terminal years of cheap energy, the word "growth" invokes a new set ideas.

     For instance, "impossible." With the price of oil edging toward $70-a-barrel now, and likely to flirt with $100 by the end of the year, the effect will be higher costs for virtually all products and services, and tremendous stress on every socioeconomic organism from the family to government at all levels to the Ford Motor Car Corporation. The only "growth" we might expect under these conditions is the growth in our exertions to stay where we are, and the truth is that many of the weak will simply fall behind.

     Another idea that "growth" might invoke would be a fear of an unstoppable rising population competing for scarcer resources: incomes, energy, food, shelter. Surely this is one of the specters behind the illegal immigration issue, a dawning recognition that the American cornucopia is becoming an emptier basket, with fewer fruits, less energy, and not many gold nuggets left in it.

     For those of us positioned against the suburban juggernaut, "growth" invokes the destruction of more landscape, the conversion of pastures and croplands into McHousing subdivisions, with a long menu of additional liabilities -- not least being the huge investment in a living arrangement with no future. One would think the "homebuilders" could see this coming -- with oil edging toward $70 -- but the truth is that their companies are programmed for only one kind of behavior -- to keep building 3000 square foot McHouses 27 miles outside Dallas, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Denver, et cetera. Since they won't change the programming, then they will continue their destructive behavior until circumstances make it impossible for them to continue -- when the housing bubble blows up in their faces -- and then the companies will just die.

     The cheap energy era led us into a climax of surpluses, and these surpluses represented the general "more-ness" and "better-ness" of late industrial society. In a post cheap energy world, accumulated surpluses will be meager to nonexistent. There is bound to be a scramble for whatever is left. Geopolitically, this means a contest for the world's remaining oil, which tends to be concentrated in just a few places. In each nation, there is likely to be a parallel scramble for whatever fruits, gold nuggets, and therms are still to be had, throwing off a lot of red-hot political sparks that will burn people. A lot of the remaining energy worldwide will be devoted to these scrambles, and thus essentially wasted.

     There are many ways of viewing this "growth" predicament, and some strategies we can turn to in the face of it. An obvious one is to change our behavior, to stop acting as though our destructive, terminal, and futile activities were beneficial or indispensable . For instance, we could yield to the reality that the age of mass motoring will have to end. Instead of desperately seeking "alternative fuels" to run our 100 million cars, we could make an effort to restore our railroads. Instead of a million McHousing starts out in the meadows and cornfields, we could repair our existing towns and cities. There is no reason why they cannot be rewarding, beautiful places. There may well be greater benefit in walking more and driving less. The well-off Americans who have visited Europe over the past several decades invariably notice this. Anyway, we are going to need every meadow, cornfield, and pasture that we have, because as cheap energy wanes, we are going to be desperate to grow enough food to feed ourselves -- another reason to be wary of alt.fuel fantasies based on growing crops dedicated to gasoline substitutes.

     One esteemed (and extremely shy) reader refers to the process of moving from a high entropy society to a sustainable one as "autonomic devolution."

     "Positive feedback driven social systems breed self-amplifying trends which ultimately self-destabilize," he writes. "Autonomic devolution societies consist of localized islands of self-sufficiency."

      I believe we are inevitably heading to that destination. The only thing I wonder about is how violent and destructive the process will have to be.

Comments

[nostalgia]

America needs growth, because it is the time tested way to have the American Dream cover American reality - more must be better, because more is the only way for corporations to earn the money to allow everyone to become rich, since the definition of rich is having more.

Or something.

Of course, the medical truth that cancer is essentially nothing but unrestrained cell growth is just a touch too easy to expand into a metaphor describing America and its current place in the world. Not that it is really false, just too easy.

And truly, no one stopped a cancer by politely pointing out the errors of it ways, and then waiting for it to change. Even screaming isn't considered helpful as a cancer cure.

You can keep this metaphor going as you wish.

[Peterbart]

Railroads indeed. Perhaps we should all take more notice of them as the future. It is telling that the uber-geek Bill Gates has done so. An article in today's Globe and Mail tells us that he is now the single largest shareholder in CN, the major Canadian Railway. Moreover, his holdings in CN are worth ~$1.5B, a not insignificant portion of his $50B net worth. Say what you will about the rumpled Mr. Gates, but he knows a thing or two about where the world is headed.

[Peter]

"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."
-Edward Abbey

[German Mike]

Implications on the debt.
As long as the GDP expands we can have SOME deficit spending and the overall debt in relation to the GDP doesn't get out of control. Once the GDP contracts we would actually have to run a surplus for the debt level (in relation to GDP) to stay the same. The likelihood of achiving a surplus during times of a shrinking GDP is about as likely as X-mas and Easter falling on the same day. The only way to stay ahead of the debt should this happen is to let the $$ printing press run overtime.

[One Eye Open]

To say that growth, in and of itself, is evil is silly.
Pick a company that manufactures a cancer killing drug. In year one it can manufacturer enough doses to save 100 people from dying of cancer. It grows its production line so in year two it can now manufacture enough to save 125 people.

A university grows its physics department. 10 years later one of its graduates discovers a film that can be used to "paint" your home. The "film" is able to capture the suns energy and be converted to electricity without throwng carbon back into the environment. The company that makes the "film" can only make enough in year one to coat 300 houses. In year two, the company grows its production line. 3000 homes are now off the grid and energy self sufficient.

A religious sect that adheres to the strict belief that a couple should only have one child starts off with 2744 couples who "buy into" the belief. Ten years later the religion increases membership by 2,337,901. The net result being that the growth of the sect has helped lessen population growth.

Etc., etc, etc...

[Peter]

Apples and oranges. We are talking about growth in populations here, not "growth" in innovations, or the diffusion of ideas, or a sect's recruitment of existing people.

[Dave]

Good Post

At 54 and spening my life in NE Pa. making my living as an on the road saleman for 30 plus years it was the deterioration of the many towns and villages I witnessed during that time that spurred my interest in city planning and the cancer of "growth". In addition I early on became an enthusiast for the work of Lewis Mumford. So I'm in whole hearted agreement with JHK on the possiblities of restoration of our towns and cities but my fear that ther effort will overwhelmned by the coming March of the Zombies returning north as the energy and water systems collapse and the weather becomes insane.
The midwest just suffered 19 deaths from tornados. If this continues and another hurricane season breaks the bank settlement patterns will begin to change and change quickly. All hell can break loose long before energy becomes central. Hold on to your hats and prepare. The ethics of the life boat will soon be upon us and I personally can't stand the propect of witnessing the drowning of millions that is to occur hence my seat in the Last Barrel Saloon where Old Dr. Karma sits and mumbles "Payback is bitch !"

[One Eye Open]

Peter,

Go back and read other posts. They are not limited to discussing growth solely in terms of population.

[Peter]

Let me share with you the very first time I had uneasy feelings towards growth. It happened a long time ago when I was still in high school (early 70s). One Sunday the local newspaper's editorial pages carried a big half-page article on an experiment in over-population conducted with mice by some university researchers. In a nutshell, the researchers built a "maze city" and seeded it with a small number of rodents. At first everything was fine as the residents lived peaceful and seemingly contented lives.

However, over time the population swelled and then the nightmare began. To their horror (or was it mine?), the researchers began witnessing a complete breakdown in social order. The once peaceful inhabitants began engaging in violent competition for newly scarce resources, such as food and nesting space. The males conducted turf wars and carried out raids. The society even deteriorated into cannibalism with litters of young the victims. Being a young person this story of the "collapse of civilization" in the maze city disturbed me greatly. Despite the passage of three decades, I still cannot shake it from my memory. For me it foretold the grim future of any society which deludes itself into believing in infinite growth.

Back then the population of the earth was around four billion and already there was a rising sense of claustrophobia. Today the world population is 6.5 billion and growing.

[One Eye Open]

Dave,

You say:

"..it was the deterioration of the many towns and villages I witnessed during that time that spurred my interest in city planning and the cancer of "growth".

It could be argued that the "deterioration of the many towns and villages" was due to a lack of growth. Those towns deteriated or died because they could not figure out a way to adapt and grow. Growth did not destroy them...a lack of growth did.

[Johnny]

Well, when no longer able to afford the McHouses, we can live in our happy-motoring cars. The New York Times had a front page story about it yesterday. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/us/02cars.html

[JMG]

Saturday I attended the "Oil Shockwave Conference" where prize presenter (ex-CIA boss) James Woolsey and co. tried to persuade the assembled undergrads seeking to flesh out their resumes that the only thing needed was plug-in hybrids and cellulosic ethanol. They do a little "simulation" exercise involving terror attacks on oil facilities, with cabinet meetings at which the clueless cabinet members struggle with what in hell to do about it all while oil cruises up to $167 bbl. The absolute cluelessness of the assembled cabinet was, I think, the only part of the exercise that was realistic.

On another panel, the woman from the Iowa corn growers was very not happy when people questioned her about the new corn ethanol plants that are burning 300 tons of coal per day to make "clean burning ethanol." (Story in Xian Science Monitor last week.)

The Mid-East historian who claimed to have been in 50 countries since the 80s was totally oblivious to peak oil, though he'd heard of Matt Simmons' book. He said that suggesting that people were going to have to stop flying to Vegas was simply unrealistic. (Vegas is the #1 destination for people leaving Lansing's airport, which enjoys $3M annual tax-subsidy from the rubes so that Delta and Northworst can pay their fuel bill.)

All in all, I'd have to say that We. Are. SO. Screwed.

[excerpt]

Excerpt -

.... 'In retrospect, the Bush administration badly misread the U.S. position in the world. Its officials, blinded by their own publicity releases on the nature of American power, were little short of self-delusional. And so, with unbearable self-confidence, the administration set out flailingly and, in just a few short years, began to create something like a landscape of ruins.

Today, we stand in those ruins, whether we know it or not, though the Ground Zero of the Bush assault was obviously not here, but in Iraq. Starting with their "shock and awe," son-et-lumière air assault on downtown Baghdad (which they promoted as if it were a hot, new TV show), they turned out to want their apocalyptic-looking scenes of destruction up on screen for the world to see no less than al-Qaeda did. It took next to no time for them to turn huge swaths of Iraq into the international equivalent of the World Trade Center. And it's a reasonable guess -- these people being painfully consistent in their predilections -- that it's only going to get worse. (As Sidney Blumenthal recently put it in another context, "Like all failed presidents, Bush is a captive in an iron cage of his own making. The greater his frustration, the tighter he grips the bars.")

Just a quick look at the situation in Iraq today reveals levels of chaos and a "steady diet of carnage" that not long ago might have seemed unimaginable. The Bush people now find themselves oscillating weekly between desperate policy non-alternatives, while a low-level, vicious, Lebanon-style civil war develops on the ground. Just last week, "Iraqi troops" with U.S. advisors were reported to have raided a Shiite mosque complex in a Baghdad neighborhood controlled by the forces of Moqtada al-Sadr's militia. A number of civilians, including an 80 year-old Imam, were killed, provoking an angry Shiite response, including calls for the sacking of Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador, indicating that a new stage had been reached.'

http://tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=73663

[Barry]

Re: JMG's comment about 'cluelessness' -
Over the past few weeks, a thought that bothers me a lot is "how the hell does one send the critical message about 'scarcity' without totally upsetting the applecart or being the victim of a 'drive by ridicule-fest?' You may have just provided one answer.
Although for the larger part, most of the 'ex-DC' gang appear to be as clueless as the rest of the population, they are well-educated, with a lot of experience in real-world, realpolitik situations.
So, it may be that the 'proposals' they make are like another 'carrot' in front of the mule - these proposals don't ask that people 'give up' their precious preconceptions of our 'non-negotiable' lifestyle - in fact, they point out how astute the presenter is in recognizing the scarcity of energy resources. And, as a thoughtful and concerned representative of the 'people's will' they've come up with some alternatives. Now these alternatives don't dovetail exactly with the current perceptions of the 'easy-motoring' crowd - but, they don't out and out suggest that 'motoring,' 'easy' or not, is completely out of the game. Score one!
If (actually, when) things go South with these projects, the proposers of such solutions have lined their pockets, reduced some consumption and dependence, and can always say "Well, we told you in good faith. We helped you reduce your dependence. You just didn't do enough. Not our fault! But, hey, we're still all in this together, so we've come up with another idea that may help out a bit. Wanna' hear about it?" And, guess what? I'll bet that the better portion of the public would lend an ear? What do you think?

[jorge]

Good morning:

The Club of Rome discussed the issue of growth vs. equilibrium in its seminal study 'The Limits of Growth'. TCOR then posited that achieving a state of equilibrium, i.e., a state where the interaction of human population, capital resources, and use of natural resources, allowed sustainability into the indefinite future by preserving environmental assets and fostering more equitable distribution of wealth would require changes of such enormous momentum as the world had never seen.

TCOR was extremely aware about the tremendous challenge that a state of equilibrium would impose on human societal, economic, and political structures. Here is some of what TCOR had to say about this:

"What would life be like in such an equilibrium state? Would innovation be stifled? Would society be locked
into the patterns of inequality and injustice we see in the world today? Discussion of these questions must
proceed on the basis of mental models, for there is no formal model of social conditions in the equilibrium
state. No one can predict what sort of institutions mankind might develop under these new conditions.
There is, of course, no guarantee that the new society would be much better or even much different from
that which exists today. It seems possible, however, that a society released from struggling with the many
problems caused by growth may have more energy and ingenuity available for solving other problems. In
fact, we believe, that the evolution of a society that favors innovation and technological development, a
society based on equality and justice, is far more likely to evolve in a state of global equilibrium than it is in
the state of growth we are experiencing today"

So there you have it. The call for the construction of equilibrium, or stable state conditions, has been on the table for more than 30 years. In that period of time our societies worldwide have, as a general rule, completely ignored the different steps required to achieve stable state conditions. Au contraire, globalization has unleashed an ever larger momentum towards growth, in diametrical opposition to the achievement of stable state conditions. The consequences of increased rates of growth, of course, are being felt already at all levels. We must assume that the movement towards growth will continue unabated as political, financial, and trade institutions are hardwired by the growth model.

It is not unreasonable to state that movement towards a stable state condition, even taken over a long period of time, would have negative effects unacceptable to the present development model. That explains why no significant political or economic institutions capable of influencing international and national behavior advocates the march towards equilibrium.

In essence, we are trapped by the growth model. The changes needed to nudge the world towards stable state conditions are not at the top of international agendas, and very few countries have taken some deliberate steps to achieve stable state, with results still unclear and hardly measurable.

TCOR was much maligned by the supply-side free-trade high priests of capitalism. It's message was deliberately distorted and falsified. Even today, it is fashionable to cry out loud that the predictions of TCOR failed to materialize. A dispassionate reading of 'The Limits of Growth' will clearly show that, contrary to the hyped-up hoopla of the free trade right, the predictions contained therein are right on target. TCOR predicted that by 2070 the planet would have reached a point of environmental, resources, public health, alimentary, and economic collapse. I believe that, if anything, its estimations were overly conservative.

Stable state or equilibrium is the way out of the present conundrum, indeed the only way. Moving away from hardwired growth to stable state would represent a triumph of human imagination so gigantic as to rival anything that came before it, including the discovery of metallurgy, fire, simple machines, etc.

Will it happen? I don't think stable state will result from deliberate activity. Stable state might be achieved eventually, but only as a result of unplanned economic, financial, food production, public health, and resource collapse.

Don't think so? Look around at each new subdivision going up in the face of almost $3.00 gasoline, post-peak natural gas, and massive encroachment on agricultural land. Look around at each 333-hp SUV still roaming the streets, and the anemic revision of CAFE standards by our present Administration. Look around at each new credit card offer, each new national debt ceiling, each new deficit spending program on the books. All of these attest to the hardwired growth program that's trapped all of our financial, economic, political, and social systems.

JHK is right on the money. We will go on growing until we can't.

Payback, under those circumstances, will be one hell of a bitch.

G'day!

[Roger Wehage]

See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil

Richard Heinberg presented "Peak Oil: The Challenge and Opportunity of Petroleum's Waning Days" Saturday, April first to about 70 people in Peoria, Illinois. The Peoria Area World Affairs Council announced this event weeks in advance in the Peoria Journal Star and on the radio. Why did a mere 70 people show up, which is more than Heinberg expected? Why were there not hundreds, thousands, at his presentation?

Heinberg said the answer is, “People will not face reality until reality faces them.” Reality is still years away, and when reality strikes, it will be too late. Too late, according to the Hirsch Report, by about 25-35 years. According to that report, America and the world must have taken action at least twenty years prior to Peak Oil for that action to have a significant mitigating impact. Reality will most likely occur five to fifteen years after Peak Oil, which is why effective actions must have started 25-35 years before reality. What effective actions are underway now, and where are they?

Here are some common responses I hear when Peak Oil is mentioned:

"Law of Supply and Demand." As Oil Supply decreases, prices will rise and consumption will fall. True. But what will happen to the billions that have been forced by Capitalism to become Oil Addicts, billions who will fall below the Peak Oil poverty line?

"They'll Find Solutions." They? Who are they? If they don't have solutions well underway now, they won't have solutions ready when reality strikes.

"Ethanol, Tar Sands, and Coal." Even Oil Shale! People are being fed lines of bull. Very few people have a clue of what “Energy Return On Energy Invested” EROEI means. Experts give us "Gross Energy Production" numbers, not "Net Energy Production" numbers. Gross production numbers were fine when EROEI was thirty or ten, but when EROEI is three or two or less, gross production numbers are fraudulent.

Heinberg said that experts predict four million barrels per day of oil from Canada’s tar sands by 2025. That is gross production, not net. What will be the net production rate by then? Certainly not four million barrels per day. Current EROEI estimates on tar sands range from two or less (experts) to seven or more (Canadians). Which number should we believe? And how much of that net production will go to US? According to a Forbes report
http://www.forbes.com/energy/2005/02/17/cz_0217oxan_canadaoil.html
China will be funding an oil pipeline from the tar sands to the west coast. Not for US, but for China, dummy!

Ethanol is a good one. My question to the Ethanol Optimists is, "Will we feed billions of cars or billions of people?" For people who believe that Ethanol is our savior, I recommend they study very carefully "Topsoil and Civilization" by Carter and Dale. They will learn how civilized man has systematically destroyed the environment that is struggling to feed him. They will learn that Earth can barely feed its burgeoning 6.5 billion population, which is only because of the tremendous amounts of nitrogen-based fertilizer obtained from dwindling natural gas reserves.

Coal has the best prospects. But its EROEI is not overly impressive, especially when converted to a gas or liquid for transportation purposes.

[ross]

JHK wrote,

"A lot of the remaining energy worldwide will be devoted to these scrambles, and thus essentially wasted."

Indeed, and that is a supreme irony.

[Barry]

Jorge, Roger W. -
Excellent material - some folk I know suggest that CFN is merely another 'rant' board - you've shown that not to be true. Kudos for demonstrating that many here have already done their 'homework.'
A tip of the hat, good sirs.

[Peter]

"It could be argued that the "deterioration of the many towns and villages" was due to a lack of growth. Those towns deteriated or died because they could not figure out a way to adapt and grow. Growth did not destroy them...a lack of growth did."

The issue in the demise of these small towns is not one of growth or lack of, but rather of migration. Over the decades populations have moved from these small towns to big cities in search of opportunity or whatever.

This seems to be more of an American phenomenon. Meanwhile. there are plenty of small towns found across Europe which have remained in a relatively steady state for decades, if not centuries.

So what's the difference between small towns over there and over here? JHK has the answer. Many of our small towns are ugly soulless places built around the car. There's simply nothing to do in them but sit in front of the lobotomy box or worse. Conversely, those European towns were built before the automobile. They were designed to facilitate social interaction and foster a sense of community.

It's no wonder Americans have chosen to flee places like Kansas for the big coastal cities.

These days a lot of big city people are thinking about moving into small yet interesting towns--if they haven't done so. These are towns with old architecture dating back at least a hundred years and with big city amenities such as good restaurants, coffee house hangouts, art film cinemas, for example.

I made this move recently after spending all of my life in large cities.

It's not about growth. I want an interesting place with as little growth as possible to spend my remaining years in.

[Peter]

I just found this comment by Jeff Vail on his blog:

Just for fun, though, along the lines of "taking power" and "making your own rhizome," here's a bit of scary development as noted by John Robb:

"Security will become a function of where you live and whom you work for, much as health care is allocated already. Wealthy individuals and multinational corporations will be the first to bail out of our collective system, opting instead to hire private military companies, such as Blackwater and Triple Canopy, to protect their homes and facilities and establish a protective perimeter around daily life. Parallel transportation networks--evolving out of the time-share aircraft companies such as Warren Buffett's NetJets--will cater to this group, leapfrogging its members from one secure, well-appointed lily pad to the next."

That certainly scares me, especially because I agree with the analysis. Perhaps also worth the mention as it seems like an example of rhizome--admittedly predicated on a hierarchal support base--that is by no means a desireable outcome for those of use excluded...

End of quote.

http://www.jeffvail.net/2006/03/restoring-balance-now-subsidy-free.html#comments

[Weaseldog]

Peter, in the 'Rat City' experiment, it was a bit worse than you describe.

The rats were always well fed and their city was constantly cleaned.

The only thing denied to them, was room for their population to expand in. The researchers reported that they ended the experiment early, because it was just too horrifying to watch anymore.

[george]

The article on the number of homeless people was staggering. Some of the homeless portrayed in the article seemed quite intelligent and educated. If $40,000 was allocated to each of the 3,500,000 homeless persons the total would be $140 billion dollars, or 1/15th of the projected $2 trillion costs of the Iraq fiasco.

[Weaseldog]

I rented, "The Sound of Thunder" over the weekend. It's a film adaptation of a Ray Bradbury story. I haven't read the story in years, so I can't attest to how true to the story it was.

But it certainly felt like Ray Bradbury, all the way through.

In the story, it's 2055. All the land animals are extinct from various man made reasons including habitat destruction, war and plague. The story appears to take place in New York City. Everything is shiny, techno and clean.

In the story, the wealthy have found a way to experience a little excitement, traveling back in time, to hunt an Allosaurus. All of the characters are aware that it would be dangerous to change the past in any way, so elaborate precautions are made to insure that they don't do anything to affect the past. The dinosaur they kill is picked, because it was already going to die, from an erupting volcano.

On the second trip, accidents happen, the past is changed. Back in 2055, the world begins morphing in waves into what it should be, with the past changed. Our heroes make a mad scamble to set things straight as nature and wild animals begin replacing New York City.

As the movie commenced, I wonder about the one question that was never asked in the film..., why fix it? Is the new version with a planet flush with life, worse than the old one, where humans are the only animals left on land?

Do the characters have the right, to put it back, thus causing mankind's second complete extinction event?

And why does none of this occur to the main characters?

[kd]

Peter has hit on something there. The fate of American small towns has long been linked with migration -- and of course, the car. Just as in the past when many towns stagnated along with with the demise of rail travel, some towns began to die when the construction of super highways allowed travelers to bypass them altogether.

[Peter]

Weaseldog said: Peter, in the 'Rat City' experiment, it was a bit worse than you describe.

You are correct. I left out much of the gory detail. One has to think of the children, afterall.

But I'll remember that experiment all the way to my grave.