Reclaiming the Green Economy

I have become increasingly saddened in recent weeks to see how those of us who first conceptualised the 'green economy' have been allowing that phrase to be co-opted by the forces of capital and by those who would seek to use it to swell the size of their profits. I am now reading critiques of the green economy from the left which lead me to ask, if not a green economy, then what? Surely our strategy should rather be to reclaim the green economy.

An example is a recent report from the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation called Beautiful Green World: on the Myths of a Green Economy. In the following sentence it abandons the attempt to ensure that the green economy will be founded on social justice rather than the maximisation of profit:

'The green economy therefore does not mean that the protection of people and the environment substitutes the drive for profit. Rather, in the world of the green economy the generation of profit remains the necessary condition of all economic activity, and environmental protection is subordinated to it.'

I could not disagree more and I think it is a disastrous idea to concede this turf to the capitalists.

The sort of argument critiqued by Rosa Luxemburg is to be found in a report from the Green Alliance: Green Economy: A UK Success Story. This attempts to argue for investment in the green economy to save the economy from recession and stimulate growth. It grows out of exactly the same competitive, growth-driven mentality that has created the ecological crisis. The message to policy-makers is that Britain can compete most effectively and make the most profits from prioritising the green economy. While it is immensely encouraging to see how the green sectors are flourishing in the midst of recession, this framing is not helpful.

It is a fine line between calling for investment in better-insulated homes and rail networks while rejecting the idea of green growth, but I find the concept of transitional investment helpful here. If money (and energy) invested now can ensure that we will be able to enjoy a good life with a lower investment of energy in the future then it can be justified. Just as we have had to hold onto the meaning of sustainability, as it has been disfigured into 'sustainable development' and even emptied of meaning other than something that lasts for a year or two, so we should not abandon the use of the phrase 'green economy' while rejecting any association with oxymorons such as 'green growth'.
. Tweet

It's the Green Economy, Stupid!

It is widely agreed that the Rio +20 conference was a disastrous failure. What it proved most convincingly is that the people of the world cannot have 'the future we want' without taking the power back from the corporations who currently dominate the global economy. The ideological battle over what the green economy means must be fought and won: a sustainable economy is different in kind from a global capitalist economy. Although many who went to Rio were fighting hard for this agenda, the conference itself was unresponsive to their message.

My own small contribution to the Rio process was to call on some of the best co-operative studies researchers to contribute towards a special issue of the Journal of Co-operative Studies, drawing attention to why proposals for a green economy need to focus on how economic resources are owned and controlled. In my editorial I argue that:

'Much of the discussion around what the green economy means has focused on the need to achieve efficiency in the use of materials and energy. At the more conservative end this can mean simply a form of 'green capitalism', where the economy operates much as it does now, but with a different range of products on sale and powered by a different range of electricity-generating technologies. For others, however, this is too limited a vision, and the growth dynamic and profit drive that characterise a capitalist economy can never be compatible with a sustainable future. That is where the co-operative movement comes in, because two of its central concerns—with accumulation and allocation—are also central to the debate about the restructuring necessary to make our global economy green.'

The special issue also includes my thoughts on links between co-operation and the green economy from my keynote address to last year's ICA research conference in Mikkeli, Finland. Professor Mary Mellor outlines what she considers to be 'co-operative principles for a green economy'. Two more detailed papers describe what the co-operative business model has to offer networks of organic food distribution (in the USA) and local agricultural regeneration (in Spain). The paper also includes two papers from co-operative activists describing the co-operative contribution to renewable energy development and the encouragement of pro-environment behaviour.

The main reason for the failure of the Rio conference was that it was not organised co-operatively and not controlled by the people whose futures were at stake. For many of us, this was clear from the outset. The more fruitful way to achieve change in the short term, whether in terms of economic empowerment or sustainability, is in your own community. And in the longer term, we need to be focused on the ownership and control of resources--issues that were notably absent from discussions at the top table in Rio.

The green economy is not something we are planning or dreaming about: at the local level the real green economy already exists. We just need to expand it so that it takes over from the corporate, unsustainable economy that is so powerful at projecting itself but so socially destructive. All the practical examples you need are covered in a wonderful new book The Resilience Imperative, from Pat Conaty, who also contributed to the JCS special issue, and Michael. JAK banking, community land trusts, shared home ownership, and the Danish windpower revolution: all are covered to provide detailed guidance and inspiration.

If you would like copies of any of the papers in the JCS special issue please email me. 

 .

Tweet

Austerity Breeds Outrage

Two reports came out on 21st May which was also, incidentally, my birthday. The first was the report of the Environmental Audit Committee's inquiry into the Green Economy. I gave evidence there on behalf of the Green House thinktank, following up on our written evidence. I was in an evidence session with David Powell from Friends of the Earth and a representative of the TUC. It is encouraging that, as well as Green House's evidence, WWF, NEF, and others were clear that a green economy will be one that respects planetary limits and recognises that we must restructure our economy so that it does not rely on perpetual growth.

The Committee chose as its media hook for the report the fact that deregulation is undermining attempts to move towards the green economy, a rather dull angle which failed to arouse much interest. The real political question of our time - whether we can ever or should ever return to growth - was ignored. Perhaps it just seemed too far from the hegemonic idea of the urgent and unassailable need to return to growth as the only solution to our economic woes.

The EAC's report focuses rather on 'current patterns of economic growth', in spite of clear evidence from Tim Jackson about the fact that decoupling growth from resource and energy use is a chimera. However, they did quote at length a list of groups who took a hardline view on growth:

'52. Many saw the Government’s current agenda as focusing too much on growth and too
little on measures to protect the environment and ensure environmental limits are not
breached. David Powell of Friends of the Earth believed that current government policies, including Enabling the Transition, were being presented as “growth first ... let’s try and make it green and anything else we can do is fantastic”. . . We also heard concerns that, without a definition of sustainable development being included within the new planning guidance, proposals to introduce a “presumption in favour of sustainable development” would lead to unsustainable development. RSPB believed greater thought should be given to whether the “continued push for growth is in fact in conflict with prosperity in the longer-term”. The Packaging Federation believed there was little sign that the Government understood a “real danger of a fundamental incompatibility between UK climate change goals and economic growth”. Green House believed that a strategy of export-led growth was incompatible with a green economy as “it relies on lengthy supply chains and hence an extensive use of energy and so contributes to climate change”.'

Our idea of 'transitional growth' was also cited: 'Green House believed that economic growth was only possible in the short-term as part of a transition strategy to move us towards an economy that is in a steady state. Such economic growth would be confined to replacing infrastructure to enable self-reliant economies stabilising the economy within our national resource limits.' And we were quoted as stating that 'because of the “unfeasible nature of the increased efficiencies required and the nature of rebound effects associated with technological improvements”, seeking to decouple economic growth and production from CO2 emissions “is an example of psychological denial”.

Oxfam also gave evidence, which brings me to the second report I wanted to draw attention to: Be Outraged: There are Alternatives, an attack on the present absurd economic policies being followed by Western nations from a group of development economists published by Oxfam. The report states 'that the austerity approach to reducing deficits and debt is counterproductive; it is leading to a downward spiral of incomes and government revenues making it more difficult to reduce the debt and undermining growth prospects.' The report is authoritative and useful in bringing together clearly and critically the consequences of misguided economic policies including: 'More than 10 per cent of European adults are unemployed, up by 50 per cent since 2008. More than one in five- 22% - youth under 25 are unemployed and in some countries over 40%' or 'Top incomes have soared in the UK and US especially: the globe’s richest 1 per cent (61 million people) earn the same as the poorest 56 per cent (3.5 billion)'.

Overall, though, the report is fairly standard Keynesian stuff and, although Oxfam gave evidence to the EAC and devote attention to the structural problems with the growth economy, this line of their work does not seem to join up with their attempts to challenge austerity politics. As the Green Party has found, resolving the tensions between social justice and a steady-state economy is not always easy, but no organisation or research institute that has understood the need to respect planetary limits should now be producing arguments for growth.

Green House is running a personalised campaign to shift the media position on this question: please join us. We are targeting the BBC, on the basis that we pay for them, and because their email addresses are easy: firstname.familyname@bbc.co.uk. Each time you hear the hysterical statement of the universally acknowledged need to return rapidly to growth, please email the person who has made this statement, giving them some links to clear statements of the destructiveness of this position. You can refer to work by Green House, the EAC report, or more broadly the website of CASSE - the Centre for the Advancement of a Steady State Economy.
.

Tweet

Speaking Truth to Power

I have an exciting day this Wednesday and if any readers of this blog would like to join me for part of it that would be very welcome.

Back in the summer I put together some evidence for the Environmental Audit Committee's Inquiry into the Green Economy on behalf of the environmental thinktank Green House. As a result I have now been asked to give evidence to the committee members, who will ask me questions about how we might move towards a green economy.

This is, frankly, rather daunting, and it doesn't help that the sessions take place in the Thatcher Room of Portcullis House! My job appears to be to sit in the heart of government and tell them that the economic model we are working with is not only unsustainable but unjust and unstable into the bargain! The key target of government policy is entirely misguided.

In preparing for this I have come across a very interesting document called Enabling the Transition to a Green Economy. We can celebrate a small victory in that the draft version of this document was labelled as a Roadmap, something Green House criticised in our evidence. Like the report 'Keeping the Lights on' about energy a few years back, it makes clear the mental barriers to a sustainable future.

This report is not that encouraging, clearly identifying business rather than people as the key partner in the transition to a green economy. It focuses on efficiency and competitiveness, with no mention of the structural problems of a capitalist, growth-based economy. This is my clear task for Wednesday, and in the face of the evidence of the hegemony of business it is no wonder I feel rather daunted.

After the Commons I am moving down river to speak to the Occupy London protestors at their Tent City University. With luck I may be moved into the Bank of Ideas at the newly occupied former UBS building. I am calling my presentation 'The Audit-city of Hope', which doesn't quite work but you know what I mean. I hope to radicalise the demands beyond 'What do we want?' 'Better regulation of the banking sector'; 'When do we want it?', 'Within a reasonable timeframe'. My focus is going to be on building the energy to establish a national audit committee to find out who we owe the debt to and decide what proportion of it can reasonably be repaid.
. Tweet

Inspiration from the Emerald City

This short hiatus in posts can be explained by my recent very enjoyable trip to Freiburg, a Germany city close to the French and Swiss borders and the Black Forest. I was invited to speak to this year's Forum on Enviromental Governance, an event organised by the students of the University MSc in Environmental Governance.

Freiburg styles itself as the 'greenest city in the world' and was voted Germany's greenest city last year. Many of the design features - such as co-housing developments and local food markets - were familiar to me from Stroud. The difference was in terms of scale, and also of the commitment to inclusive ecological communities (such as the famous Solarsiedlung, or 'solar village') and the excellent public transport systems you expect in Germany.


I had assumed that these developments would have grown up with the active support of the local authority, but it seems that even in Germany eco-activists have to lead the way. The famous Vauban development, where eco-homes powered by the sun have replaced a US army base, was privately funded and faced problems with planning permission at every stage.

During my visit I stayed at the Hotel Victoria, which claims to be the world's greenest. It uses no fossil fuels, relying on solar panels, four small wind turbines, and wood pellets from the local forest resource. The level of luxury in the hotel (and the expense) did make me question the concept of 'prosperity without growth'. I am fairly sure that the level of comfort enjoyed in the hotel is not possible for all the world's citizens.

Which brings me to the content of the conference itself. Like many who come to a first consideration of 'the green economy', the students had focused on technical and design aspects. The two first speakers were Ernst Ulrich von Weiszacker, he of Factor-4 and now Factor-5 fame. His claims that energy efficiency could solve the ecological-economic crunch were undermined by Ulrich Hoffman, head of sustainable development at UNCTAD, who quoted Tim Jackson's figure that a 128% increase in efficiency would be necessary to ensure a Western lifestyle to all the world's people, if we assume current population growth trends.


My own contribution was to raise the social, political and cultural questions around a green economy. The students were very interested in the Transition Towns, although they left little space to consider how we are to make changes to our consumption expectations if we are to make a deep green economy a reality. Overall it was a realy inspiring visit. The city itself is a wonderful model, but so is the university and its openness to genuine learning. The 19 MIG students, from 26 countries, will be sustainability leaders and we would benefit greatly in the UK from similar courses.
. Tweet