Thus, Daly proposes that the economy should be in a steady state of sorts. The inputs that the economy uses, and the waste outputs created, must not increase past the sustainable limits of the ecosystem. Of course, the production within the economy can still increase without limit. The only constraint upon production within the economy is our rate of technological progress. For, in Daly’s vision of the economy, production increases ony as we learn to utilise our limited resources more efficiently.

His vision certainly appears more holistic than the prevailing disregard among economists for natural ecosystems. Sure, we talk about emissions and externalities, but it is rare to hear economists really discuss ecosystems outside the economy we are used to dealing with. However, it is hard to see how we might get there. Where is the incentive to utilise the environment sustainably and cap our rate of growth? Why might we individually, or even as nations, attempt to make the transition to the steady state economy. Sadly, Daly’s vision of a world where our descendants enjoy a planet as rich and diverse as we live in today seems as far-fetched as any other utopian ideal.

Copyright tvhe.wordpress.com ©

If one were to ask a third-world resident if they would prefer a first world standard of living they would likely say yes. Conversely, the first worlder would probably not be indifferent between their and the third worlder’s standard of living. However, they may still report the same level of happiness. Adaptation to new conditions in humans is remarkably rapid, but we should not mistake adaptation for indifference. People report being happier 2-4 years after widowhood than before the death. Of course, it would be a mistake to believe that they wanted their spouse dead and were better off for the death. Using happiness statistics gives us insight into the rapidity of adaptation, but it is an exceedingly crude measure of human preferences.

As Simms points out, we won’t like losing our ‘regular steaks, hot tubs, luxury cosmetics and easy foreign travel’, but we will adapt to it. We will be happy in the sense that those, far poorer than anyone with the means to read this blog, can still be happy. That doesn’t mean that we won’t have to make sacrifices compared to the way we now live our lives. It doesn’t mean that we won’t still long for the things that we can no longer afford.

Copyright tvhe.wordpress.com ©

The authors appear to be projecting their own lifestyle preferences onto others here. It is this element of the environmental rhetoric that bothers me most: the idea that we would all be happier people if only we were more like them because they know what’s best for us better than we do. That thinking is reflected in NZ in the Greens affinity for direct regulation.

Economists like to think about these things in terms of revealed preferences. If people really wanted to get out and walk, bike and boat everywhere they could. If they wanted to work part-time so they had more opportunities to get out on the streets, dance and meet people they could. If they currently don’t then it’s unlikely that they’ll do that in future. If they currently choose to drive around in an air-conditioned SUV and exercise in a gym then it’s probably because they’d rather do that. When the price of an SUV skyrockets with the price of carbon then they’ll be worse off.

What’s so difficult about acknowledging that achieving a sustainable planet will force us to do things that we’d prefer not to and close off options? By reducing our enjoyable consumption today we allow future generations to also enjoy the planet, rather than condemning them to pay for our current excesses. That’s a more realistic pitch than the pretense that we’ll all be better off, and it conveniently grabs even more of the moral high ground!

Copyright tvhe.wordpress.com ©

The first is a discussion by Tim Jackson, a professor of sustainable development at the University of Surrey, about the standard of living that sustainable resource use allows. It has become fashionable among politicians to sell carbon reduction policies by claiming that technology changes will mean our lifestyles can remain pretty much as they are. Jackson draws on the work of the ecologists Ehrlich and Holdren to make some basic calculations on the subject.

He suggests that, at projected population and GDP growth rates, stabilisation of greenhouse gasses in the environment would require an eleven-fold decrease in carbon intensity from the current western European average. That is to say that the average level of carbon emitted per dollar’s worth of production would have to decrease eleven-fold. If there were no increase in global GDP then it would require only a five-fold decrease in carbon intensity of consumption.

Jackson’s point is that, if we want to save the planet, then we can’t have consumption grow faster than technology’s ability to offset the increased pollution. So will we have to consider a significant change in out lifestyles? Well, no emissions reduction scheme works without changing peoples’ behaviour, so clearly our habits will need to change. Does that mean we’ll be worse off, though? Does it mean we have to forsake a vision of economic growth that allows people to better their current position? Stay tuned for more instalments later this week!

Copyright tvhe.wordpress.com ©