This film explores the most critical question of our time.
Locally, nationally, and globally, modern society worships Growth Everlasting above all else. Economists preach the gospel of growth. We’ve built a system that has us addicted to growth. Real estate developers, chambers of commerce and economic developers are pushers lobbying and propagandizing to keep us hooked.
Your friends and family, business associates, elected representatives – and even your priest – all need to see Hooked on Growth, so we can recognize the addiction and begin the recovery. This film examines the beliefs and behaviors we must leave behind in order to become truly sustainable. It will help prepare us to embrace the end of growth.
Please join the effort to help get this film shown in your community!
Today marks the beginning of Global Population Speak Out.
It’s human nature to blend in with the crowd. Nobody wants to be the “only one” with a given viewpoint. The cultural taboo on discussing overpopulation renders politicians, scientists and other opinion leaders reluctant to mention population when discussing both causes and solutions of modern challenges. Famed physicist Al Bartlett (author of the ultra-logical Laws Relating to Sustainability) nicely summed up his frustration about this in the Spring 2008 Teachers Clearinghouse for Science and Society Education Newsletter: Why Have Scientists Succumbed To Political Correctness? (Incidentally, my film, Hooked on Growth, is dedicated to Professor Bartlett.)
Global Population Speak Out is a month-long initiative encouraging more candor about population in public discussion of challenges like pollution, emissions, poverty, species extinction and peak oil, food and water. Population growth is often the biggest factor creating or accelerating these problems, but too often it goes unmentioned.
Global Population Speak Out (GPSO) is taking place this month to embolden leaders to address these issues more honestly. Ironically, there is strength in numbers; the more company they have, the easier it is. They don’t end up “standing out” or “out on a limb.”
On behalf of my GrowthBusters public education project, I joined a group of 50 around the world who jointly asked for a pledge from scientists and scholars; environmental, science, and social policy writers and editors; and activists, staff members of environmental NGOs, politicians, and a variety of prominent public figures. The pledge is simply to end the silence.
We have over 260 pledges at last count. Throughout the month you will hopefully hear more often about population growth, overpopulation and population stabilization and reduction. With a little luck the conversation won’t end when we turn our calendar pages to March. Tap-dancing around the subject of overpopulation while discussing climate change, hunger, species extinction, etc. is dishonest. It stands in the way of real progress for humanity. We should endeavor not to return to 11 more months of the “silent lie.”
Scientific American has rounded up the usual suspects but has ignored the perpetrator of the crime. The editors and writers at Scientific American know that population growth is the underlying source of the problems, but it is politically incorrect to state this obvious fact. Mark Twain wrote that if one has information that would help others, but does not share that information, then one is telling a “Silent Lie.” Because it does not address population size and growth as the main underlying cause of global warming, this issue of Scientific American is a serious “silent lie.”
We have a world full of very good people working on important issues: eradicating poverty, feeding the hungry, reducing emissions, preserving habitat, and the list goes on. Their solutions run the gamut, from conservation to technological innovation, from prevention to restoration. These efforts are noble and worthwhile. But in the face of an ever-expanding population, – especially one that insists on ever-increasing material wealth – let’s face it: If we aren’t simultaneously acknowledging the role of expanding population, and doing something about it – byeducating the people making family-size decisions and setting public policy, then we are simply polishing and rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist
- Kenneth Boulding
This week, world leaders, politicians, pundits and a solid majority of the population continue a global vigil – praying the world’s economies will return to robust growth. We hold our breath with the release of each new economic indicator – job creation, consumer confidence, retail sales, new home starts.
this week, if you find yourself cheering a return to growth, you may be inadvertently celebrating our acceleration toward an ecological cliff edge
- Andrew Simms, Policy Director and Head of Climate Change and Energy
new economics foundation
Vigil participants might be startled at the above statement from Andrew Simms, accompanying the release of an important new report:
This report, which made headlines in the UK, outlines how economic growth – if we manage to get back on the habit – will almost certainly erase any gains we might make in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the report, authors Simms and Johnson analyze reams of data and conclude it is utterly unrealistic to expect emissions reductions targets to be met if economic growth goals are achieved.
The problem is that growth drowns out the gains from increased efficiency and technological innovation…. even with the most optimistic likely uptake of low-carbon energy, it is seemingly impossible to reconcile a growing global economy with a good likelihood of limiting global temperature rise to 2C - Andrew Simms in his blog about the report
If you’ve succumbed to life at the speed of the internet and lack the attention span to read or at least skim the full report, you can at least get the Cliff Notes version from this cute cartoon:
I’ve not yet digested the entire report (125 pages, plus endnotes), but I want to recommend it to you now. If you’re like most readers, you’re probably participating in the prayer vigil for our economy. That’s understandable. Most of us have been worshipping at the Church of Growth Everlasting our entire lives. But you need to know that perpetual economic growth is not possible. Fortunately, it turns out economic growth is not the answer to true happiness – or even the meeting of basic needs. There is a better, more sustainable way (a subject for another day).
we have surpassed limits within which me must live if this species is to survive on a vibrant, nurturing planet. We must move back within those limits if we are to have the possibility of ‘good’ life to offer future generations.
- Margaret Swedish
We’re served a healthy dose of perpetual growth Kool Ade daily – by news reporters and pundits, politicians, and at chamber of commerce luncheons, city council meetings and corporate sales meetings. This pervasive culture of growth is the topic of my documentary, Hooked on Growth. My collection of Kool Ade samples is overwhelming this office – on hard drives, stacks of newspapers and DVDs. I’m sure we’ll get a healthy dose of it Wednesday night in U.S. President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address. Perhaps if you watch the cartoon or read the report, you might become a more discerning consumer of the Kool Ade, recognizing it for what it is. Visit here often, and soon you’ll be able to detect that the Kool Ade is “corked.”
this week, if you find yourself cheering a return to growth, you may be inadvertently celebrating our acceleration toward an ecological cliff edge and an opportunity missed to find a new, better direction.
As I mentioned, in future blog posts, and in my film, we’ll be addressing that “new, better direction.”
Recently I was unable to attend and film an important public meeting about future water supply planning for Colorado. Glen Colton was able to attend, and offered this incisive commentary about Colorado water planning. Glen points out some deficiencies in thinking that can apply to numerous resources in many parts of the world, so Glen agreed to be our guest blogger on this topic.
Glen’s Commentary:
I recently attended a meeting in Loveland, Colorado discussing the South Platte Basin water report (Water for the 21st Century). There were about 150 – 200 people in attendance, many of them elected officials, water district people, municipal water people, developers, and others with a stake in getting more water for their towns There were also a smattering of other folks including a few environmentalists and several people from Trout Unlimited that I knew.
Source: Colorado Interbasin Compact Committee
The report itself was predictable; the population of Colorado and the Front range is going to double by 2050 (from 5 to 10 million people for Colorado), so we have to provide a lot more water (triple what we’re using today) for all this suburban sprawl or we’ll be in dire straits! (their emphasis). Their recommendations emphasized avoiding drying up irrigated agricultural land to the extent possible and filling the “water gap” by 1) getting approval of current water storage projects and getting them built (new dams like NISP, Halligan/Seamans, and Windy Gap firming), 2) new water storage (a new dam or storage on the Colorado River would be nice), 3) some water conservation, and 4) some limited conversion of agricultural land to municipal and industrial use.
During Q&A, I suggested that they had reached the wrong conclusions and that the problem we are facing is a people overage, not a water storage. I asked them if the people of Colorado were going to be asked if they wanted another 5 million people in the state and stated that adding another 5 million is truly unsustainable and would create a huge number of problems other than water; infrastructure overload, pollution, sprawl, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, etc. I told them it was insane to be adding another 5 million people to an arid region when we are already over crowded.
I proceeded to ask other questions about the value of agricultural land versus water in rivers for environmental and recreational purposes – questioning their assumption that it is better to dewater rivers than dry up agricultural land. I once again told them we wouldn’t have to face that choice if we dealt with overpopulation in Colorado.
Needless to say, some people didn’t really appreciate my comments. The big water buffalos mostly ignored my comments, but I had several people thank me for my comments on population, A few politicians seemed to agree with me, but weren’t sure what to do, and I had good conversations with several other people (including some on the group that produced the report) about population issues.
When I got home I checked my e-mail and read an article about climate change in the Rocky Mountains from the Worldwatch magazine, . The article states “Drought, resource development, land-use changes, and above all climate change have put the population growth and the region’s ecosystems on a collision course”.
I believe that my efforts in this area are helpful and get at the root of the problem, but sometimes feel like the Lone Ranger. Other then a few people and organizations, hardly anyone is addressing population growth as a primary cause of our environmental problems, which it surely is. I strongly believe that, if we had a half dozen people attending every meeting that dealt with growth related issues (water, climate change, transportation, energy, sprawl, species extinction, etc) that we could profoundly change the nature of the discussion and make some real progress towards a stable population and true sustainability.
As it stands now, all our environmental efforts are going to be steamrolled by the concerted efforts and “same old way” momentum of the “growth machine” to do everything in their power (aided and abetted my most politicians of either party) to do everything they can to enable the maximum amount of growth to occur in Colorado. I can see this happening on water with the #1 conclusion of this group being – get the current projects on the drawing board approved and completed. And the reason why we are going to be steamrolled is because there is no organized opposition to endless exponential population growth in Colorado.
So, that’s view of the landscape from my perspective after spending 4 hours hearing how we must find a way to meet water needs driven by the growth imperative of adding another 5 million people to Colorado – without ever asking whether the citizens really want that growth or looking at alternatives to growth.
So, I’ll conclude with one final thought on the water issue for those who think we don’t need to or want to challenge the growth imperative. Even if we are somehow able to “Save the Poudre” in the 2050 time frame, where will we get the water for the next 5 million people that are projected in Colorado by 2075? And what will it be like for our kids and grandkids to live in an area with 10 million people along the Front Range?
Glen Colton Glen Colton lives in Fort Collins, Colorado. He is a population activist working toward a sustainable state, country, and world.
What was the message of the demonstrators in Copenhagen? Some groups, such as Bill McKibben’s 350.org, were pushing for nations to agree to ambitious goals to get carbon dioxide levels down to 350 ppm. According to environmental journalist Zoe Cormier, many were trying to get the word out that we cannot get CO2 levels down as long as we remain hooked on growth – clinging to a system that doesn’t know the meaning of the word enough.
Zoe, the brains behind www.AxisOfEco.com was the eyes and ears of the GrowthBusters project during last month’s climate talks. My apologies for only now posting her final report, taped on December 23. My schedule; my bad. Her analysis, however, is both good and timeless.
Groups demonstrating in Copenhagen are not the only ones delivering the message that our system is broken. Worldwatch Institute just this week released their State of the World 2010 report, titled Transforming Cultures: From Consumerism to Sustainability. I’ve yet to read the report, but my expectation is this addresses much of what I’m addressing in my documentary, Hooked on Growth.
Our obsession with economic growth (which served us well for much of the past 300 years) has outlived its usefulness. Now we are urged to consume for consumption’s sake. Our economy depends on a vicious cycle of buying things, throwing them away, and then buying some more. We’ve lost touch with the initial goals of an economy – an efficient way of meeting people’s needs. Whether it’s climate change, biodiversity loss, peak oil, water or hunger, our obsession with perpetual economic growth erases any gains we make.
We now have a cultural imperative to grow and consume. My mission is to shine the spotlight on that aspect of our culture, so we can become acutely aware of it. Becoming aware and acknowledging we are hooked on growth is the first step toward recovery.
In my film, Hooked on Growth, I’m charting fairly unoccupied territory in linking the growth-addictive behavior of cities with global unsustainability. Sure, some cities are making efforts to reduce their carbon or overall ecological footprint, but most expectations of sustainable behavior focus either on individual behavior or national policy. Discussions of overpopulation, for example, tend to deal with either the global total or the couple’s decisions about family size - and nothing in-between. There is some discussion of national population policy (frequently discussion is as far as it ever gets), and almost no discussion of sustainable population size for cities.
As we all know, most cities dream of growth. They believe growth will magically provide a bonanza of prosperity that will pave their roads, green up their parks, fund their arts and pay their police. They stick to this belief in spite of evidence that community expansion nearly always grows expenses faster than revenue. And they maintain these growth-based prosperity strategies in complete ignorance of natural limits to growth (we don’t have the natural resources to expand perpetually). I am convinced we cannot have a sustainable planet made up of communities with unsustainable goals and behavior.
That’s why I asked today’s guest-blogger, Canada’s Tim Murray, for permission to post this essay he recently penned:
“Populations, like potholes, are produced locally….” Garrett Hardin
You may have heard of “S.O.S.” (Save our Suburbs), an anti-growth organization that has set up shop in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Adelaide, Australia. You may even have heard of how Noosa Shire, Queensland had developed a vision of sustainability that involved capping their population level. But what about North America? This is a 13 minute radio interview from Charlottesville, Virginia with Jack Marshall of ASAP (Advocates for a Sustainable Abermarle Population) and Brian Czech of CASSE (Centre for the Advancement of a Steady State Economy).
Canadians like to think of themselves as more “progressive” and “enlightened” than Americans. Yet where are conversations like this taking place in Canada? There are or were groups like ASAP in Vermont, Minnesota, Colorado, Oregon, California and Hawaii. Other than Qualicum Beach, BC and Okotoks, Alberta, or briefly, “Save Our Valley” in Chilliwack, BC, where is there a critical mass of citizens who have formed a strong anti-growth lobby in this country? This despite Canada having the highest population growth rate in the G8 group, with our major urban centres sprawling into greenbelts even while they densify, putting more than 500 species at risk and paving over one-fifth of our prime farmland. It is not a question of building “up” or building “out”. We are just “building”. Why aren’t Canadians up in arms? We are pathetic and apathetic. And those of us who are not are muzzled, blacklisted and shunned by the media, staffed as it is by journalists schooled in political correctness and editors mindful of where advertising revenue comes from. There ain’t much money in giving a podium to growth-bashers.
To use Brian Czech’s metaphor, we are building our house higher and higher by robbing its foundation of building materials. The foundation being finite natural capital. Yet every hick town and every major city, from Campbell River, BC to Vancouver to Saskatoon to Sudbury, Ontario and beyond is chalk full of mayors and councilors, elected by developer campaign funds, calling for more growth. Of course, it must come in the fashionable clothing of the time, that is, it must be “sustainable” or “green”, complete with the necessary seal of approval from an environmental review process or ecological impact statement from the environment branch of the planning department. But all of that is cynical green wash, and those who are asked to file the impact statements clench their jaws in the knowledge that conservation and growth don’t mix. And while they unleash the bulldozers these hypocrites on council are calling for more water and energy conservation, telling us to turn our computers off for an hour or stop watering our gardens while they issue more building permits, still unable to notice that tax revenues seldom recoup the infrastructure costs of the new subdivisions.
Granted, it is the federal government which controls immigration levels, enacts pro-natalist policies and effects stimulatory fiscal policies. But it is at the grass roots level, in city councils, real estate offices, chambers of commerce and planning departments where growth is born—that is the lair of the growth lobby. It isn’t a monster in a distant boardroom, or the conspiracy of a bank chairman on Bay Street. It is the sinister gremlin of greed that hides behind the face of your friendly, smiling neighbourhood realtor, loans officer, mortgage broker or small town newspaper editor a half mile down the road on Main Street. Even college presidents and trade union bureaucrats are charter members of the growth club. More growth means more students and more revenue for the school, and more jobs for union members. MPs typically cut their teeth on local politics, and they build their careers as growth-boosters, flush with the cant of growthism. “Growth is good”, “growth is necessary”, “growth is inevitable”. “We must have growth. That is the measure of our success. Why, people come from everywhere to live in our beautiful community, and who are we to say that they can’t? Our greatest resource is our people….etc etc.” Let me puke.
It is about time people were told the truth about growth. It is about time that politicians and environmental NGOs were told that is not sustainable, that it cannot be “managed” or rendered “smart”. Is it going to take triple digit oil and $20 a gallon gasoline to send them that message? It looks that way, doesn’t it? It will be interesting to see how the Sierra Club and members of parliament screen out the apocalypse with their spam filters. “A power-down you say? Take me off your list!”
One of the benefits of getting Copenhagen reports from environmental journalist Zoe Cormier has been a quick education about Canada’s gigantic tar sands project. (See also Are Canadian tar sands the answer to our oil needs? and Pumping in Dirty Oil From Canada’s Tar Sands) It helps Canada rank as the biggest supplier of oil to the U.S. It is also among the world’s dirtiest projects. In an informative blog post at New Internationalist, Zoe notes that “production of this oil releases up to five times more greenhouse gases per unit than conventional extraction,…” Here is her report on the tar sands from last week’s Klimaforum09 in Copenhagen.
I was stunned to learn from Ms. Cormier that the entire tar sands deposit covers an area the size of England. The photos in the above video report are awesome enough, but Zoe assures us these do not begin to communicate the true scope of what she calls “the world’s largest industrial project.” In her blog at New Internationalist she explains how and why the tar sands don’t get the notoriety they deserve.
And in the above video report she touches on how this project enables North America to keep turbocharging a (usually) growing economy. Because of its sheer size, shutting down the tar sands might actually force us into a recovery program for growth addiction. Interesting thought.
I hate to mix subjects in one post, but if the idea is new to you that addiction to economic growth is undesirable, let me get you started with a brilliant essay recently published in the UK Guardian by George Monbiot: This is bigger than climate change. It is a battle to redefine humanity.
Wednesday was a wild day in Copenhagen. Our embedded environmental reporter, Zoe Cormier gives us a peek behind the scenes at the U.N. Climate Change Conference, and offers her perspective on what the demonstrations proved.
We are hooked on a system that depends on growth
