What if the Economy Listened

Scott Gast writing on Post Growth ponders what it would mean for the world if we measured the economy's effect on something other than the market itself;

But what if the economy listened? What if, for a minute, the economy stopped talking to itself—to its own swirl of messages and indicators and pundits and forecasts—and actually gave an earnest ear to the world around it? Here’s Steingraber in a 2009 column for Orion magazine:

“Imagine that ecological metrics were as familiar to us as economic ones. Imagine ecological equivalents to the Dow, NASDAQ, and S&P that reported to us every day—in newspapers, on radio, on websites, on the crawl at the bottom of TV screens, on oversized tickers in Times Square—data about the various sectors of our ecological system and how they are faring. What are the atmospheric parts per million of carbon dioxide today? Has the extinction rate become inflationary? What is the exchange rate between sea ice and fresh water? What is the national deficit of topsoil?

Suppose that ecological pundits discussed every night on cable TV the ongoing disappearance of bees, bats, and other pollinators and the possibly dire consequences for our food supply. Suppose we received daily reports on the status of our aquifers. Suppose legislators and citizens both agreed that if we don’t take immediate action to bail out our ecological system, something truly terrible will happen. Our ecology will tank.”

***

What would a listening economy look like? One thing I bet it wouldn’t look like would be a growing economy. A listening economy would be aware of the world beyond itself—that there is a world beyond itself—which means it would know that there’s no more room to grow. It would be a good conversationalist: it would listen to the world it lives in and respond accordingly. It would be less noisy, because listening requires periods of quiet and slowness and caution. It would be principled—and its highest principle might be the precautionary principle. It would know that listening is progress. It would know that listening is related to learning.

Ode to Creativity

Idea of the Day: Fuel from Dirty Diapers

Beginning in May, a British company called Knowaste will be recycling poopie nappies into green energy and plastic pellets for things like shoe insoles and roofing tiles.

Read about it at triplepundit.

Schadenfreude Headline of the Day

Hummer drivers get five times as many speeding tickets as the average driver. Courtesy: Consumer Reports.

Save the Environment by Wasting!

During World War II, our government distributed posters like this one to let the American public know that thrift was patriotic. (If you'd like to see more, visit Northwestern Unversity's World War II Poster Collection.)

For the past few decades thrift has taken a back seat to consuming as a show of patriotism. Remember when George W. Bush encouraged us all to go shopping after September 11?

A great illustration of this "save the nation through waste" philosophy in action was the Cash for Clunkers program. I liked the idea of a program that gave Americans both an incentive to support the auto industry-- I am from Detroit after all-- and to do so by buying more fuel efficient vehicles. On its face it sounded green and ingenious. The public loved it too. What's not to love about a great big discount on a major purchase?

I immediately changed my mind when I learned that the old, perfectly working "clunkers" had to be destroyed and crushed. With the exception of only a few components, they couldn't even be used for parts to maintain current vehicles. I could not figure out how this massive waste could really save the environment. (This is not even addressing the issue of the disposal of mercury switches in older vehicles that the pre-bankrupcy GM would have been responsible to clean up but the "New GM" insists it is not.) Surely the energy saved by the more fuel efficient cars would be offset by the energy it would take to make entirely new vehicles, and new parts for other older vehicles, rather than using existing working cars and salvage parts.

The Wall Street Journal just published an analysis of the Cash for Clunkers program and it concluded exactly that.

According to Hudson Institute economist Irwin Stelzer, at best “the reduction in gasoline consumption will cut our oil consumption by 0.2 percent per year, or less than a single day’s gasoline use.” Burton Abrams and George Parsons of the University of Delaware added up the total benefits from reduced gas consumption, environmental improvements and the benefit to car buyers and companies, minus the overall cost of cash for clunkers, and found a net cost of roughly $2,000 per vehicle. Rather than stimulating the economy, the program made the nation as a whole $1.4 billion poorer.

The basic fallacy of cash for clunkers is that you can somehow create wealth by destroying existing assets that are still productive, in this case cars that still work. Under the program, auto dealers were required to destroy the car engines of trade-ins with a sodium silicate solution, then smash them and send them to the junk yard. As the journalist Henry Hazlitt wrote in his classic, “Economics in One Lesson,” you can’t raise living standards by breaking windows so some people can get jobs repairing them.

Urban Foraging in the News

Urban foraging is what you call garbage picking if you're of a high enough social class to have a choice in the matter. Liberating waste, which is one of the topics covered in the forthcoming Broke is Beautiful, is featured in an article in The Guardian with the attention getting title America is a Toxic Dump.

Sadhbh Walshe begins her article by saying some languages have no word for garbage. If you actually follow the link that supports this claim though, it takes you to a blog which features the sentence "it is said that the Tagalog language had no word for garbage." A writer rarely writes "it is said" unless they have no proof to back something up. So it's a fact that ought to be true, even if it is probably not.

Freeganism, another new-fangled term for the age old practice of liberating perfectly usable stuff from dumpsters, is big these days. You know it is mainstream when Oprah does a feature. Walshe briefly discusses her adventures on an organized foraging tour in New York.

I had intended only to be a casual observer, but when I saw the range of goodies on offer – organic still fresh fruits and vegetables, fancy olive breads, cured meats, bagels, donuts and other delectables, still sealed in non-biodegradable packaging, it seemed an awful shame to let it go to waste. Another dumpster dive led me to more durable goods like books, clothes, toys, furniture and electronic items in near perfect condition. Nothing, it appears, is too good to be discarded here.Unfortunately only a tiny percentage of the city's refuse is reclaimed by foragers. The rest (which amounts to about 4,385,000 tons a year) is gathered by collection trucks which instantly crush it into compact piles, eliminating the possibility of further salvaging.