Based by Geoff Mosley on his paper delivered at the 'Limits to Biophysical Growth: Beyond Business as Usual' forum

Monash University, 27 November 2008

A - Introduction

B - A brief history of discussion of a broad social change agenda in ACF

C - Reasons for non-engagement with the move towards a non-economic growth economy

D - What can be done to overcome the reluctance? Five areas for action

E - Conclusion

Final comment

A. Introduction

While it is usual in politics for individuals to develop new ideas they are of little avail if they are not taken seriously by the general community. Usually there is an organisation or group which faciltates the move from a good idea to mass community acceptance. There is no idea which is more important today than that of moving from the present perpetual economic growth economy to a stable or steady state economy. This would be a third major change in human history, the others being the first change from a hunter gatherer to a farming and livestock economy and the second the move from that to the present way which followed the agricultural and industrial revolutions which began some 300 years ago.

The idea of moving to a steady state economy can be traced back to John Stuart Mill in his chapter ‘On the Stationary State’ in his 1848 book Principles of Political Economy but the principal exponent of this third way over the last four decades has been the economist Herman Daly who has throughout used the term ‘the Steady-state Economy’.

The obvious group to take on the role of developing community interest and support for the steady state economy alternative is the environmental conservation movement. This is because of the fact that the basic cause of the escalating global environmental degradation is the near universal policy of continuous economic growth. This role would include explanation and further development of the idea including fleshing out the nature of the change and the necessary transitional measures through community consultation and political advocacy.

It is equally clear that to date the work of the environmental conservation movement has been almost entirely taken up with making efforts to mitigate the environmental effects of economic growth driven development and monitor the situation and the mainly downward trends. Most of this effort has been and is concerned with the defence of particular parts of the environment such as natural areas and wildlife. There are few organisations at the national and international level that have a broad scope and those that do would be expected to provide any leadership in the promotion of the third way – the steady state economy alternative. The failure of these bodies to engage with this task is a serious obstacle to the development of a catalytic movement in favour of the steady state in the wider community. Perhaps if we can understand the reasons for their reluctance we would be better able to overcome them.

This paper concerns my personal experience of the rationale for non-engagement developed within Australia’s chief national conservation body the Australian Conservation Foundation (the ACF).

B. A brief history of discussion of a broad social change agenda in ACF

The ACF was established in 1965-66 with the broad primary purpose of  making “every effort to ensure that the land and waters of the Commonwealth and its Territories are used with wisdom and foresight and that competing demands upon them are resolved in the best long-term interests of the nation”. Up until recently policy in the ACF was determined by a Council of some 35 members, the great majority of which were elected by the organisation’s membership. In 2006 constitutional changes resulted in an appointed Board becoming the policy determining body.

Over the last 45 years there has been much discussion of the causes of national and global environmental degradation but little action. In August 1995, thirty years after the Foundation’s inception, ACF Council appointed Task Force 2025 to report on what the goals of the organisation should be over the following thirty years and how they were to be achieved. In May, 1996 a discussion paper on the broad future role options was circulated for comment by the ACF members. It listed and discussed three broad future role options. The third of these included attacking the cause of the problem by helping to develop a new economic and social system and bring about its acceptance while continuing the previous standards work but with greater attention to the grass roots.

The membership consultation, which included discussion at member meetings in three state capitals, resulted in strongly expressed majority support for option three which was subsequently supported by ACF Council but not implemented.

In late 2007 ACF Council decided that in future at each Council meeting it would have a Friday evening session on major topic involving guest speakers. The subjects selected for the three 2008 meetings were: indigenous issues (April/March meeting); population and consumption (July); and economic growth (November). In the event the proposed Friday evening session on economic growth was moved to the Saturday morning and renamed “transformative economy and consumption”. In a parallel development at the July 2008 meeting of Council, bearing in mind the forthcoming November discussion on economic growth, I foreshadowed a motion calling for ACF to endorse the Position on Economic Growth of the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State.

During the debate on the subsequent substantive motion to endorse the Position a further motion -  “That ACF consider the Position on Economic Growth as part of its transformative economy policy” - was foreshadowed.  Amongst the arguments put against endorsement were that the ACF had to work with the business community and support market solutions. After the endorsement motion was lost (with a vote of 22 against and 3 for) the foreshadowed motion was passed. Viewed optimistically, this outcome took the ACF back to the Task Force 2025 recommendations concerning action in 1998/99 with the major difference that it is envisaged that the leadership role would be performed by staff.

In November, 2009 the ACF CEO Don Henry reported that policy development on economic transformation was continuing and that a policy paper ‘Better than Growth’ was being developed.  The intention was to engage with all political parties on big-picture economic transformation over the coming 12 months.

C. Reasons for non-engagement with the move towards a non-economic growth economy

Summarising the reasons used by those opposing the adoption by ACF of  a goal of trying to win public acceptance for a new economic and social system during the debates referred to above the following appear to be the main concerns and counter arguments:

• There is DENIAL that there is a problem because of the belief that the environment can be adequately protected in the current growth system (the present approach is working) as well as economic growth being necessary for environmental protection and the relief of poverty
• Associated with this there is a belief that the present role of the ACF is the most appropriate and that any attempt to broaden the role would DAMAGE that work as a result of being labelled as being extreme
• There is a DEFEATIST belief even amongst some of those highly concerned about economic growth that the goal of achieving a steady state economy is TOO DIFFICULT (the opposing forces are too strong and only an international effort could succeed) and it is beyond the capacity of the ACF to make a difference
• There is a view by some that the  consequences of a change to a steady state economy would be DIRE involving a reduced standard of living; and
• Others believe it is TOO LATE to change. the damage has already been done, or would be done by the time the change to a steady state was achieved.

D. What can be done to overcome the reluctance?

While the ACF has been used as a case study there is little doubt that the problem is more widespread and is typical of the dilemma facing some major overseas environment groups. So what can be done?

1. Denial of the problem

For this we need better explanation of the situation, including the nature of the fundamental conflict between economic growth and environmental protection, and of the benefits the Steady State Economy would bring (comparing the alternative two roads into the future in terms of  social and environmental well being and how it is the economic growth-without-end road which is extreme) . Explaining the illusional nature of the belief that one can have indefinite economic growth is obviously crucial. It represents a disconnect with reality, a delusion and self deception. The focus needs to be on the connections and the costs (cause and effect) as well as on how things are likely to get worse with continued economic growth. In this context, stressing that the steady state economy concept involves qualitative growth in the form of development and creativity is also important.

2. Damage to existing environmental work

Here two points need to be stressed: a) that it is essential that the work of mitigating the effects go on while we make the change and acknowledge that these can also be important avenues for education and ethical transformation; and  b) that while the traditional work on dealing with symptoms will continue to be important, on its own it is currently having the side effect of putting off attention to fundamental causes and in this way is being counterproductive. It is losing us valuable time.

3. Too difficult, too late

Efforts to develop confidence for undertaking the new role are obviously also critical. First, it needs to be stressed that most movements have small beginnings and that the build up will be gradual but sure. Most new ideas are initially seen as being extreme or unachievable. Eventually there will be a tipping point in public opinion. The role of environment groups will be primarily as catalysts and educators. The members of ACF can be a bridge to the wider community. Understanding and solidarity in the environment movement will be very important. We need to understand the arguments of the pro-growth supporters and counter them at every turn. We have been bold in the past with our standards work (eg establishing Antarctica as a demilitarised natural reserve free from mining, and nuclear development) and although the problem is more difficult the same qualities of boldness and persistence are required. This includes moving out of our comfort zones and countering criticism head and intimidation head on. With regard to the claim that it is too late, the answer lies in comparing the likely consequences of making no change with those changing to a steady state economy.

4. Consequences dire

Here the comparison of the likely outcomes of the two options of endless economic growth and the steady state is also crucial. It needs to be carefully explained that the latter does not mean a static state and that in many ways life will be better under it than today. We particularly need to deal head on with the false claims concerning living in caves and poverty by giving substance to the likely nature of a steady state economy. It needs to be explained that since equity will be a major feature of the change many will have a higher material standard of life than at present and that environmental security will replace expensive military security.

5. Defeatism regarding Australia’s role

We need to fully acknowledge the importance of the move to a steady state being international. Australia can do two things: a) set an example; and b) provide help to other countries to make the transition. We are probably better placed to perform those roles than any other country on earth.

E. Conclusion

By means of this analysis of arguments used against dealing with the basic causes of environmental degradation I hope I have shown that the ACF, while tinkering with the issue, has been reluctant to engage with the role of working for fundamental social and economic change. It has been clearly uncomfortable with the idea of embarking on this voyage into unfamiliar territory. The fear is that such work would be seen as radical and extreme, particularly by the media, and that it would lose public support for  its existing role which concentrates on defending the environment against the multitude of attacks emanating from the economic growth oriented society and particularly at present on the threat from carbon emissions.

Added to this obvious feeling of discomfort with the idea of a role expansion the focus on important issues such as climate change, water, forests and nationally important areas has acted as a distraction from the consideration of the causes of the problem.  Here its role is reactive to the threats rather than proactive. Finally, there is denial by some that the problem is that big and that there is a fundamental conflict between economic growth and environmental protection. This latter aspect partly hinges on a semantic issue. Whereas those advancing the case against the economic growth paradigm define it as involving quantitative growth in material throughput (or, “continuous increase in the production of goods and services”) and point out that a steady state economy will involve qualitative economic development, including technological innovation, others have proposed that through sustainable use and efficiency measures the adverse effects of economic growth can be avoided. The significance of this is that more effort needs to be put into explaining that economic growth is the increase in the use of material resources and that the steady state involves no growth of this kind. In other words that the switch means a move from quantitative to qualitative growth or development; from a society which continues to use up nature’s capital to one that lives on its interest. ‘Sustainable economic growth’ it should be pointed out is an oxymoron. Clearly it is crucial to have agreement on this point and for those proposing the third way to be united in their view that the earth’s resources are limited and that we cannot go on using more and more of them without reaching the limits and wrecking the environment on the way. Also, of course, the sceptics need to be reminded that to–date attempts to apply sustainability measures within the context of economic growth have been a conspicuous failure.

The solution to these problems mainly lies in the further development of the steady state economy model. Of necessity this will involve discussion with the wider community beginning with the basic principles which will form the foundation of the new approach.  Population stabilisation is an integral principle.

To date the ACF has over most of its history procrastinated on beginning the process even though it is the body most suited to the role. A factor in this is the very high turnover of personnel both on the council and the staff so that there is very little awareness of previous efforts. A great deal of time has been lost through this corporate amnesia because each time the matter is raised the discussion begins from scratch. The problem is compounded by the felt need to not offend financial sponsors and by the need to achieve consensus. These are powerful forces that encourage inertia. In turn this leads to frustration and to loss of vision, where the main issues can disappear from sight.

These hazards are common to most environmental organisations, and are not confined to NGOs. They lead to a concentration on what can be agreed on and militate against a wider and more important view of the problem. We can spend our time and money on mitigating the effects of our growth-dominated way of life, but unless we address the main cause of environmental destruction, the obsession with growth and more growth, then environmental destruction will continue, small victories not withstanding. Hopefully this history and the documents mentioned will help overcome the inertia experienced so far. There will never be a better time to act.

Final comment

As explained, the findings of the paper were based on an analysis of the history of dealings with this issue within one national organisation, the Australian Conservation Foundation. The purpose was to learn from this what might be done to advance the cause of the steady state economy in the future. It was certainly not intended to be an attack on that body. Before finalising the text I did my best to take on board suggestions I received on a widely circulated draft. Further comments are of course welcome.

Nearly all of the current effort of the ACF is concerned with mitigating the effects of our growth dominated way of life and very little with the causes. Since the aim was to find ways of overcoming the impasse there was no attempt made to allocate blame. Unless there has been a change following the 2009 Council election it appears that there is a strong majority on ACF Council, its principal policy advisory body, opposed to engagement with the development of a non-economic growth society. The past record shows a clear pattern of initial warming to the idea followed by deferment of action. If anyone is at fault for this it is those, such as myself, who have for many years advocated a broadening of the role of the Foundation and, to-date, have failed to persuade it to act.

 
Geoff Mosley*
17 December 2009

* Geoff Mosley moved to Canberra to be a part of the ACF team in 1966. He became Assistant Director in 1968 and Director in 1973. He has been a member of ACF Council since 1987. He is the Australian Director of CASSE. A longer paper giving a more extensive history of ACF’s discussion of the basic causes of environmental degradation is available from the author – contact jandemosley -at- bigpond. com