Discussion
Dear Mr Meyercord
Thank you so much for sending the Ethic of Zero Growth and for the kind inscription in it.
It is beautifully written and full of wisdom. I recently received someone called Stephen Hamilton-Bergin who has written a long and rather rambling book, strangely entitled The No 19 Bus, but the underlying message is that the decline of oil, which is now a certainty, actually comes as a blessing imposing even sub-zero growth and removing all the gross excesses of the modern world. He believes that we need the crisis as soon as possible because the power-elites in government and more important the sinister financiers behind them will never voluntarily surrender their excessive privileges. But as a geologist I am aware of the fossil record. Some simple species remained such as the limpet have remained unchanged since the Cambrian, whereas others proliferated with they found an especially attractive niche, carried forward by a certain genetic momentum, only to die out when the niche collapsed for geological or climatic reasons. None succeeded in reverting the simplicity of their ancestors. So if we succeed we will be the first.
My own humble proposal is the Depletion Protocol, which would require importers to cut their imports of oil to match World Depletion Rate (annual production as a percentage of what is left), which is now running at about 2% a year. This would not be too great a burden given the excessive waste of the modern world. It would avoid profiteering from oil shortage especially by the Middle East or its conquerors. The world price of oil would remain moderate in reasonable relationship with actual production cost, meaning that the poor countries could at least buy something to meet their minimal needs. The destabilising mammoth financial flows to the Middle East which must otherwise arise would be avoided. But above all it would encourage the consumers to cut waste and turn to renewables, and more important begin to face the reality of their predicament as imposed by Nature.
Kyoto depends on co-operation especially by the main polluters who will never agree to cut their excesses, but the Depletion Protocol does not necessarily require full compliance. The countries that did observe it, might suffer slightly in the short term, but would soon overtake the non-compliers because they would soon emerge better prepared. In other words, for them it would be an investment which would soon pay off.
I live in Ireland, which has enjoyed a couple of decades of devastating growth, filling the bars and doing much to destroy a once charming place. It was built on tax inducements and a well-educated work force which attracted international companies, especially in computers to set up here. As a result the demand for electricity grew rapidly, and they added new gas fired generators, drawing on Ireland's only gasfield. But in 1996 that headed into steep decline. So they built a pipeline to Scotland, where Britain in excess of capitalist enthusiasm was discovering and producing gas as fast as they knew how in a competitive market in which prices fell. So the Irish were able to import cheap gas and everyone was happy. Now Britain has predictably peak with imports set to soar with supply increasingly coming from as far away as Siberia. Britain clearly has no reason and eventually no possibility of re-exporting to Ireland. So the lights will go out here before long. Furthermore the rabid growth has led to increased wages, such that many of the incoming companies are re-locating in places like Eastern Europe or India, leaving behind an inflated and unstable situation. The people wont like leaving the bars and going back to ploughing the land, which is their destiny.
So I think we need negative growth to return to equilibrium for any survivors. The decline of oil may indeed just so provide
Anyway, congratulations and thank you for your magnificent effort
best regards
Colin Campbell