Discussion
It is perhaps premature to suggest means of achieving zero growth when the first step towards that goal - a broad, international concensus in favor of it - is not on the near horizon, indeed, not even a speck on the far horizon. Nonetheless, the initiation of a discussion of that topic is not out of place if only because it is one of the first questions both supporters and opponents of zero growth will raise. The following is a proposal for taking a first step towards zero growth.
It is proposed that world trade in 36 basic raw materials (oil, coal, iron, copper, etc.) be frozen at current levels. Countries would be allotted their share of trade in these commodities based on their current exports and imports.
Trade, rather than production, is targeted as being more verifiable and enforceable, as well as less threatening to the sovereignty of nation-states. Within their borders, nations would be permitted to expand their production of these commodities as they saw fit, so long as any expansion did not enter into world trade. For instance, the United States, unable to increase its oil imports, might expand its production of coal as an alternative energy source (though it is hoped environmental concerns would lead it to seek to expand less polluting ones!).
Commerce in raw materials, as well as the uses to which they are put, is in a constant state of flux, so a dynamic element would be incorporated in the zero growth scheme by allowing countries to barter or sell their allotments to other countries. A country which does not need the level of imports or exports allotted to it, or which cannot produce or purchase up to its prescribed level, could exchange its allotment of one raw material to increase its allotment of another.
For instance, because of its dwindling reserves of iron, the United States might sacrifice some of its coal exports to increase its imports of iron, trading with, say, Great Britain. Or Saudi Arabia might decide to curtail its oil exports in favor of expanding its right to import materials needed by its fledgling industries, trading, perhaps, with a country in which newly-discovered reserves of petroleum are starting to be exploited, providing that country with the capital to exploit domestic supplies of basic materials it formerly imported.
Some provision for modifying the trade levels for the various raw materials might be made, as technological advances cause the demand for one material to expand and another to contract or resource exhaustion causes trade restrictions on one commodity to become irrelevant while restrictions on another commodity in abundant supply and great demand become so onerous as to lead to a black market which threatens to bring down the whole system. But how this might work adds a degree of complexity best left to future refinements of the proposal.
The proposed scheme might accelerate development in the poorer countries of the world, as corporations and other entities find it advisable to invest in industrial enterprises in these countries where production of domestic resources can be increased but not their export, thus ameliorating the blight of Third World poverty, one of the major impediments to any plan for zero growth.
To carry out this proposal does not require a world government. If not carried out under the aegis of the United Nations, it could be organized through international consortiums for the various materials, similar to OPEC but more all encompassing and with a different mission. Enforcement would be assured through the commercial, and if necessary, military power of the leading industrialized nations. The implementation, and the success, of the plan does, of course, depend on overwhelming global support for the concept.
The zero trade growth scheme would not have to be implemented in its entirety initially. Any individual raw material might be selected as a test case. The freezing of trade in that commodity would provide valuable lessons in how the plan can be carried out; its success or failure would indicate the wisdom of expanding the concept to other commodities.
The trade freeze proposal is admittedly a far cry from a true ethos of zero growth, but it would represent a dramatic change in current world resource exploitation and would be a significant first step towards the goal of zero growth. Let's take that first step.