Download Aff DeDev DA 7WK - Open Evidence Archive

***DEDEV ANSWERS
Uniqueness – Sustainable
Growth is inherently sustainable – capitalism provides an incentive to preserve resources –
eventual high prices will curb consumption – triggers a mindset shift towards sustainability
without collapse
Cudd, 11 (Ann E., Professor of Philosophy, Associate Dean for Humanities, University of Kansas, “Capitalism,
For and Against - A Feminist Debate,” Cambridge University Press, Section 3, Tashma)
I agree with Professor Holmstrom that we should be very concerned with pollution, and particularly with climate change ,
but in my view, this points us toward private ownership of property and not collective ownership of
scarce resources. As has been proven repeatedly by experience, and as is clear from theory as well. When goods are collectively
owned they are subject to the problem known as the "tragedy of the commons.” The tragedy of the commons is the overuse of a scarce
resource that happens because no one has the incentive to preserve and protect the resource for the long term .
Common ownership sets up a race to use the resource before it is used up by someone else, or exhausted. Even with the best of intentions on one’s own
part, if one cannot be sure that others will preserve and protect the resource, then it
is only rational to make full use of it while it
lasts. In game theoretic terms it is like a "prisoner's dilemma" in which there is no equilibrium strategy that would counsel preservation of the
resource; anyone who refrains from using the resource in order to preserve it for later generations would be played for a sucker. Real world
examples abound of the tragedy of the commons: the depletion of the world's ocean fisheries; overpollution of the
atmosphere; overgrazing of common pasturelands; over-gathering of firewood. This last is a particular tragedy in many places in Africa today for
women, where they must search farther and farther from home to find enough fuel. Private ownership of property provides owners with an incentive to
preserve their property for the long term, It
is precisely the ability to exclude others from using it that allows one the
security to be able to invest in it, by improving the pasture, protecting the trees, refraining from fishing at times, or taking only the mature
animals. No one worries that cattle, which are owned privately and therefore cultivated, will disappear after all. But we are very worried about the
disappearance of cod in the North Atlantic. Private
ownership allows one to sell the good in the market, if and only if, those who
the good are willing to pay the price that reflects the relative scarcity of the good and the expense of
preserving it. The ability to own a competing resource privately and sell it means that alternatives can be cultivated as well, which
removes some of the pressure from the more scarce, and therefore more expensive, privately owned good.
would consume
Uniqueness – Tech Solves
Future technological developments prevent their warming and environment impacts – prefer
the specificity of our evidence
SA, 9 (Scientific American, “Technological ‘Solutions’ to Climate Change,” 3/3/09,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=geoengineering-solutions, Tashma)
While most of the world fixates on how to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases we emit into the atmosphere,
scientists and engineers around the world are busy working on various “geo-engineering” tech nologies—many of which are
mitigate global warming and its effects. Many scientists oppose using new technology to fix problems created by
old technology, but others view it as a quick and relatively inexpensive way to solve humankind’s most vexing
environmental problem . One of the theories proposed for reducing global warming involves deflecting heat away
from the Earth’s surface with solar shields or satellites with movable reflectors. Computer models suggest that blocking
eight percent of the sun’s Earth-bound radiation would effectively counteract the warming effect of our CO2 pollution. The idea
highly theoretical—to
was inspired by the cooling effects of large volcanic eruptions—such as Mt. Pinatubo in 1991—that blast sulphate particles into the stratosphere. These
particles reflect part of the sun’s radiation back into space, reducing the amount of heat that reaches the atmosphere. Another
tech nological fix
involves “sequestration ,” the storage of CO2 either deep underground or deep in the ocean. Some of the nation’s largest utilities, which are also
“washing” coal to filter out impurities, are working on ways to capture the CO2 they emit and store it miles below the Earth’s
surface. Costs of such technologies have been prohibitive, but new regulations could force the issue in the near term. Another
leading theory, “ ocean fertilization,” entails scattering iron powder throughout the world’s seas, providing
nutrients to boost the amount of phytoplankton that thrive in the water’s upper layers. Through photosynthesis, these plants absorb
CO2 , which in theory stays with them when they die and fall to the ocean floor. Initial experiments have not lived up to the hype, however, but more
research is underway. Yet another take on altering the seas for the sake of the climate, “ engineered weathering,” entails replacing some
of the oceans’ carbonic acid with hydrochloric acid. This, the theory goes, accelerates the underwater storage of
CO2 otherwise destined for the atmosphere.
Growth leads to clean technologies
Callahan 07 (Gene Callahan is an American economist and writer. He is an adjunct scholar
with the Ludwig von Mises Institute “How a Free Society Could Solve Global Warming”
October 07http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/how-a-free-society-could-solve-global-warming/)
Even if it were true that reliance on the free-enterprise system makes it difficult to curtail activities that
contribute to global warming, still the undeniable advantages of unfettered markets would allow humans to
deal with climate change more easily. For example, the financial industry, by creating new securities and
derivative markets, could crystallize the “dispersed knowledge” that many different experts held in order to
coordinate and mobilize mankind’s total response to global warming. For instance, weather futures can serve
to spread the risk of bad weather beyond the local area affected. Perhaps there could arise a market betting on
the areas most likely to be permanently flooded. That may seem ghoulish, but by betting on their own area,
inhabitants could offset the cost of relocating should the flooding occur. Creative entrepreneurs, left free to
innovate, will generate a wealth of alternative energy sources. (State intervention, of course, tends to stifle
innovations that threaten the continued dominance of currently powerful special interests, such as oil
companies—for example, the state of North Carolina recently fined Bob Teixeira for running his car on soybean
oil.)
from those effects, is the free market.
AT: Growth = Human Nature
Consumerism was Created in Order to Sustain Capitalism (Growth)
Magnusson 7 – PhD. Professor of Economics in Portland, Oregon; Visiting Fellow at the Ashcroft
International Business School at Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, England (Joel, Growth and
Consumerism: Nature or Nurture?, Chapter 9: The Growth Imperative: Prosperity or Poverty, From Mindful
Economics: How the U.S. Economy Works, Why It Matters, and How It Could Be Different,
http://climateandcapitalism.com/2010/02/24/growth-and-consumerism-nature-or-nurture/)
We challenge this viewpoint and argue that consumerism is a cultural phenomenon that was created as part of
a broader systemic need of the capitalist economy to grow. Profits from sales are the source of returns to
capitalist investors, and these returns cannot be sustained if people do not sustain high levels of consumption.
The relentless drive for profits created the consumer culture that fuels the economic machine. If consumerism
did in fact stem from a natural instinct of the human species, it was not evident among most Americans in the
nineteenth century. One of the problems facing capitalism throughout the nineteenth century was chronic
overproduction. Businesses were producing goods for the market, but people tended to be frugal, selfsufficient, and were reluctant to spend their earnings on more and more consumer goods. More often than not,
people tended to follow the ethic expressed in Christian Proverbs, “He that tilleth his land shall have plenty of
bread: but he that followeth after vain persons shall have poverty enough … Remove far from me vanity and
lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me.” For many Americans at that
time, conspicuous consumption — overtly consuming and buying to display social status — was unseemly. By
the turn of the twentieth century, businesses began searching for new ways to get people to spend more of their
earnings on consumer goods. In order to sell goods in volume, businesses began deploying revolutionary
methods designed to entice people into consumer indulgences that were previously considered frivolous or
unnecessary. In his description of America in the early twentieth century as “The Dawn of a Commercial
Empire,” cultural historian and author, William Leach writes: “After 1880, American commercial capitalism, in
the interest of marketing goods and making money, started down the road of creating … a set of symbols, signs
and enticements … From the 1880s onward, a commercial aesthetic of desire and longing took shape to meet
the needs of business. And since that need was constantly growing and seeking expression in wider and wider
markets, the aesthetic of longing and desire was everywhere and took many forms … this aesthetic appeared in
shop windows, electrical signs, fashion shows, advertisements, and billboards.” To satisfy the growth imperative
of capitalism, the marketing and advertising industry was born . By the “roaring 1920s,” consumerism, molded by
the nascent advertising industry, was in full swing and established itself not as a fad, but as a permanent and
central feature of American culture. Today, advertising is a several hundred-billion-dollar industry, which is
about ten times the entire GDP of the U.S. economy at the turn of the twentieth century when the industry
began. Capitalism has a systemic need to sell things. If people show no inclination to buy these things, then the
capitalist machine will break down. To survive, capitalism must find ways — manipulation and seduction if necessary
— to get people to buy more and more things that potentially have little or no relevance to their physical or spiritual
well-being, or to that of their offspring . Consumerism is a product of modern marketing techniques that
stimulate deep psychological impulses to consume, not because it makes them better off, as consumption may
or may not make them better off, but because the growth imperative of the capitalist machine requires it.
Ongoing growth in production and consumption is not just some haphazard thing that people do by chance, it
occurs deliberately in response to the capitalist system’s requirement to produce and sell ever-larger amounts
of goods and services. The roots of this requirement run very deep and it is a requirement that has exceeded the
planet’s ability to sustain it.
Consumerism Was A Social Creation to Counteract Belief Systems
Emerald 4 - Bachelor of Science degree in Recreation Resource Management from the Department of
Health, Fitness, and Recreation Resources, Graduate School of Education; and a certificate in Environmental
Management from the Department of Biology, College of Arts and Sciences in 1998. He received a Graduate
Certificate in Natural Resources from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in 2001 (Neal D.,
Consumerism, Nature, and the Human Spirit, p. 4-5, http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-12272004133514/unrestricted/capstonefinal11-29-04.pdf)
The roots of modern consumerism lie in the 18t h century. Before the 18t h century, several factors held consumerism at bay,
primarily, the dominant value system of organized religion. Several major religions, including Christianity and Buddhism,
urged their followers to focus on spiritual goals rather than the acquisition of material goods which interfered with the
goal of attaining salvation. Confucianism, the leading belief system of the upper class in China , also rejected consumerism (Stearns,
2001, p 3-5). With the discovery of products such as sugar, a variety of spices, colorful dyes, and the availability of
products such as high fashion clothing, there was a clear increase in demand for these non-essential products.
While demand for these products increased, for the most part, it was still only the wealthier class of individuals that could afford
these products (Stearns, 2001, p. 15- 23). During the time period spanning 1800 – 1920, a number of important events in the development of
consumerism occurred. In 1830, the first department store opened in Paris. By 1850, large department stores had spread to other major cities in Western
Europe and the United States. Additionally, mail order catalogs began to appear and the first advertising agencies were born. A wide variety of imports
and consumer goods became available (Stearns, 2001, p. 45- 47). These developments, combined with a number of change s in
the psychological profile of society, set the stage for the explosion of consumerism that would later begin in the
1920s. Kanner and Gomes (1995) stated that : “ It is far from clear that consumerism occurs naturally or spontaneously in
humans” ( p. 81). Christopher Lasch, in The Culture of Narcissism, noted that industrial leaders in the United States during the
1920s understood that the desire for non-essential products was so anemic that it required continual
promotion and reinforcement : The American economy, having reached the point where its technology was capable of satisfying
basic material needs, now relied on the creation of new consumer demands – on convincing people to buy goods for
which they are unaware of any need until the need is forcibly brought to their attention by the mass media
(Lasch, 1979, p. 72) .
Transition – Conflict
Trainer Agrees, Transition Wars Inevitable
Trainer 2002 - Professor in the School of Social Work, University of New South Wales (Ted, If you want
affluence, prepare for war, Published in Democracy and Nature, 8, 2, July 2002,
http://socialsciences.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/D62IfYouWantAffluence.html)
To put it another way, if we insist on remaining affluent we will need to remain heavily armed. Increased
conflict in at least the following categories can be expected. Firstly the present conflict over resources between
the rich elites and the poor majority in the Third World must increase, for example as "development" under
globalisation takes more land, water and forests into export markets. Secondly there are conflicts between the
Third World and the rich world, the major recent examples being the war between the US and Iraq over control
of oil. Iraq invaded Kuwait and the US intervened, accompanied by much high-sounding rhetoric, (having
found nothing unacceptable about Israel's invasions of Lebanon or the Indonesian invasion of East Timor.) As
has often been noted, had Kuwait been one of the world's leading exporter of broccoli, rather than oil, it is
doubtful whether the US would have been so eager to come to its defence. At the time of writing the US is at
war in Central Asia over "terrorism". Few would doubt that a "collateral" outcome will be the establishment of
regimes that will give the West access to the oil wealth of Central Asia. Following are some references to the
connection many have recognised between rich world affluence and conflict. General M.D. Taylor, U.S. Army
retired argued "...U.S. military priorities just be shifted towards insuring a steady flow of resources from the
Third World." Taylor referred to "...fierce competition among industrial powers for the same raw materials
markets sought by the United States" and "... growing hostility displayed by have-not nations towards their
affluent counterparts."62 "Struggles are taking place, or are in the offing, between rich and poor nations over
their share of the world product; within the industrial world over their share of industrial resources and
markets".63 "That more than half of the people on this planet are poorly nourished while a small percentage
live in historically unparalleled luxury is a sure recipe for continued and even escalating international
conflict."64 The oil embargo placed on the US by OPEC in the early 1970s prompted the US to make it clear
that it was prepared to go to war in order to secure supplies. "President Carter last week issued a clear warning
that any attempt to gain control of the Persian Gulf would lead to war." It would "…be regarded as an assault on
the vital interests of the United States."65 "The US is ready to take military action if Russia threatens vital
American interests in the Persian Gulf, the US Secretary of Defence, Mr. Brown, said yesterday."66 Klare's
recent book Resource Wars discusses this theme in detail, stressing the coming significance of water as a
source of international conflict. "Global demand for many key materials is growing at an unsustainable rate."
"…the incidence of conflict over vital materials is sure to grow." "The wars of the future will largely be fought
over the possession and control of vital economic goods." "…resource wars will become, in the years ahead, the
most distinctive feature of the global security environment."67 Much of the rich world's participation in the
conflicts taking place through out the world is driven by the determination to back a faction that will then look
favourably on Western interests. In a report entitled, "The rich prize that is Shaba", Breeze begins, "Increasing
rivalry over a share-out between France and Belgium of the mineral riches of Shaba Province lies behind the
joint Franco-Belgian paratroop airlift to Zaire." "These mineral riches make the province a valuable prize and
help explain the West’s extended diplomatic courtship,..."68
Transition – AT: Mindset Shift
Their mindset shift arguments are wrong – political action is key
Fotopoulos, 2k (Takis, Senior Lecturer in Economics at the Polytechnic of North London, Editor of The
International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, “The limitations of Life-style strategies: The Ecovillage
‘Movement’ is NOT the way towards a new democratic society,” The International Journal of Inclusive
Democracy, July 2000, Volume 6, Number 2, Tashma)
So, social transformation towards an inclusive democracy would never come about by ‘ example and education ’
alone , since the required change in values and culture can only be the outcome of a process of continuous interaction
between changes in institutions and changes in values. In other words, the change in values would have to come about as part of a programmatic
political movement with an overall goal for systemic change, rather than as part of the activities of some fractionalised
movement s to create a new relation between the sexes, identities, or society and nature.
There Are Psychological Ties to Consumption – Dedev won’t Solve
Nadal 10 - Professor at the Centre for Economic Studies of El Colegio de
Mexico (Alejandro, Is De-Growth Compatible With Capitalism?,
http://triplecrisis.com/is-de-growth-compatible-with-capitalism/)
The problem with this perspective is that the cause of growth becomes psychological, a question of mentalities
and even fashion. The idea that growth could originate from endogenous forces in capitalist economies is
ignored. Growth is not only a cultural phenomenon or a feature of a maniac mentality. It is the direct
consequence of how capitalist economies operate. This is true of capitalism as it operated in Genoa in the
sixteenth century, and it is true today with the mega-corporations that rule global markets. The purpose of
capital is to produce profits without end, that’s the meaning of its particular form of circulation. Its purpose is
not to produce useful things or useless stuff, its object is to produce profits without end and produce more
capital. This is the engine of accumulation and it is fuelled by inter-capitalist competition. In the words of
Marx’s Grundrisse, “Conceptually, competition is nothing other than the inner nature of capital, its essential
character, appearing in and realized as the reciprocal interaction of many capitals with one another, the inner
tendency [presents itself] as external necessity. Capital exists and can only exist as many capitals, and its selfdetermination therefore appears as their reciprocal interaction with one another.” By the forces of competition,
“capital is continuously harassed: March! March!” Thus, Marx’s analysis shows convincingly that capital can
only exist as private centres of accumulation that are driven by (inter-capitalist) competition. This is why, in its
quest to expand and survive (as an independent centre of accumulation) capital is continuously opening new
spaces for profitability: new products, new markets. The corollary of this is that the only way in which we can
get rid of “growth mania” is by getting rid of capitalism. It is not possible to have capitalism without growth. Is
there a technological fix out of this? In other words, can we have such an efficient technological infrastructure
(in buildings, energy and transport systems, manufacturing, etc.) that even with growth the ecological footprint
could be reduced? This remains to be seen, but one phenomenon seems to conspire against this: the rebound
effect. As technologies become more efficient and unit costs become smaller, consumption increases. Either
existing consumers deepen their consumption, or more people have access to the objects or services being put
on the marketplace. The end result is that the positive effects of greater efficiency are cancelled by deepening
consumption rates. And let’s not forget what happens when consumption stops or slows down: those centres of
accumulation cannot sell their commodities, inventories grow, unemployment soars and we have recessions,
depressions and crises. From the side of production, for those individual centres of accumulation every gadget,
every nook and cranny in the world, or any vast expanse of geographical space is a space waiting to be occupied
for profits. From pep pills to tranquilizers, food and water, health and even genetic resources or nanomaterials, to the anxious eyes of capital all of these dimensions are but spaces for profitability. Talk about
investing in “natural capital” as a way out to the dilemma is devoid of any sense. It could very well be that, in
the words of Richard Smith we either save capitalism or save ourselves, we cannot do both
Transition Won’t Happen. People Don’t Have Time to Rebuild, and There Are Better
Alternatives
Davey 9 – Marine Geophysicist, New Zealand Geophysical Society: Member, Council Rep since 2003(Brian,
Brian Davey Responds to Ted Trainer, December 3 2009, http://transitionculture.org/2009/12/03/briandavey-responds-to-ted-trainer/)
At that point I HAD TO GET REAL. Ted, it took me years with others to develop a successful community garden project. When
I look at your
description of all the things that you say that the Transition Movement must do I want to scream with
frustration: are you joking? It is not an ideological objection – because I have a taste for consumer goods and big cars and want to defend
consumer capitalism – it is a practical objection – because I and others are already struggling with insufficient time with the very small
initiatives that we are making. We are struggling already – the number of people with the organisational and social
entrepreneurial skills to set things up is small. There are lots willing to follow but few willing, or able, to lead –
or we have not yet found the way to encourage and help people learn to lead, to learn to organise and to become
social/environmental entrepreneurs (not in the profit seeking sense). Probably, mainly, this is because most people are used to working in
large organisations and they always assume that one has to start off too big and “build” things like architects and developers – assembling complex
organisational structures – rather than develop through “planting things”, then tend them, letting them evolve and grow step by step. (It is also because
people have this habit of assuming, if something needs doing, that they must “call on” politicians to do it…..as if….) What I learned as a development
worker was that you have to start small and build things up step by step – sure you may have a long term and comprehensive vision
of the type that you put forward – but
here and now the Transition Initiatives are conceived of as just that –
“transitional” – starting with down on the ground practicalities like learning to garden and learning to mend
socks. I know its not all that you think is necessary to challenge consumer capitalism as a system both practically and ideologically but your vast
agenda is way above anything most of us have time for and serves more to discourage than anything else
because it tells us all the other things that we have to do and that what we are doing already, in many cases run
ragged with voluntary overwork – is still not enough. It is also, in its flavour one of those “building documents” – it reminds me of my
Trotskyite days where a familiar phrase was “Comrades, what we have to understand is the need to…” which translated is “you lot who I have just
commandeered into my audience, I understand somethings a lot better than you and these things are this……(lead into a lot of technical *highly
meaningful* ideological jargon – the magical formula which the orator knows, just knows, will set the whole world alight….if only his audience will say
“hurrah, you’re right, we are right behind you comrade…) As a matter of fact several of the people who started off Transition
Nottingham were anarchists and if you scratch the surface you will find it full of radicals with a starting point
ideology not dissimilar to yours – but they are struggling to make the transition from being communicators of
grand visions to being practical developers of organisations and practical activities – as I had to. It’s a big difference. They
may still have a residual sympathy for that ideological background and I don’t know anyone who defends consumer capitalism – but I don’t know
anyone who has time to develop a city wide development co-op either – but I do know some people who I rate
very highly are looking to set up a wind turbine where the revenue from which will go to fund energy efficiency
work in a poor neighbourhood where the people otherwise would not be able to afford energy efficiency work. I
don’t need to tell any of these people about consumer capitalism and what we should be doing… The main point I would make however is this. Given
the lack of time that there is, given the sheer magnitude of the task – a huge work agenda of the “comrades,
these are the institutions to replace consumer capitalism that you have to create type” is beside the point –
none of us have the time to set about “building” these institutions – unless this happens within a framework
where it would happen anyway because it is already built into the operating system of the movement and will
evolve out of its later development anyway. Now I happen to believe that – WHEN we have evolved further and WHEN
we can therefore set things up which are bigger than sock darning and tree pruning workshops and when the
community gardens become too big to be organised in the old way, there are indeed ways that we can evolve
which encourage community level and a certain global solidarity if we try to build these things into the small
things that we do now and then build the same principles recursively into the slightly larger things that we
subsequently do and then huld the same principles into the larger organisations and networks as we evolve and
spread these networks and activities what we are doing onto bigger scales. That is to say – instead of specifying the
institutions that every non consumer capitalist town must have – we specify the principles that every initiative small and large should try to embody in
itself at each scale. In this regard I think you’ll find that most Transition Iniatives are supposed to be informed by Permaculture
ethics and principles which include care of the earth, care of people, co-operation not competition, distribution
of surplus. If you successfully build those into the Transition Movement then as it evolves it should evolve in
the direction that you want anyway…. Well maybe, there is more that can be said here so that these principles can be given an
organisational expression when applied at larger scales. The best option for this that I know of, which is not currently or
explicitly a set of principles adopted by the Transition Movement, is to use the ideas of viable systems
modelling developed by Stafford Beer. These were being successfully applied in Chile before the Chicago boys
moved in after Pinochet and they are essentially the same principles employed at the Mondragon co-ops.
DEDEV Fails: Authors Ignore the Status of the world now\
Foster 2011- professor of sociology at the University of Oregon, Editor of Monthly Review (John Bellamy,
Capitalism and Degrowth: An Impossibility Theorem, http://monthlyreview.org/2011/01/01/capitalism-anddegrowth-an-impossibility-theorem)
The notion that degrowth as a concept can be applied in essentially the same way both to the wealthy countries
of the center and the poor countries of the periphery represents a category mistake resulting from the crude
imposition of an abstraction (degrowth) on a context in which it is essentially meaningless , e.g., Haiti, Mali, or even, in
many ways, India.
The real problem in the global periphery is overcoming imperial linkages, transforming the existing
mode of production, and creating sustainable-egalitarian productive possibilities. It is clear that many countries in
the South with very low per capita incomes cannot afford degrowth but could use a kind of sustainable
development, directed at real needs such as access to water, food, health care, education, etc. This requires a
radical shift in social structure away from the relations of production of capitalism/imperialism. It is telling that in
Latouche’s widely circulated articles there is virtually no mention of those countries, such as Cuba, Venezuela, and Bolivia, where concrete struggles are
being waged to shift social priorities from profit to social needs. Cuba, as the Living Planet Report has indicated, is the only country on Earth with high
human development and a sustainable ecological footprint.20 It is undeniable today that economic growth is the main driver of
planetary ecological degradation. But to pin one’s whole analysis on overturning an abstract “growth society” is
to lose all historical perspective and discard centuries of social science. As valuable as the degrowth concept is
in an ecological sense, it can only take on genuine meaning as part of a critique of capital accumulation and
part of the transition to a sustainable, egalitarian, communal order; one in which the associated producers
govern the metabolic relation between nature and society in the interest of successive generations and the earth
itself (socialism/communism as Marx defined it).21 What is needed is a “co-revolutionary movement,” to adopt David Harvey’s
pregnant term, that will bring together the traditional working-class critique of capital, the critique of imperialism,
the critiques of patriarchy and racism, and the critique of ecologically destructive growth (along with their
respective mass movements).22 In the generalized crisis of our times, such an overarching, co-revolutionary
movement is conceivable. Here, the object would be the creation of a new order in which the valorization of capital would no longer govern
society. “Socialism is useful,” E.F. Schumacher wrote in Small is Beautiful, precisely because of “the possibility it creates for the overcoming of the
religion of economics,” that is, “the modern trend towards total quantification at the expense of the appreciation of qualitative differences.”23 In a
sustainable order, people in the wealthier economies (especially those in the upper income strata) would have
to learn to live on “less” in commodity terms in order to lower per capita demands on the environment . At the
same time, the satisfaction of genuine human needs and the requirements of ecological sustainability could
become the constitutive principles of a new, more communal order aimed at human reciprocity, allowing for
qualitative improvement, even plenitude.24 Such a strategy—not dominated by blind productivism—is consistent with providing people
with worthwhile work. The ecological struggle, understood in these terms, must aim not merely for degrowth in the abstract but more concretely for
deaccumulation—a transition away from a system geared to the accumulation of capital without end. In its place we need to construct a new corevolutionary society, dedicated to the common needs of humanity and the earth.
Consumption is a Human Necessity, Dedev Cant Solve
Wilk 2002 - Ph.D. in Anthropology, University of Arizona, Provost Professor of Anthropology (Richard,
Consumption, human needs, and global environmental change, http://ac.elscdn.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/S0959378001000280/1-s2.0-S0959378001000280main.pdf?_tid=9e9d844ccd262ce7cb72228cb6867674&acdnat=1340735574_f26d14ee6db898338b27786d06
d8d816)
There have been several excellent reviews of consumption theory recently, which note the diversity and complexity of work in a number of disciplines
(e.g. Berger, 1992; Miller, 1994). I have reduced this diversity into three basic categories for the sake of clarity (based on a more thorough treatment in
Wilk, 1996). Each type of theory is grounded in fundamental (and untested) assumptions about human nature, and is connected to deep philosophical
issues about the causes of human behavior, as well as methodologies for studying people. This is why it is so important to bring these assumptions out
and make them clear at the beginning. Individual choice theories seek the basis for consumption within the individual,
through the mechanism of the satisfaction of needs. Psychological approaches may trace needs to the process of
personality formation, early family interactions, and the actualization of adulthood. Consumption may then be
cast as either pathological aberration or healthy means of objectification and individuation . A classic example is the
work of Csikszentimihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981) which assigns a number of psychological functions to middleclass consumer goods,
including self-expression, making a personal history, and providing security. From this standpoint, people need
goods in anonymous and stressful modern societies in order to remain healthy and happy. Their basic needs
are extended to new objects because of the pressure of advertising, which associates consumer goods with sex,
status, self-respect and other fundamental human drives. Other scholars have used similar psychological theories to develop a
distinction between individualist and collectivist cultures (e.g. Hofstede, 1980; Aaker and Williams, 1998). This psychological work converges with the
recent spate of post-modern and reflexive theories of consumption, which concentrate on subjectivity, experience, identity
and selfhood, and the creative and playful potential of consumer culture (e.g. Brown and Turley, 1997; Lash and Urry, 1994).
The more materialist and economic branch of individual/ choice theory is based on ideas of rational choice and
maximization of utility found in economics and economic psychology. Here people consume to maximize shortterm satisfactions derived directly from goods themselves, though the model has been extended to include
services, and the non-material satisfactions of social life, citizenship, and charity (Becker, 1981). Rational-choice theorists
assume that consumption is the product of individual choice, driven by an internal hierarchy of needs. To summarize; individual choice
theories are primarily concerned with consumption as needs-driven behavior. Needs are produced internal
psychological and cognitive processes, leading to choices within a marketplace of possibilities . For adults, therefore,
advertising and media should be seen mainly as a source of information, which people may use to make decisions, and persuasion that plays on basic
psychological needs. But because children are still forming their personalities and needs, and lack the ability to tell good information from bad, they are
seen as especially vulnerable to the media, and some form of protection is therefore needed.
Transition Fails
A total Degrowth Is Impossible The aff is a sufficient Change
Nebbia 2012 – Professor of Commodity Economics at the Faculty of Economics
of the University of Bari (Giorgo, The Unsustainability of Sustainability,
Capitalism Nature Socialism, 23:2, 95-107, 5/1/12,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2012.675236)
The welfare and survival of people depends on the availability of food and water, energy sources, machines,
domestic appliances, buildings, means of transport and communication, education and sanitation. Apparently
intangible needs also require material goods: health, dignity, and freedom are not possible living from hand to
mouth, with no home or food, surrounded by dirty water. Knowledge is more difficult without paper and the
material means of long-distance communication, be they the skins on the drums of the jungle telegraph or the silicon in computers.
Material goods can be obtained only through the human activity of extracting minerals, stones, fuels, vegetable matter, animals, water, air*all assets
provided by nature*from the biosphere and transforming them into the goods, objects, and machines that go to make up the technosphere: the universe
of manufactured objects. After varying lengths of time, the objects used in the technosphere are inevitably
transformed into waste and refuse which return, in one form or another, to the biosphere, decreasing the
availability of natural resources because of pollution and depletion. Humanity survives by maintaining a continuous circulation
of matter and energy from the biosphere to the technosphere and back to the biosphere (naturecommoditiesnature). Commodities are produced not by
means of money or commodities, but by means of nature. Since the resources of the biosphere are limited*even though they seem enormous*because of
the ineluctable principle of the ‘‘entropic’’ depletion of energy and matter (‘‘matter matters too,’’ GeorgescuRoegen [1974] explained) passing through the
technosphere, depletion and deterioration of the ‘‘natural’’ quality of the reserves remaining for present and future generations are part of the
functioning of the technosphere. Technology may reduce the mass of materials required per unit of service provided, but
the advent of an intangible or dematerialized society is a myth. Irrespective of the rate of population growth and increased
demand for material goods*whatever the cornucopians might say *a steady-state society is neither conceivable nor achievable . The
same applies to a ‘‘sustainable’’ society and development. The current rates of extraction of material resources
and contamination of the remainder are unsustainable. All we can do is to envisage a system of human and
international relations that are less unsustainable.
AT: Warming
Trends are reversing – Kuznets curve theory means growth helps the environment
Sari and Soytas, 9 (Ramazan and Ugur, Dept. of Business Administration, Middle East Technical University,
“Are global warming and economic growth compatible? Evidence from five OPEC countries?,” Applied Energy,
Volume 86, pg. 1887-1893, ScienceDirect, Tashma)
The recent studies on the other hand improved our understanding in at least two ways. Firstly, the empirical studies may be
suffering from omitted variables bias that may yield spurious causality test results. Hence, a multivariate approach should be preferred over
bi-variate approaches. Secondly, the temporal relationship between energy use and income may be depending on country specific factors. Furthermore,
depending on the nature of the link in concern, alternative policy options may be available to policy makers in different countries. Therefore, studying
countries individually may be necessary. There is an
abundance of studies that test the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC)
hypothesis (see [6,45] for a review) which relate environmental degradation to economic growth. The hypothesis states that as economies
grow pollution also grows, but after an income level is reached economic growth is associated with a decline in
pollution. As Rothman and de Bruyn [35] suggest if the hypothesis holds economic growth can gradually become a solution to
environmental problems and no policy action is necessary.
AT: Environment
Growth improves the environment
Bhagwati, 4 (Jagdish N., Columbia University, Economics Department, “In Defense of Globalization,” Oxford
University Press, pg. 144-145, Tashma)
In fact, as development occurs, economies typically shift from primary production, which is often pollution intensive,
to manufactures, which are often less so, and then to traded services, which are currently even less pollutionintensive. This natural evolution itself could then reduce the pollution -intensity of income as development proceeds.
Then again, the available technology used, and tech nology newly invented, may become more environment-friendly over
time. Both phenomena constitute an ongoing, observed process. The shift to environment-friendly technology can occur naturally as households, for
example, become less poor and shift away from indoor cooking with smoke-causing coal-based fires to stoves using fuels that cause little smoke.19 But
this shift is often a result also of environment-friendly technological innovation prompted by regulation. Thus, restrictions on allowable fuel efficiency
have promoted research by the car firms to produce engines that yield more miles per gallon. But these regulations
are created by
increased environmental consciousness, for which the environmental groups can take credit. And the rise of
these environmental groups is, in turn, associated with increased incomes. Also, revelations about the astonishing
environmental degradation in the Soviet Union and its satellites underline how the absence of democratic feedback and controls is a surefire recipe for
environmental neglect. The fact that economic
growth generally promotes democracy , as discussed in Chapter 8, is yet another
way in which rising income creates a better environment. In all these ways, then, increasing incomes can reduce rather
than increase pollution . In fact, for several pollutants, empirical studies have found a bell-shaped curve: pollution levels
first rise with income but then fall with it.20 The economists Gene Grossman and Alan Krueger, who estimated the levels of different
pollutants such as sulfur dioxide in several cities worldwide, were among the first to show this, estimating that for sulfur dioxide levels, the peak occurred
in their sample at per capita incomes of $5,000–6,000.21 Several
historical examples can also be adduced: the reduction in smog
today compared to what the industrial revolution produced in European cities in the nineteenth century, and the
reduced deforestation of United States compared to a century ago.22 The only value of these examples is in their refutation of the
simplistic notions that pollution will rise with income. They should not be used to argue that growth will automatically take care of pollution regardless
of environmental policy. Grossman and Krueger told me that their finding of the bell-shaped curve had led to a huge demand for offprints of their article
from anti-environmentalists who wanted to say that “ natural forces ” would take care of environmental degradation and
that environmental regulation was unnecessary; the economists were somewhat aghast at this erroneous, ideological interpretation of their research
findings.
Economic growth reduces CO2 and encourages the use of cheaper, more environmentally
friendly fuels
Anderson 04 (Terry Lee Anderson is the executive director of the Property and Environment
Research Center, a John and Jean de Nault senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover
Institution, and adjunct professor at the Stanford Graduate School of Business Hoover Digest
2004 No.3 Summer “Why Economic Growth is Good for the Environment”
http://www.perc.org/articles/article446.php)// CG
In the March 2004 issue of Scientific American, National Aeronautics and Space Administration globalwarming expert James Hansen notes that greenhouse gas emissions and global-warming projections are
"consistently pessimistic." Hansen suggests that projections do not take into account the lower carbon dioxide
and methane emissions that have resulted from technological advancements. He explains that the lower carbon
dioxide emissions result from increased energy efficiency following the energy crisis in the 1970s and the lower
methane emissions, from technological changes in agriculture. Hansen's essay concludes on an optimistic note,
saying "the main elements [new technologies] required to halt climate change have come into being with
remarkable rapidity." This statement would not have surprised economist Julian Simon. He saw the "ultimate
resource" to be the human mind and believed it to be best motivated by market forces. Because of a
combination of market forces and technological innovations, we are not running out of natural resources. As a
resource becomes more scarce, prices increase, thus encouraging development of cheaper alternatives and
technological innovations. Just as fossil fuel replaced scarce whale oil, its use will be reduced by new
technology and alternative fuel sources. Market forces also cause economic growth, which in turn leads to
environmental improvements. Put simply, poor people are willing to sacrifice clean water and air, healthy
forests, and wildlife habitat for economic growth. But as their incomes rise above subsistence, "economic
growth helps to undo the damage done in earlier years," says economist Bruce Yandle. "If economic growth is
good for the environment, policies that stimulate growth ought to be good for the environment." The link
between greenhouse gas emissions and economic prosperity is no different. Using data from the United States,
Professor Robert McCormick finds that "higher GDP reduces total net [greenhouse gas] emissions. "He goes a step
further by performing the complex task of estimating net U.S. carbon emissions. This requires subtracting
carbon sequestration (long-term storage of carbon in soil and water) from carbon emissions. Think of it this
way: When you build a house, the wood in it stores carbon. In a poor country that wood would have been
burned to cook supper or to provide heat, thus releasing carbon into the atmosphere. McCormick shows that
economic growth in the United States has increased carbon sequestration in many ways, including improved
methods of storing waste, increased forest coverage, and greater agricultural productivity that reduces the
acreage of cultivated land. Because rich economies sequester more carbon than poor ones, stored carbon must
be subtracted from emissions to determine an economy's net addition to greenhouse gas emissions.
McCormick's data show that "rich countries take more carbon out of the air than poorer ones" and that "the
growth rate of net carbon emission per person will soon be negative in the United States." Put differently—
richer may well be cooler. Global-warming policy analysts agree that greenhouse gas regulations such as those
proposed at Kyoto would have negative impacts on the economy. Therefore, as McCormick warns, we should
take great care that regulations in the name of global warming "not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs."
Reducing Consumption Doesn’t Solve
Van de Bergh – 10 PhD in Economics from VU University Amsterdam Professor of Environmental
Economics (1997-2007) and Professor of ´Nature, Water and Space´ (2002-2007) at VU University
Amsterdam, and Member of the Energy Council of the Netherlands (Jeroen, Environment versus growth — A
criticism of “degrowth” and a plea for “a-growth”, http://degrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/van-denbergh_degrowth-and-a-growth.pdf)
The second interpretation of degrowth means striving for a reduction in the amount of consumption, however measured. Such
a strategy is then hoped to translate into less resource use and less pollution (Princen, 2005; Alcott, 2008). This is, however, not sure to be
an effective approach to environmental regulation, while it is certain to be a very inefficient one. Equally problematic
is that the measurement of consumption degrowth is ambiguous. One can focus on physical/quantity or monetary/value
indicators, but neither are guaranteed to be a good proxy of environmental impact . A simplistic indicator like the total
weight (kilogrammes) of consumption may seem an adequate approach at first sight, but it would immediately exclude the consumption of services, even
though these may indirectly cause much environmental pressure. In view of such measurement-indicator problems, a
consumption degrowth strategy runs a serious risk of remaining a vague, conceptual approach which cannot be
empirically implemented in any unambiguous way. As a result, it is entirely unclear which individual limit on
consumption for each consumer would be reasonable and necessary for reaching environmental sustainability.
Supporters of this strategy have the hope that frugality (voluntary restraint or simplicity) will drive
consumption down. As identified in the literature on environmental psychology, some people are indeed able to apply voluntary
restrictions to their consumption behavior which are environmentally motivated (Gsottbauer and van den Bergh,
forthcoming). The question is of course how environmentally effective this is, and in particular whether one can
safely assume this to work for a significant proportion of all consumers. Only looking at shopping malls,
television, roads and airports should make one very skeptical about this. One can anyway wonder whether it is
realistic or even fair to ask from the median consumer that s/he gives up the luxuries of modern life, to in some
way go back in time. It is unlikely that hunter-gatherers or Henri David Thoreau (“Walden”) can serve as a role model for them. The other
extreme is (equal) individual quota on consumption, perhaps for a range of heavily environmentally damaging
goods and services (notably gasoline), to realize consumption degrowth in an equitable manner. However, this
resembles too much a communist society which will undoubtedly be difficult to obtain political support for.
Dedev Doesn’t Work, Multiple Warrants
Van de Bergh – 10 PhD in Economics from VU University Amsterdam Professor of Environmental
Economics (1997-2007) and Professor of ´Nature, Water and Space´ (2002-2007) at VU University
Amsterdam, and Member of the Energy Council of the Netherlands (Jeroen, Environment versus growth — A
criticism of “degrowth” and a plea for “a-growth”, http://degrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/van-denbergh_degrowth-and-a-growth.pdf)
Perhaps for the majority of degrowth proponents the notion of degrowth
denotes a radical change of (or many radical changes
in) the economy. This may involve changes in values, ethics, preferences, financial systems, markets (versus
informal exchange), work and labor, the role of money, or even profit-making and ownership (Latouche, 2009;
Schneider et al., 2010). Such an approach comprises degrowth notions 2 and 3, but it is broader. Fournier (2008) has called it “escaping from the
[capitalist] economy.” The main problem I see here that this is such a grand, imprecise idea which lacks a good,
thorough analysis that it will be impossible to obtain political support for it in a democratic system. More
importantly, it is void of a good view on systemic solutions and instrumentation, making it unclear how to upscale
radical changes in lifestyles and grassroots initiatives by small subsets of the population (“niches”) to society as
a whole. Alternative lifestyles, i.e. outside the cultural norm, have always existed but have never been adopted
by the large majority of people. So why would this now suddenly be different? This does, of course, not mean such lifestyles need not exist or
do not deserve respect. They may influence slow change in dominant lifestyles, but cannot be expected to be copied by the masses. Writings on this
issue tend to be normative and idealistic rather than analytical and realistic. They seem to be motivated more
by political ideology about justice and equity than about solving urgent and threatening environmental
problems (an “ecological imperative”). As a result, they do not necessarily offer an effective approach to combat
environmental problems. One can certainly be positive about the underlying humanistic ideals of equality, solidarity, citizenship, locality and
“good life.” However, a drastic change in the economy upfront seems an overly risky experiment and a diffuse,
undirected strategy that is not sure to meet the desired environmental aims. Moreover, it may well result in
unintended social and economic chaos and instability. The main historical, large-scale experiments aimed at moving
away from market capitalism which we can learn from, namely central planning by communist states as in the
former USSR, Eastern Europe and China, certainly do not offer a good record in terms of clean production and
environmental regulation — quite the opposite. Here, a lack of market mechanisms and other incentives seems to
have given rise to excessive waste and inefficiency, also in relation to environmentally relevant categories of
inputs and outputs. Thinking about radical changes should moreover incorporate received insights about human behavior and its diversity as
found in modern psychology and behavioral economics. These are already slowly changing mainstream economics and associated ideas about public
policy (Gsottbauer and van den Bergh, forthcoming). Given the urgency of environmental and notably climate change problems it makes sense to think
carefully about the effectiveness of strategies in the short and medium term, which should involve taking into account behavioral
features and limits of human individuals and organizations. Striving for radical degrowth seems risky in this
sense as it does not well integrate received insights about human behavior. Instead, a less risky and more effective strategy is
adding new institutions to our economies — to begin with an effective international climate agreement. What we need most of all is a hard environmental
constraint on our economy (complemented by price regulation and possibly other types of regulation, like of commercial advertising and taxing status
goods with serious environmental repercussions) and then let consumers, producers and investors adapt to it. Possibly, this will go along with
fundamental, radical changes in our economy and institutions, but it does not seem necessary to require these and
have a blueprint of them upfront.
AT: Structural Violence
Growth solves structural violence
a) Poverty
Bhagwati, 4 (Jagdish N., Columbia University, Economics Department, “In Defense of Globalization,” Oxford
University Press, pg. 55-60, Tashma)
Let me add that growth is also a powerful mechanism that brings to life social legislation aimed at help ing the poor and
peripheral groups. Thus, rights and benefits for women may be guaranteed by legislation that prohibits dowry,
proscribes polygamy, mandates primary school enrollment for all children (including girls), and much else. But it will often
amount to a hill of beans unless a growing economy gives women the economic independence to walk out and even to sue at the risk of being discarded.
A battered wife who cannot find a new job is less likely to take advantage of legislation that says a husband cannot beat his wife. An impoverished parent
is unlikely, no matter what the legislation says, to send a child to school if the prospect of finding a job is dismal because of a stagnant economy. In short,
empowerment, as it is called today—a fancy word for what we development economists have long understood and written about—proceeds from both
political democracy and economic prosperity, and it is a powerful tool for aiding the poor. Finally, we need to go beyond just having incomes of the poor
grow. Growing incomes would do little good if frittered away, for instance. So, drawing on a 1987 lecture I gave on poverty and public policy, let me say
that we have a final set of problems that need to be addressed once income has been provided: First, as sociologists of poverty have long known, the poor
may spend their incomes on frills rather than on food. As the Japanese proverb goes, to each according to his taste; some prefer nettles. Perhaps you
have heard of the seamen’s folklore that recounts the story of the sailor who inherited a fortune, spent a third on women, a third on gin, and “frittered
away” the rest. In fact, there is now considerable econometric evidence . . . that supports the commonsense view that increases in income do not
automatically result in nutritional improvement even for very poor and malnourished populations. 21 Their high income elasticities of expenditure on
food reflect a strong demand for the nonnutritive attributes of food (such as taste, aroma, status and variety), suggesting strongly that income generation
will not automatically translate into better nutrition. . . . Should we
actively intervene so that the poor are seduced into better
fulfillment of what we regard as their basic needs ? I do [think so]. In fact, I see great virtue in quasi-paternalistic moves to
induce, by supply and tasteshifting policy measures, more nutrient food intake, greater use of clean water, among other
things, by the poor.
b) Child labor
Bhagwati, 4 (Jagdish N., Columbia University, Economics Department, “In Defense of Globalization,” Oxford
University Press, pg. 69-72, Tashma)
But forget what SACCS and other activists believe and let us look at what economic analysis suggests and what
careful studies show. Now, it is easy enough to construct models of family household behavior where improved incomes—as a result of
increased trade opportunity, for instance—prompt greedy parents to put children to work. Yet the evidence seems to suggest exactly the opposite, for a
variety of reasons. Poor parents, no less than rich parents, generally want the best for their children. Poverty is what drives many to put children to work
rather than into school. Parents will choose to feed their children instead of schooling them if forced to make a choice. When incomes improve,
poor parents can generally be expected to respond by put ting children back in school. This is what economists call the “income effect”: education of one’s
children is a superior good, the consumption of which rises as incomes rise. Besides, even if one thinks of children’s education as an investment good, one might well expect the parents to react to
increasing income by sending children to schools—often it means that the third or fourth child, or the female child, who was at work, is now put into school—for two reasons. First, the incentive to invest in
children’s education should rise because a stagnant economy offers fewer job prospects than a growing one. This incentive will not always translate into effective response if there are serious structural
constraints (for example, inner-city children cannot access jobs that are in areas they cannot get to because of lack of transportation), but these inadequacies themselves may change as the demand to ease
income can also enable poor parents who have
been previously constrained from sending children to school by lack of access to credit to do so now. In fact, there is
substantial evidence that the credit-constraint argument has relevance in many poor countries. The economists Priya
these constraints rises with available opportunities that people want to exploit.
More importantly, increased
Ranjan, Jean-Marie Baland, and James Robinson have argued that the returns to primary education have been estimated as being so attractive in many poor countries with a great deal of child labor that
the most likely hypothesis for children not being sent to school is that poor parents are unable to borrow money to send their children to school and then repay their loans later.3 In short, the credit
markets are imperfect. So the growth of parental income and hence the easing of this credit constraint (which can certainly follow from improved incomes following globalization) should lead to greater
school enrollment and reduced child labor. The economists Rajeev Dehejia and Roberta Gatti have empirically explored this theory, with data for 163 countries. They argue that development in the form of
improvements in the financial sector, which in turn is correlated in other studies with the ability of small borrowers to access credit, is associated with a reduction in the use of child labor.4 These authors
and Kathleen Beegle use household-level data in Tanzania to demonstrate more convincingly the role of credit constraints in the phenomenon of child labor. They examined how agricultural households
responded to temporary declines in income. Since the fall in income is temporary, one would expect households to borrow, if they could, rather than take children from schools and put them to work in
order to earn. They found that in response to such income shocks, the credit constrained households increased the use of child labor, whereas households with access to credit in fact borrowed and were
able in consequence to offset over half of the increase in child labor.5 This implies, of course, that simply proscribing the use of child labor is unlikely to eliminate it; it will only drive poor parents to send
their children to work by stealth and often into even worse “occupations” such as prostitution.6 This happened in Bangladesh, with some young girls falling into prostitution when garment employers who
feared the passage of the U.S. Child Labor Deterrence Act (1993)—known as the Harkin Bill because of its sponsor, the well-known liberal senator Tom Harkin—which would have banned imports of
textiles using child labor, dismissed an estimated fifty thousand children from factories.7 As
it happens, we do have some additional, compelling evidence, based on state-
of-the-art econometric analysis using extensive data on Vietnamese households, that supports the view that
globalization actually reduces child labor.