Bill McKibben: By Itself, Growth Isn't Enough
Presidential candidates fall over themselves to claim that their policies will best expand the economy. That's because economic growth is widely accepted as a good thing. But can there be too much of a good thing when it comes to the economy? Author and environmentalist Bill McKibben thinks that Americans need to break from orthodox views about economic growth. America is at the forefront of a global economy that uses fossil fuels to move products across the planet and to your local store. McKibben argues in his book Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future that this type of economy has come with more cost and less benefit than many people think. Global warming, he says, means that growth can't last forever. Neither would we want it to, he argues, because more money and cheaper goods don't necessarily translate into happier lives. McKibben told U.S. News about how he thinks the United States can move in a different economic direction.
What's wrong with the view that economic growth is always good?
The only question [about the economy] has been how can we make it larger? The new questions are: How can we make it more durable? We understand the economy is pushing environmental limits. Second: How can we make the economy produce satisfaction? The burst in economic growth has not coincided with an increase in satisfaction.
How is that so?
The project has been building the great American suburb. [The result] has not been increased life satisfaction, but decreased sense of community and satisfaction. We have less friends than before, which makes sense because we're commuting and working so much. If you've got a credit card and a phone or Internet connection, you don't really need your neighbors. That sounded swell—everybody is superindependent. But it turns out to be less swell because we're built to have neighbors and depend on them and know them.
Don't Americans want to work more for higher income?
Most of the people I know don't feel in control of their working hours, and most of the polling data shows that Americans would like to work less. And most Americans would do it if they could work it out to take a day a week off and lose that income. Of course, there are people that can't afford to do that.
You argue that "more localized economies," especially in food production, can restore a sense of community.
People have lost the experience of shopping for food in an older way. One of the more interesting studies I've ever seen compared shoppers at farmers' markets to people shopping at supermarkets. People shopping at farmers' markets had 10 times as many conversations per visit. I think it's one of the reasons that farmers' markets are one of the fastest-growing parts of our food economy in this country. I think it's because people want that interaction, which after all is the way that people have shopped since agriculture began—markets where they meet the people who grow the food. That may not be efficient, but if what you really wanted was efficiency, we would be like the Jetsons, where you eat a little pill for all your meals.
What are other examples of localized economies?
CD sales are tanking as people are downloading music. But the part of music that is growing is live shows and festivals. People don't want just music but also experience.
How is all this connected to energy?
The economy we see before us is a logical outgrowth of cheap fossil fuels. Our food system looks pretty good unless you consider the cost—all the fuel we burn. The alternatives [like wind and solar] operate on a more local level. The sun falls everywhere and it's diffuse. It's less easy to have it centrally controlled. Coal and oil are very easy to centrally control. They're in specific geographical places, and you need a lot of capital to get at them. By their nature they lend themselves to massive central generating stations. That's very different from the solar panels tied to my roof.
What steps should be taken to create more localized economies?
Stop subsidizing commercialized food production. The farm bill is written to benefit Archer Daniels Midland, but it should be written to benefit small growers. We also should remove regulations that make it difficult to hook up solar panels to the grid. We should pay a premium to the people who are doing that. Finally, if we price carbon correctly, our economy will change. The thing we've been talking about for the last few years is an 80 percent carbon reduction by 2050. If Congress does that, they set us on the course of a real transition away from fossil fuel.
Don't we need economic growth to spur innovation?
It's a reductionist idea to think that creativity dries up when expanding GDP isn't the only goal. Necessity is the mother of invention. And people will continue to have needs.
advertisement
