Ted Trainer recently submitted a no
holds barred article for the Conversation in which put his argument that the
only way to solve the climate problem – and most other large scale problems
confronting humanity – is for us to adopt some form of the Simpler Way (TSW). TSW
is a vision for the world in which the ‘core characteristics must be mostly
small and highly self-sufficient and self-governing communities, within an
economy not driven by market forces and profit and with no growth, and priority
given to frugality, community, cooperation and giving rather than getting.’
(Trainer, 2010)
The article generated lots of
conversation. Most of this, depressingly, had little relevance to Trainer’s
thesis and focused instead on the veracity of climate science. Why do people
bother giving these ‘sceptics’ the time of day? Amidst the clutter, however,
some people did offer thoughtful comments. Since I am an advocate for TSW, I
thought I would briefly respond.
The crucial point Trainer makes
is that we are not just a little bit unsustainable: we are grossly unsustainable!
This is easily shown, as he points out, by the ecological footprint. This shows
that the average Australian per capita footprint is something like 10 times what
all 9 billion people expected to be living in 2050 could have. All potential
solutions to our global predicament have to be seen in light of this huge
overshoot.
A whole group of respondents,
predictably, suggested Trainer was overlooking the ‘real’ problem: over-population.
I find this response so infuriating! Yes, obviously, population growth is a
serious ecological concern. But, as can be easily demonstrated, so is OUR over-consumption.
We can do very little about global population
growth – most of which occurs in the third world – but we can do plenty about
our over-consumption. First rule of ethics everyone; focus on what you are
responsible for and have the power to change! Eco-socialist Saral Sarkar
puts it well: ‘the most important contribution of the third world countries towards
global sustainability should be an early end to population growth, while that
of the industrial countries should be a drastic reduction in total resource
consumption (Sarkar, 1999, 137).
A number of people felt that,
while reductions may be required, capitalism was still viable. I can’t see how.
Capitalism is a social system that requires accumulation of capital in a
never-ending spiral. The minute growth ceases you have stagnation, bankruptcy, unemployment
and depression. There is, in other words, no chance of reaching a politically
viable ‘steady-state’ within capitalism, let alone contracting the economy as
is required. The only viable alternative to this market madness is a democratic
and planned contraction i.e some form of socialism. This need not be carried out by
centralised authoritarian bureaucracies, as in the past. The TSW vision is for (the much reduced/simplified) planning to be carried out by ordinary people democratically at the local/regional level.
Another correspondent thought that
capitalism must be part of the solution because of the powerful incentives it
generates to innovate and invest. This is true, but misleading. As Trainer notes
‘the present economy is very
powerful here, ensuring a constant blizzard of change and innovation, motivated
by the prospect of huge profits for the successful innovator, or bankruptcy if
a competitor gets there first’ (Trainer, 2010). But, in view of our ecological
crisis, the present economy innovates too
much, producing a vast amount of unnecessary, wasteful and ecologically
damaging stuff. Still, the problem of how we could ensure there was sufficient amounts of innovation and
investment in a socialized economy is very real. I encourage readers to look at
Trainer’s thoughts on how we might deal with these difficult problems in his ‘New Economy’ document.
Finally, there were plenty of
techno-optimists. Surely an efficiency/technical revolution will allow us to decrease
energy/resource throughput while continuing to increase GDP? The evidence to date,
however, for ‘dematerialisation’ of the economy at the macro (as opposed to
micro) level is very thin, especially when it comes to energy use which
continues to increase ever year even in affluent countries like Australia (about 2.1% per year in the 2000s acording to the ABS).
Even
if significant dematerialisation was occurring, it would be unlikely to produce
the massive reductions required at the global level (remember the extent of our overshoot),
given, as Trainer pointed out, 'six times as many people will soon be aspiring' to the affluent lifestyles that only around 1.5 billion of us currently 'enjoy'. Trainer sums up the scale of the task:
We don’t need to move to a low energy civilization. ‘Most, if not all,
of the limitations of water, land, fertile soil and space can be solved by the
correct application of cheap energy. WE should indeed strive to raise the
standard of living of all people on the Earth, and the fundamental requirement
for this accessible, cheap energy. Clearly coal is not cheap when the cost to
our environment are factored in, but this means we need to turn to
alternatives, not abandon the program.’
This argument begs the question;
are we likely to get a renewable source of cheap energy? Trainer argues (along with others), to the contrary, that running our
energy guzzling consumer economies on 100% renewables would be quite
unaffordable. He estimates we would be paying somewhere between 10-15 times what we
currently do for energy! If Gillard’s
pathetic carbon tax is unpopular now, imagine how the voters would react to
these price hikes! The main reason for the high cost is the intermittent nature
of renewables (the sun does not always shine or the wind blow) which would
therefore require lots of additional back-up plant, adding significantly to the capital costs of the entire system. So, unfortunately, for
the respondent, it looks very likely that once fossil fuels become expensive
(or for climate reasons we have the sense to move off them soon), we will have no choice but to move to a ‘low energy civilization.’
We should not assume, however – as the
above correspondent does – that such a civilization will necessarily lead to ‘lower
living standards’. The enduring value of Trainer’s work, in my view, is to inspire
us with a plausible vision of a simpler society that could actually improve the quality of life, even for
those of us in presently affluent societies! Imagine working for money only two days a
week! Imagine living in a tight nit community with many friendly and helpful neighbours.
Or enjoying a co-operative economy in which much is shared and gifts are regularly given.
Imagine having heaps of time to engage in many creative activities. And to be empowered
to participate in democratic town meetings in which vital decisions are made
about the local area on which you depend. These are just some of the hidden benefits
we would gain from moving to simplified community economies. As Trainer said in
the original article, ‘the quality
of life would be higher than it is now in the consumer rat race.’
Advocates of TSW are not
deluded. We understand that our chances of achieving such a vision are minimal
given the overwhelming ideological dominance of capitalism, growth and
affluence. An objective assessment of our situation makes it hard not to agree with
one commentator: ‘If your right Frederick Trainer, and I think you are, we are
all fornicated.’
If we are indeed ‘fornicated’ we still should try to bang on about TSW. This is because, even if we fail, it is important to have established in the cultural memory that TSW is (more or less) the only way to achieve a just and sutainable world order. As Trainer says:
‘What we can now see is that a sustainable world order, if and when it is ever achieved, must be based on principles of simplicity, self-sufficiency, co-operation, localism etc. We must ensure that even if we can’t make any of the required changes in our time these crucial ideas have been sown and have sprouted and taken hold and become widely understood, so that when greed-and-growth society is finally scrapped there will then be within people in general sufficient understanding of what the sane, just and sustainable path is’ (Trainer, 1995, 221).
References:
Trainer,
T., (2006) The Simpler Way website, http://ssis.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/
Trainer,
T. (F. E.), (1995b), The Conserver Society; Alternatives for Sustainability,
London, Zed Books.
I think a TSW world is necessary even if climate change is not driven by humans. We are destroying the planetary ecosystem enough even without factoring the climate in the equation. And we are poisoning ourselves and the world with all our pollutants and chemicals.
ReplyDelete