In our second TKP 26/50 post, we ask: what specific improvements on housing, climate & poverty do we want by 2050? Or should we just target GDP growth? Or GDP contraction?
? It says only subscribed people can vote in the poll and my status statement in the top right hand corner of the page says subscribed. Yet not taking my vote.
Some compelling reasons why degrowth needs to be a more prominent option when we talk about what 2050 should look like
- Club of Rome's Limits to Growth modelling shows, for most of the scenarios it ran, decline and/or collapse from the mid-2030s
- we are breaching 6 of 9 basic biophysical planetary thresholds
- our renewable resource use is at a level that requires 1.7 planets
- climate change projections are still for >2 degrees (C) of warming
- the US hegemony is ending, we are moving to a multipolar world, but it is likely to be a very chaotic process
- capitalism is at a rentier capitalism stage
- we can expect more pandemics and other disruptions to society
- neoliberalism still a predominant ideology in many countries (unfortunately)
- continued declining productivity in advanced economies
Still not wanting my vote. Getting the message something went wrong. Not to worry, I have recorded my views in the comments. Would vote the reducing GDP option. But still we need to eliminate poverty, housing as a right, gross reductions in ghg emissions.
Some alternative economists are questioning the very concept of GDP and how it is geared just to a 'forever' growth model, which is not sustainable for the planet - so your poll is difficult for me who leans to some of the alternative models e.g. Kate Raworth
(a) use a catchy graphic to show the scale of what is coming at us - the donut economy graphic would be ideal - adapted for Aotearoa by planetary thresholds on the inner circle and socio-economic stuff on the outer circle - regularly updated - one image contains a lot of information
(b) run a positive narrative about the benefits of staying in the donut 'good zone' - what it could look like - for example, universal public services freely accessible locally, more time for family and leisure, how addressing climate change and preparing for natural hazard events and meeting health and education needs is an opportunity to do something new and different
(c) always talk about public funding NOT taxpayers money, always talk about our central government as a currency-issuing government
The message on real functioning of public finances and spending needs to be out there. Fear mongering over debt mountains and deficits is too potent a political manipulation tool. Including right now how many will support the decimation of our public services under the banner of "nice things cost money we don't have".
My reading of things is that what we spend public money on matters.
The only way to degrow the economy is to address the levels of wealth inequality (and I'm increasingly thinking as I learn more, that this is by far the most important bit because without it nothing will happen on the other stuff. It's also incredibly difficult) and ensure that everyone has good access to the basics of life - a stable climate, adequate healthy food, clean water, warm dry housing, healthcare and education. I agree with most of these points but I think growth or degrowth is should not be the primary focus. (channelling Mariana Mazzucato and Jason Hickell here).
Wow, tough decisions - I would have liked two votes. The third option was my first thought but the health of the whole planet trumps more immediatehuman wants and needs - and it is the size of our collective footprint that is dangerous. So the first step is accepting a world that is ‘smaller’, less consumption and therefore lower gdp.
I’m still reeling from discovering that our current government is quite comfortable targeting 12%, basically 1 in 8 children, living in poverty/material hardship.
I need a moment to wrap my head around that.
Also; I would expect that as the number of people living in poverty increases, that will put additional stress on our already stressed health system.
Agree Health strain but beyond that is the strain generated by crime. Poverty equals Crime. The increased costs of Policing, Justice, Corrections, Emergency Services, even the Road Toll is impacted by Crime. Reducing Poverty has got to be the Number one target in the short term but unfortunately, the current government is happy for it to get worse - I simply cannot fathom it and don't understand how our society has come to accept it
A surprising number of people adopt the mindset that there are no systemic problems. Poor? Your bad choices. Unwell? Poor choices. Forced to rent? Poor choices...ad infinitum.
The "poor choices" chant! I was staying with family in the US when the youngest child was 4. Over and over he'd come home from daycare with report from teachers that he'd made bad choices that day. What a cop out on the teachers' behalf. Likewise on society at large, today.
'Net zero' isn't really even net zero, if you take the entire energy system we depend on into account. There is an entire, filthy, coal fired manufacturing supply chain off our books that enables our standard of living.
The idea that we can maintain our existing standard of living without consuming vast quantities of fossils is a fantasy - the industrial revolution happened not so much because we are clever but because we discovered fossils and you can't just take those away and expect life as we know it to continue - to remove fossils is to undo the entire industrial revolution. The only way to reduce emissions is to dramatically change our way of life to reduce energy use.
And once you start to pick that apart it quickly becomes a social sciences problem before it becomes a technology problem - how do you convince people to walk instead of drive? To kick a ball instead of going skiing? To play games at home instead of going on holiday? To play cards instead of computer games? To be happy without a magic stone in their hand? To quell their ambition for more, and set expectations to less.
I’m all about option 3 , I’m very open to considering option 4 but I can’t think about what that would look like and 3 is a hard ask for the Overton window I’m not sure if we could get 4. But I’m open to the discussion, maybe it’s where we’ll end up with climate change anyway
Are the figures based on our economy continuing to be generated from agriculture and tourism? My totally unprofessional thought (gut instinct) is that the changing climate will underpin and change everything.
Poverty reduction step one: - the Living Wage is the minimum wage. This would lift the income of all those currently living in poverty and could have all sorts of side benefits: -
- hard working kiwis could drop back to only having to work two jobs and can spend more time at home with the kids.
- drop in property crime as less pressure on theft to put food on the table.
While I realise that the climate change comments in this Question Two post are not the main focus, I just wanted to say that they are 100% spot on! This comment "Planting pine is a ‘once-only’ thing, given land can only be planted once, and is vulnerable to being knocked over in storms and burnt in fires that are more likely as the planet warms." is so obvious yet those in Government seem to totally ignore it, and especially the liabilities for future generations that will come as a result of this vulnerability.
And let's not forget the elephant in the room which is that most of these pines will be harvested. At which point the emissions still exist but there is no sequestration happening.
I may be labouring the point but I'm not sure most Nzers grasp that CO2 lasts in the atmosphere for 1000 years. To offset one tonne of CO2 you need to plant a certain number of trees and keep them growing for 1000 years to effectively offset that one time emission. If you're using pine you will be harvesting and replanting them in 30 year rotations for 1000 YEARS! It's totally f&ing crazy to think you can offset a holiday overseas in such a way. Let's cut gross emissions now!
Many trees have a decreased level of sequestration once they reach maturity. It’s the growth phase that draws down the most carbon. So theoretically you can plant trees, harvest them for house frames or furniture (the wood cannot be burnt in this scenario), replant the trees and draw down more carbon as a result. But this doesn’t take into account the other ecological effects of the pine industry, just the carbon drawdown.
Hi Bernard - this is perhaps the trickiest set of questions of the lot I think because it goes to the heart of the immediate tasks that face us as a country and might set us on a path to be more successful and equitable. I also think it is good (even as it is frustrating) that you have combined climate change, housing, poverty and growth into one bundle as it forces us to consider how these things are interrelated (and will become even more so as climate change accelerates) and how difficult they are to solve without trade-offs somewhere else.
For myself, I find it repellent that we have a government that simply accepts poverty as part of the natural order of things: Indeed, something not only "natural" but morally defensible, indeed useful, "pour encourager les autres". That is all before we even get to the seemingly inexplicable actions around the climate, transport, gutting the civil service (well I can guess what that is about), tobacco and firearms.
I am a grumpy old man. So increasingly, I find myself daydreaming about forcing the entire government caucus to sit down and read Dicken's "A Christmas Carol" together every year to see if there is not perhaps a flicker of recognition.
"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.
"Plenty of prisons" said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?".
"They are. Still." returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not".
"The treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour then?" said Scrooge.
"Both very busy, sir."
“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”
“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”
“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.
“You wish to be anonymous?”
“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.”
“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”
“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
If I understood your quoted statistics correctly, the median post tax income is somewhere in the region of 56K. The poverty indicators from Treasury are showing how many households live on half or less than half of that. 28K roughly. Perhaps $500-550 per week or less? Would one of our useful measures therefore be an absolute minimum income (inflation adjusted) to support a life of dignity.
Good thinking Simon. You point to what may be a big part of our problems. Remember back there in the 80's 90's? when the axe people told us philosophy and the humanities were sunset industries and they built great big commerce buildings in the universities? And people were mean, mean, mean. Even Hitler ended and its past time neoliberalism did too.
Climate change actions: - I would tighten up the requirements. "By 2030" just means (to some political parties) that they don't have to start doing anything until 2029.
Maybe have legislation requiring the government to report loudly and publicly every year on their progress. For example, if something has to reduce from the current 100% down to 80% by 2030 then that is an annual reduction of 4%.
Perhaps have legislation that sets targets for years between 2030 and 2050 with default actions happening if the target isn't met. (Didn't Labour have farming come into the Emissions Trading Scheme in 2025 if some target wasn't met by then?).
In my opinion, real GDP fall is possible and necessary to get back within planetary boundaries but MUST be accompanied by actions that ensure universal access to housing, education, healthcare and food that meets nutritional needs. At the end of the day GDP is a discredited way to measure success in a society so I’m not concerned if it falls if the above are present.
Kia ora friends. I wanted to discuss child poverty and present a policy we could consider in Aotearoa. Specifically I want to think about disabled children. Disabled kids are twice as likely to live in poverty - which comes from the hidden costs with having a disability and the impact on families. If you fast forward to look at these kids as they grow up you see that they have lives of material hardship, often fighting the State throughout. One long-term policy response to this is some form of 'baby bond' for disabled (and perhaps other) kids. That is, the government establishing a wealth fund when the kid is born, or perhaps when they are diagnosed with a disability. That fund then grows over time and when they are adults they have access to this, so that they begin adult live with wealth already behind them. This does not solve the material hardship they experience growing up of course, that is a different question. I want to think about breaking the poverty cycle for disabled kids. I would propose $150K per disabled child. I realise the 'enormity' of this, but I'm of the opinion that an enormous problem needs an enormous solution! Andrew Dickson.
Trying to think of practical measures to help reach what seems to be the majority choice: increasing renewable energy, a government scheme to back installation of solar and installation in homes, cutting back the dairy industry, lifting the minimum wage to the living wage, doing Kiwibuild properly - the list goes on but unfortunately none of this things will be started without a change in government first.
? It says only subscribed people can vote in the poll and my status statement in the top right hand corner of the page says subscribed. Yet not taking my vote.
Some compelling reasons why degrowth needs to be a more prominent option when we talk about what 2050 should look like
- Club of Rome's Limits to Growth modelling shows, for most of the scenarios it ran, decline and/or collapse from the mid-2030s
- we are breaching 6 of 9 basic biophysical planetary thresholds
- our renewable resource use is at a level that requires 1.7 planets
- climate change projections are still for >2 degrees (C) of warming
- the US hegemony is ending, we are moving to a multipolar world, but it is likely to be a very chaotic process
- capitalism is at a rentier capitalism stage
- we can expect more pandemics and other disruptions to society
- neoliberalism still a predominant ideology in many countries (unfortunately)
- continued declining productivity in advanced economies
- high levels of private debt
Great! Evidence based rather than my gut feeling, thank you
Thanks Andrew. Checking Poll status now.
I've reset the poll Andrew. Able to try again?
Still not wanting my vote. Getting the message something went wrong. Not to worry, I have recorded my views in the comments. Would vote the reducing GDP option. But still we need to eliminate poverty, housing as a right, gross reductions in ghg emissions.
Some alternative economists are questioning the very concept of GDP and how it is geared just to a 'forever' growth model, which is not sustainable for the planet - so your poll is difficult for me who leans to some of the alternative models e.g. Kate Raworth
Thanks Andrew. All good points. How could it be politically sold?
cheers
Ah the $550,000 question. Will ponder on this a bit.
Kia ora Bernard
A three part package to sell this?
(a) use a catchy graphic to show the scale of what is coming at us - the donut economy graphic would be ideal - adapted for Aotearoa by planetary thresholds on the inner circle and socio-economic stuff on the outer circle - regularly updated - one image contains a lot of information
(b) run a positive narrative about the benefits of staying in the donut 'good zone' - what it could look like - for example, universal public services freely accessible locally, more time for family and leisure, how addressing climate change and preparing for natural hazard events and meeting health and education needs is an opportunity to do something new and different
(c) always talk about public funding NOT taxpayers money, always talk about our central government as a currency-issuing government
The message on real functioning of public finances and spending needs to be out there. Fear mongering over debt mountains and deficits is too potent a political manipulation tool. Including right now how many will support the decimation of our public services under the banner of "nice things cost money we don't have".
It needs a dictator, we already have a dick so partly there.
Degrowth NZ. See their very informative website: https://www.degrowth.nz/what-is-degrowth
My reading of things is that what we spend public money on matters.
The only way to degrow the economy is to address the levels of wealth inequality (and I'm increasingly thinking as I learn more, that this is by far the most important bit because without it nothing will happen on the other stuff. It's also incredibly difficult) and ensure that everyone has good access to the basics of life - a stable climate, adequate healthy food, clean water, warm dry housing, healthcare and education. I agree with most of these points but I think growth or degrowth is should not be the primary focus. (channelling Mariana Mazzucato and Jason Hickell here).
Wow, tough decisions - I would have liked two votes. The third option was my first thought but the health of the whole planet trumps more immediatehuman wants and needs - and it is the size of our collective footprint that is dangerous. So the first step is accepting a world that is ‘smaller’, less consumption and therefore lower gdp.
I haven’t even gotten to the voting part…
I’m still reeling from discovering that our current government is quite comfortable targeting 12%, basically 1 in 8 children, living in poverty/material hardship.
I need a moment to wrap my head around that.
Also; I would expect that as the number of people living in poverty increases, that will put additional stress on our already stressed health system.
Yes, more poverty will undoubtedly worsen health and other social outcomes which reverberate outside of those suffering from hardship
Agree Health strain but beyond that is the strain generated by crime. Poverty equals Crime. The increased costs of Policing, Justice, Corrections, Emergency Services, even the Road Toll is impacted by Crime. Reducing Poverty has got to be the Number one target in the short term but unfortunately, the current government is happy for it to get worse - I simply cannot fathom it and don't understand how our society has come to accept it
A surprising number of people adopt the mindset that there are no systemic problems. Poor? Your bad choices. Unwell? Poor choices. Forced to rent? Poor choices...ad infinitum.
The "poor choices" chant! I was staying with family in the US when the youngest child was 4. Over and over he'd come home from daycare with report from teachers that he'd made bad choices that day. What a cop out on the teachers' behalf. Likewise on society at large, today.
Not to mention crime. Poverty corellates closely with crime.
Sorry Bernard
For the elderly “thicko’s” among us and those with computer literacy challenges how do we actually record our votes?
Patrick Medlicott
I’m in this group too. I wanted to expand the box so I could read the full description (I’m in my phone) and now it thinks I’ve voted 😬.
The same thing has happened to me. I did read the comments first, could that be the reason?
On a phone, I think it's a tap on the preferred option, it recorded an extra vote when I did.
Strange. Can you try again?
'Net zero' isn't really even net zero, if you take the entire energy system we depend on into account. There is an entire, filthy, coal fired manufacturing supply chain off our books that enables our standard of living.
The idea that we can maintain our existing standard of living without consuming vast quantities of fossils is a fantasy - the industrial revolution happened not so much because we are clever but because we discovered fossils and you can't just take those away and expect life as we know it to continue - to remove fossils is to undo the entire industrial revolution. The only way to reduce emissions is to dramatically change our way of life to reduce energy use.
And once you start to pick that apart it quickly becomes a social sciences problem before it becomes a technology problem - how do you convince people to walk instead of drive? To kick a ball instead of going skiing? To play games at home instead of going on holiday? To play cards instead of computer games? To be happy without a magic stone in their hand? To quell their ambition for more, and set expectations to less.
I’m all about option 3 , I’m very open to considering option 4 but I can’t think about what that would look like and 3 is a hard ask for the Overton window I’m not sure if we could get 4. But I’m open to the discussion, maybe it’s where we’ll end up with climate change anyway
I agree with Ben, can anyone point me to a reputable resource in degrowth?
Jason Hickel https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog
https://heliocene.org/2024/03/04/who-is-afraid-of-degrowth-a-brilliant-graphic-book-by-celine-keller/
The graphic book is great but also Jennifer Wilkins of Heliocene is worth following on LinkedIn for NZ focus
Degrowth NZ, See their very informative website for all your queries: https://www.degrowth.nz/what-is-degrowth
Are the figures based on our economy continuing to be generated from agriculture and tourism? My totally unprofessional thought (gut instinct) is that the changing climate will underpin and change everything.
Poverty reduction step one: - the Living Wage is the minimum wage. This would lift the income of all those currently living in poverty and could have all sorts of side benefits: -
- hard working kiwis could drop back to only having to work two jobs and can spend more time at home with the kids.
- drop in property crime as less pressure on theft to put food on the table.
- lower government welfare expenditure.
- etc.
While I realise that the climate change comments in this Question Two post are not the main focus, I just wanted to say that they are 100% spot on! This comment "Planting pine is a ‘once-only’ thing, given land can only be planted once, and is vulnerable to being knocked over in storms and burnt in fires that are more likely as the planet warms." is so obvious yet those in Government seem to totally ignore it, and especially the liabilities for future generations that will come as a result of this vulnerability.
Hi David
And let's not forget the elephant in the room which is that most of these pines will be harvested. At which point the emissions still exist but there is no sequestration happening.
I may be labouring the point but I'm not sure most Nzers grasp that CO2 lasts in the atmosphere for 1000 years. To offset one tonne of CO2 you need to plant a certain number of trees and keep them growing for 1000 years to effectively offset that one time emission. If you're using pine you will be harvesting and replanting them in 30 year rotations for 1000 YEARS! It's totally f&ing crazy to think you can offset a holiday overseas in such a way. Let's cut gross emissions now!
Many trees have a decreased level of sequestration once they reach maturity. It’s the growth phase that draws down the most carbon. So theoretically you can plant trees, harvest them for house frames or furniture (the wood cannot be burnt in this scenario), replant the trees and draw down more carbon as a result. But this doesn’t take into account the other ecological effects of the pine industry, just the carbon drawdown.
Slash, fossil fuel for big logging trucks making lots of potholes, erosion on bare slopes before next gen trees get big enough ...
And there is almost no discussion on the relationship between tree cover and changes in atmospheric oxygen levels -
https://record.umich.edu/articles/varying-atmospheric-oxygen-levels-shaped-earths-climate-over-time/#:~:text=Oxygen%20currently%20comprises%20about%2021,the%20past%20541%20million%20years.
Hi Bernard - this is perhaps the trickiest set of questions of the lot I think because it goes to the heart of the immediate tasks that face us as a country and might set us on a path to be more successful and equitable. I also think it is good (even as it is frustrating) that you have combined climate change, housing, poverty and growth into one bundle as it forces us to consider how these things are interrelated (and will become even more so as climate change accelerates) and how difficult they are to solve without trade-offs somewhere else.
For myself, I find it repellent that we have a government that simply accepts poverty as part of the natural order of things: Indeed, something not only "natural" but morally defensible, indeed useful, "pour encourager les autres". That is all before we even get to the seemingly inexplicable actions around the climate, transport, gutting the civil service (well I can guess what that is about), tobacco and firearms.
I am a grumpy old man. So increasingly, I find myself daydreaming about forcing the entire government caucus to sit down and read Dicken's "A Christmas Carol" together every year to see if there is not perhaps a flicker of recognition.
"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.
"Plenty of prisons" said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?".
"They are. Still." returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not".
"The treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour then?" said Scrooge.
"Both very busy, sir."
“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”
“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”
“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.
“You wish to be anonymous?”
“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.”
“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”
“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
If I understood your quoted statistics correctly, the median post tax income is somewhere in the region of 56K. The poverty indicators from Treasury are showing how many households live on half or less than half of that. 28K roughly. Perhaps $500-550 per week or less? Would one of our useful measures therefore be an absolute minimum income (inflation adjusted) to support a life of dignity.
Good thinking Simon. You point to what may be a big part of our problems. Remember back there in the 80's 90's? when the axe people told us philosophy and the humanities were sunset industries and they built great big commerce buildings in the universities? And people were mean, mean, mean. Even Hitler ended and its past time neoliberalism did too.
Climate change actions: - I would tighten up the requirements. "By 2030" just means (to some political parties) that they don't have to start doing anything until 2029.
Maybe have legislation requiring the government to report loudly and publicly every year on their progress. For example, if something has to reduce from the current 100% down to 80% by 2030 then that is an annual reduction of 4%.
Perhaps have legislation that sets targets for years between 2030 and 2050 with default actions happening if the target isn't met. (Didn't Labour have farming come into the Emissions Trading Scheme in 2025 if some target wasn't met by then?).
Can't find question 1 - sorry what day was the newsletter posted?
August 27th
In my opinion, real GDP fall is possible and necessary to get back within planetary boundaries but MUST be accompanied by actions that ensure universal access to housing, education, healthcare and food that meets nutritional needs. At the end of the day GDP is a discredited way to measure success in a society so I’m not concerned if it falls if the above are present.
Kate Raworth in Doughnut Economics talks about being 'agnostic about growth', which might be less scary / more palatable for some than 'degrowth'?
I also like postgrowth or “beyond growth”
Time to focus on growing our IQs and EQs instead of our material assets?
Perhaps a changing of how we define & measure GDP???
Ohhh that would be something! (laughs evilly)
Kia ora friends. I wanted to discuss child poverty and present a policy we could consider in Aotearoa. Specifically I want to think about disabled children. Disabled kids are twice as likely to live in poverty - which comes from the hidden costs with having a disability and the impact on families. If you fast forward to look at these kids as they grow up you see that they have lives of material hardship, often fighting the State throughout. One long-term policy response to this is some form of 'baby bond' for disabled (and perhaps other) kids. That is, the government establishing a wealth fund when the kid is born, or perhaps when they are diagnosed with a disability. That fund then grows over time and when they are adults they have access to this, so that they begin adult live with wealth already behind them. This does not solve the material hardship they experience growing up of course, that is a different question. I want to think about breaking the poverty cycle for disabled kids. I would propose $150K per disabled child. I realise the 'enormity' of this, but I'm of the opinion that an enormous problem needs an enormous solution! Andrew Dickson.
I cannot understand how to vote?
Trying to think of practical measures to help reach what seems to be the majority choice: increasing renewable energy, a government scheme to back installation of solar and installation in homes, cutting back the dairy industry, lifting the minimum wage to the living wage, doing Kiwibuild properly - the list goes on but unfortunately none of this things will be started without a change in government first.