A major problem with the concept of growth is that it is too simplistic a concept. Growth data is based on the Gross Domestic Product (GDP and/or Gross Value Added (GVA). The data expressed in money terms is in one sense a means of comparing different outputs. But it has a major disadvantage in that it includes ‘bads’ as well as ‘goods’.
There are numerous examples of bad growth.
The costs of security for homes and premises;
Removal and disposal of waste;
Travelling by car to reach a green space because previously available areas nearby have been developed;
Costs of flood prevention and dealing with wildfires;
Cost of repairs due to storm damage, a consequence of climate breakdown;
Unnecessary hedge trimming on land;
Maintenance of green areas in urban areas and industrial estates – basically cutting grass!;
Increasing road capacity (rather than using Traffic Demand Management TDM);
Travel by car to events;
Buying of extra clothes to keep up with fashion.
All of these are included in growth yet are not sustainable and often unnecessary.
Good growth would include expenditure on activities to reduce energy consumption and the development of renewables; expansion and maintenance of green areas; tree planting activities. .
So looking at growth figures can and often is rather meaningless. The economy might grow but the growth would not be beneficial.
We need to stop obsessing about growth for growths sake and use a more realistic metric.
The data also excludes the costs imposed by externalities – dealt with in a previous post. There is also the issue that any growth on a finite planet is simply unsustainable.
Comments