Someone in the Degrowth group posted a good article from resilience.org. It goes into some of what the actual nuts and bolts of Degrowth would mean for everyday people, and how we can move forward with doing it.
I find the resilience.org article very helpful; it even talks about ways of introducing degrowth to “mainstream” people. There’s a link to the article at the end of this post.
A quote from the article that stood out right away for me:
“… many well-intentioned good green people do not understand the magnitude of the global predicament and therefore they seriously underestimate the change that is needed. Many assume that reforms to the present system will suffice to enable a just and sustainable world, but there is a very strong case that this is quite mistaken. A study I carried out took common Footprint and related figures and derived the conclusion that if the world’s 2050 expected population were to share natural resources equally we would all receive about one-ninth of the per capita amount we in rich countries get now …”
Yes. This is consistent with what I’ve read from some other sources that made sense to me. 90% reduction is the figure we’ve been working with in the Riot for Austerity (the movement that formed the nucleus for my book DEEP GREEN, and for this blog).
The actual figure mentioned by Monbiot in his book HEAT is that we need to cut consumption by 94% of the USA average. But the grassroots Riot movement inspired by his book adopted 90% as an easy round number and a worthy benchmark to aim for.
A few critiques of the article:
— One harmful, widespread misconception is that living in small decentralized communities means having to leave our existing, already-built homes in existing neighborhoods, move out to the country or wilderness and build new buildings. This is way too much work and energy consumption, not only physical and fossil but also social energy. Social capital has embodied energy too.
It’s possible to start living almost off-grid even in a conventional neighborhood. Staying plugged into the existing systems as regulations require, but not having to use them much or depend on them. My electricity usage is about 2% of the average US residents. And water usage about 5% or 10% of the USA average. Regulations require that I be hooked up to water and electricity, but there are no regulations that forbid also collecting our own rainwater, and no regulations against conserving water and electricity.
And, cities and neighborhoods reduce dependency on the private automobile. Many of us find we can do without car ownership altogether.
Neighbors have differing degrees of interest in the concept of forming sustainable community, but as this article in the original post points out, there are many angles we can use nowadays to draw people in to Degrowth ways of life. A lot of the strongest enticements nowadays are economic struggle, or natural-disaster preparedness, or distrust of government.
I’ve never tried this but I may start asking people, “what if a neighborhood basically had its own mini government that was set up by the residents to serve all the needs of the people in the neighborhood?”
The photo they use as an illustration is not one that I find helpful, as I feel it reinforces the stereotype, within green/degrowth/eco circles, of living a romantic bucolic life alone out in the middle of the woods, when that is the exact opposite of what’s desirable and needed for most.
As I commented to someone in the Degrowth group who was feeling discouraged because he’s living in the city and cannot move out to an ecovillage:
It’s possible to live in a city and be basically almost entirely off grid in terms of consumption. That’s what I do, and it sounds like you are doing similar.
Yes, we are hooked up to electricity and water and all that. But, we can radically reduce our consumption so that we basically are living at a Degrowth level. As the article points out, there are getting to be more enticements for everyday people to look at this lifestyle. Economic struggle, increasingly prevalent natural disasters, distrust in government – all make it more attractive to start unhooking from systems even if we cannot completely be off the grid. And, living in existing cities and neighborhoods can make it easier to form/strengthen the very necessary social grids.
Enough manufactured goods exist, in people’s garages and in the waste-stream, to meet our needs indefinitely while we relearn how to meet our needs without mass manufacturing. Clothing is one example of manufactured goods in major over-supply. We may be mining the landfills for decades or centuries to come.
People keep saying that we can’t live a sustainable lifestyle on a planet of 8 billion.
But, since 8 billion people are already here, and I am one of the ones born & raised in the high-footprint countries, I feel that my most ethical option as a citizen of the rich industrialized world is to reduce my consumption to 1/10 of the USA average, and encourage my peers to do the same.
The article mentions 1/9 as a benchmark. These are good targets to aim for. It may not be easy or possible within the current system for a person to reduce, for example, their gasoline usage to 1/9 or 1/10 of the average USA resident’s.
But many of us involved in this movement have done so. Same with electricity, water usage, purchase of consumer goods. And also, unhooking our finances and banking from the growth economy to the extent possible.
And finally, on the subject of welcoming our hearts, and borders, to people fleeing the chaos that we in the “rich world” have caused …
I live in a tourist town, and we pride ourselves on welcoming 10 million tourists a year or something like that. If we can welcome 10 million tourists then we should be able to welcome 10 million refugees, and I’m prepared to do my part. I currently share my small house with two housemates, but during special-event weeks we have had 11 or 12 people sleeping here. If it’s possible during tourist season, it’s possible anytime!
Added later: As a step toward neighborhood-based governance, and weaning ourselves off of dependence on centralized authorities, we can refrain from calling the cops or code enforcement unless it’s a life and death matter.
One hallmark of societal collapse is that people start to get tempted to allow & encourage more authoritarian government. It’s happening already.
We can look within and start to deprogram our programmed reflex to “call mom to solve our problems.” If I find a guy sleeping in my driveway, I don’t call the cops. If I see squatters in a vacant property, I feel more empathy for the squatters than for the negligent landlord who obviously has too much property. And I don’t call code enforcement or the cops. Of course I care about my neighbors and want them to feel safe, but excess policing is not the way to make that happen. In any case, if a neighbor feels unsafe, I leave it to them to call the authorities; I don’t need to do it.
And something like an RV or boat parked in a yard? Or a bootleg food truck or something? Forget about it — I’m just glad they’re here! These are the kind of neighbors I want.
Do you know that there are some neighborhood associations and/or municipalities that forbid somebody to park their own commercial van in their own driveway? Like, a family that have been commercial fishers for five generations were cited for parking their own van in their own driveway. Or, the neighborhoods where everyone expects the air-conditioning repair service to come at the snap of a finger 24-7, but they don’t allow the air-conditioning repair person to park their own truck in front of their own house. This kind of nonsense is classist nitpicking at its worst, and is just adding unnecessary suffering, during a time when so many people are already dealing with upheaval.
Here is the article I mentioned at the beginning of this post:
“What is to be done? Thoughts on degrowth strategy” (Ted Trainer, resilience.org).
The last part of the article goes into some particularly inspiring, and very doable, descriptions of what an alternative parallel economy might look like. He mentions Transition Towns, Neighbourhoods That Work, and the Catalan Integral Cooperative as viable existing models.
Here’s a brief quote; the bold and italics were added by me for emphasis:
“These initiatives would be creating an alternative needs-driven economy that enabled us to contribute to producing and getting important things, underneath/beside the existing normal profit-driven economy. We target needs that the mainstream economy fails to attend to. We are bringing unused resources and idle labour together to produce important things. Especially significant, we are enabling people dumped by the normal economy to produce and earn and contribute and enjoy a caring community. We are no threat to the town chamber of commerce; existing businesses would benefit, for instance when we sell fresh vegetables to the restaurants.”
*************
Are you ready to go more in-depth, and get into the nuts and bolts of planning and executing? I offer workshops for neighborhood associations, congregations, and other grassroots groups. You are welcome to contact me by email or text; or by voice phone if you need to.