12
2009
Economic Growth at What Cost?
An article by 
Our government has announced that its target carbon reduction will be between 10% – 20% on 1990 levels by 2020 and it has gone for this target instead of the advocated 40% claiming that we cannot do anything that will have an impact on our economic growth.
The Climate Change discussions aside, this signals something very troublesome – that the number one determining factor for the well-being of our country is economic growth. The main measures for this are our GNI, GDP and average individual income – the determinants of our success. This alone is worrying, but put it alongside the construction of our democratic system where a government only has 3 years to do anything and must appease the voting community within that 3 years and does anyone else see the issue with this?
A sole focus on economic growth at the expense of all else, coupled with the inability to do anything that may cause short term pain in order to create a better future and we have a recipe for long term disaster. If we look around us we can see it already biting?
Related Posts
About the Author: Frank Ritchie
Frank is the Education and Advocacy Manager for TEAR Fund NZ. Frank is a licensed Minister in the Wesleyan Methodist Church of New Zealand and has a keen interest in biblical perspectives of Justice and how this connects to service to, with and for the poor, disadvantaged and marginalized people of the world.
33 Comments + Add Comment
Leave a comment
TEAR Fund New Zealand
Get Blog Updates Via Email
Recent Comments
- BuffCrIsoff on World’s Poorest Prove to be a Good Credit Risk
- hébergement de site internet on NZ Prostitution Law Review Committee: Report
- hoagsardell on Cyclone Aila in Bangladesh – Diary of a Humanitarian
- Twin Bed Frame on The Controversy of Easter. The Crucifixion & Freedom.
- Kelvin on Rebellious Media Conference
Blogroll
- Aid Watch
- Change.org
- Empire Remixed
- From Poverty to Power
- God's Politics
- Good Intentions are not Enough
- Just Comment
- Just.
- New Internationalist
- Restorative Justice
- Tax Justice Network
- The Distributist Review
- The Green New Deal Group
- The Thoughtful Campaigner
- Truth Dealer
- Wronging Rights
- ZNet – the spirit of resistance lives
Would it not be wise to get some scientific consensus that climate change is man made before we commit to anything?
I too am concerned that we have comitted to these targets, but probably for the opposite reason
What concerns me is this. Our target is going to be determined by what other countries do. If third world countries sign on, then we go for the 20% target, if only the developed countries sign on, we go for the 10% target. Given what John Key says he has read from treasury, this is rather concerning.
I’m guessing you and I probably don’t agree on the bigger topic – Climate Change
When you say “scientific consensus” do you mean the majority of scientists agreeing on the basic principle or do you mean absolutely all scientists agreeing?
The former exists, the latter hardly exists on anything – there will always be disagreeable voices on every issue.
We share the concern about our target being based on what other countries do… but I’m also guessing that concern is for different reasons
As stated in the article, it does concern me that economic growth is our driving concern… and anything treasury reports is based on that as it’s their job.
Also, it is worth noting that the treasury reports will be based around carbon tax, as is most conversation around reduction targets at the moment. I do not agree that carbon taxing systems are the way forward. Innovation, changed lifestyles and heaven forbid, simpler living are how we need to be thinking – not just with Climate Change in mind, but the sustainability of the whole system.
Looking around, I don’t think this recession is teaching us much – we’re still working to prop up the same system that caused it and will cause it again.
We need to rethink how we live and measure success – for environmental well-being (Climate Change or not) and for long term human well-being.
Correct, our views are probably poles apart on climate change.
I think that economic impacts need to be strongly considered when waying up what we do if climate change is real too. Will come back shortly to explain why.
If Climate Change is real and we don’t do much about it because of short term economic impacts then long term our economies are stuffed as well… that’s my very scientific language
Does it strike you as weird that economists would be/are determining our response to an environmental issue? Am I the only one who looks at that and thinks we’ve established the wrong system with the wrong priorities?
I’d prefer that to extreme environmentalists like the Greens
I’d prefer the large array of scientists who see the problems to be the main consultation point for politicians – others such as economists and environmentalists can help inform the discussions, but the primary source needs to be those at the center of the issue.
And the Greens aren’t extreme environmentalists… not even close.
If this isn’t extreme then I do not want to meet the extremists
http://lukewebster.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/catherine-delahunty/
My trouble with the scientists is this- for every scientist that you could point me to that believes in climate change, I could point you to one that doesn’t.
Most of what they forecast is based on computer models that they feed data into, the trouble with these models is if you feed garbage data in you are going to get garbage results aka the infamous hockey stick graph of Al Gores.
I agree with you that scientists should be the primary information point for the decision makers though. Hasn’t the Government got a chief scientific adviser? What are his views on the matter? How much was he consulted with regarding these targets?
Mate, with all due respect, you come off sounding as much the jilted extremist in your post as Catherine… just on the other side of the fence and there’s a number of things you both say that are worth addressing. Alas, time restricts me.
Really. I would beg to differ about the numbers of scientists on both sides of the debate being equal.
The infamous hockey stick graph doesn’t discount the system. As with any scientific enquiry, the more information is gathered, theories tested etc etc things change. Some information is upheld and some disgarded – it’s the scientific process and currently it’s working well and the weight of favour is towards the reality of Climate Change… though I don’t expect you to agree with that through a simplistic blog discussion (we’re both a little too smart to be shifted that easily
) – which is why it’s not the point of the post – rather, the point of the post is actually about the priorities of Western society and the fact that the growth of our economies is our driving concern above all else. It’s that issue that I find to be a great concern.
Oh… and on your last point, I really don’t know. If you found out anything on that, I’d love it if you could pass on the information. I’ll do some digging myself.
“Mate, with all due respect, you come off sounding as much the jilted extremist in your post as Catherine… just on the other side of the fence and there’s a number of things you both say that are worth addressing. Alas, time restricts me.”
Probably 100% right, Catherine brings out the worst in me… seriously, did you see her singing?
“Really. I would beg to differ about the numbers of scientists on both sides of the debate being equal.”
I would stand by my claim. I guess you would have seen the petition signed by over 30,000 US scientists and presented to congress in June?
“The infamous hockey stick graph doesn’t discount the system. As with any scientific enquiry, the more information is gathered, theories tested etc etc things change. Some information is upheld and some disgarded – it’s the scientific process and currently it’s working well and the weight of favour is towards the reality of Climate Change… though I don’t expect you to agree with that through a simplistic blog discussion (we’re both a little too smart to be shifted that easily
) – which is why it’s not the point of the post – rather, the point of the post is actually about the priorities of Western society and the fact that the growth of our economies is our driving concern above all else. It’s that issue that I find to be a great concern.”
Yeah, I doubt either of us will change our thoughts on this one overnight
That is the beauty of blogs though right, people with differing opinions discussing a wide range of topics (and we haven’t called each other names yet!).
I might fire off an OIA request on that one. My political leanings are obviously towards the National side of things (doesn’t need a climate scientist to figure that one out!) but I can’t stand hypocrisy and stupidity from either side of the political spectrum. I will let you know what my digging uncovers.
I love you too much to call you names
Let me know what you get back.
I just read a few speeches from Dr Helen Anderson, Chief Executive of the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology. She was the Chief Scientific Adviser to the government for 5 years. She certainly sits in the camp of seeing Climate Change as a very real issue that needs to be dealt with.
Allow me to be honest, if National is made up of many Climate Change deniers, I’d rather they just come out and say it than put forward a position that says they think it’s a real issue but then bow to short term economics (and low innovation) as the driving force for not doing much.
It seems insane to me that anyone would claim it to be a real issue and then not do much about it because of short term economics. That says that we have a government that are more concerned about short term economics than long term well-being.
Does that make sense?
Heh!
Peter Gluckman is the current scientific adviser to the Prime Minister.
I have just sent in OIA request to John Key, Nick Smith and Tim Groser so should have an answer soon on that front.
I agree with you about the Nats. If they do not believe climate change is caused by man, they should just come out and say it. I think they are still too scared of offending people, rather frustrating at times!
I look forward to seeing what you get back.
It makes a whole lot more sense to me to deny Climate Change than to put on a public face of believing it’s a real issue and then not really doing much about it and using short term economics as the reasoning. That just seems like long term suicide in order to protect short term gain.
Agree, they should say what they believe.
I will flick you an email with the results I get. I am guessing you get my email with the comments feed- if you send me an email with your address I can send you the OIA results.
Frank, to answer your question, you are not alone! The current government’s focus on economic growth as a priortity for everything – above climate change, poverty alleviation and everything else – is alarming. They seem to believe that if you get economic development right, then everything else will follow. This, despite the fact that this has been proved to be wrong time and time again.
Alice, thanks for the support.
To satisfy the “skeptics” we would need a planet the size of Earth, with a similar atmosphere, orbiting a similar star at the same distance. Then we would pump CO2 into the atmosphere of that planet and observe the change in climate. The good news is we know of a planet like that. The bad news is – you’re standing on it.
Ken, that’s well put.
Ken, you would also need to know how old that planet was so you could take into account natural cycles, similar to the one that I (and many others) believe we are experiencing now in coming out of a “Little Ice Age” after the “Medieval Warm Period”, there is a stack load of evidence to suggest that the warming and cooling of the planet is cyclic and has nothing to do with human actions.
There is also a stack load of evidence to suggest that something natural may be occuring but is ramped up beyond anything ever before due to human causes.
Warming and cooling of the planet definitely cycles around and has happened many times before, but nothing in the past has ever happened as quickly as it is happening right now and there’s nothing to account for the speed… every suggestion pointing towards natural causes for the speed of change that correlates perfectly with human use of natural resources and industrialisation has been debunked.
“There is also a stack load of evidence to suggest that something natural may be occuring but is ramped up beyond anything ever before due to human causes.”
Yep, but there is an increasingly louder voice opposing this.
“Warming and cooling of the planet definitely cycles around and has happened many times before, but nothing in the past has ever happened as quickly as it is happening right now and there’s nothing to account for the speed… every suggestion pointing towards natural causes for the speed of change that correlates perfectly with human use of natural resources and industrialisation has been debunked.
”
I would point you to the open letter to the Council of the American Physical Society that came out last week regarding this, particularly this paragraph…
Greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, accompany human industrial and agricultural activity. While substantial concern has been expressed that emissions may cause significant climate change, measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today. In addition, there is an extensive scientific literature that examines beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both plants and animals.
It’s often interesting what can come under the governments responsibility. They represent us as a larger group of people.
Economic growth is quite a selfish desire. We want to grow our economy as a nation for the better of us all.
I find it interesting that we often attest climate change as the Governments problem. They can deal with it but individual choice comes into the matter as well.
The same with international Aid. The Governments recent ideas to shift aid to more local areas is entirely a selfish desire to get free trade deals for the better of us.
Also how much should the Government give in Aid? Obviously we can take the responsibility ourselves and give more but it comes down to everyone as to how much should be given.
I tend to avoid global warming a lot. I just can’t see myself supporting anything because one thing is always contradicted by another. I guess we have to come to a balance of both once again to keep the balance of people happy.
So really I haven’t made any points here just unloaded my mind a bit.
The question is at what cost?
My reply would be as to how much we are willing to risk :p
But that just leads to another question, how much are we willing to risk?
Whatever happens, happens
You might be interested in looking at question 9 of yesterdays’ question time and question two of today Frank.
I have some of the relevant excerpts on my blog here… http://lukewebster.wordpress.com/2009/08/20/climate-change-modelling/
Don’t forget the elephant in the room. The dairy industry. NZ’s prosperity is built on the back of it, and no economically-minded decision-maker is going to rock that boat.
Frank, have got the answer to the OIA request I put in about what advise the Chief Science Advisor gave John Key here…. http://lukewebster.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/information-act-information-supplied-kind-of/
Frank, how goes it mate?
Just thought of our conversation here about my thoughts that the Green Party were extremists…. I now have further backing on my thoughts based on ex Green Party leaders comments… have a squizz
http://lukewebster.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/trees-as-valuable-as-children/
I saw and I thought you went off the deep end a bit as well. You have a tendency to point to comments you believe to be extreme and whilst doing it, make extreme comments yourself.
When you do it, you just look like the opposite side of the same coin… the only difference being that someone like Jeanette doesn’t engage in degrading personal comments when she talks…
I have the utmost respect for you… you know that. Don’t let yourself sink to sensational comments to make your points. You’re not Michael Laws and don’t need to be
She was pulling out a metaphor and clearly it was a weak one. I think if you actually had a chance to speak to her about such a thing away from sound-bites, you’d probably find that whilst she values trees, if it came down to choosing between a tree being cut down and a child being shot there would be no question.
If I was criticised every time I said something that wasn’t properly thought through on the spot, I would have been sunk a long time ago.
We could probably take comments from every politician or public figure and make them look bad.
I agree I do that… I put it down to my immaturity and impatience and desire to hit the big “publish” button rather than sitting and waiting
In this case though, I stand by the Jeanette getting idiot on the month for that comment. There is no possible excuse to compare losing a child to having the conservation estate mined, especially from a politician who has been around as long as Jeanette has been.
If I ever become like Michael Laws, you have permission to call the loony bin on me, I am sure my wife will gladly help you there!
I’ve got the number for the loony bin ready and waiting
it isn’t 0508 LIFEFM on Sunday night is it?
Exactly!
You’ll have to invite me back in sometime mate… the insanity levels are way up
HI Frank, hope you’re well, just browsing and came across this new site of yours; you’re doing great stuff keep it up!
You disposed of your other blog?? Was v entertaining from what i remember!..
Cheers