Impact - Growth Good Supplement - Michigan 7 2023 BEKS

Growth Good – AT: Transition
2AC–Transition Fails
Degrowth is naïve and unrealistic – empirics prove our current framework is the only way out.
Kelsey Piper, 21 – (Kelsey Piper, “Can we save the planet by shrinking the economy?,” Vox, 8-3-2021, Available Online: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22408556/save-planet-shrink-economy-degrowth, Accessed: 6-24-2023)//terra
Degrowth is unrealistic — and gaining traction
As a policy program, degrowth suffers from being both too radical and not radical enough.
There’s a lot of broad-brush policy prescriptions in the degrowth lit, but those details never really add up.
While it’s not a short book, Less Is More feels surprisingly sparse when it comes to envisioning how the changes it recommends could be brought about. The chapter on solutions recommends cutting the workweek and changing tax policy — two solid proposals — but then rounds that out by recommending ending technological obsolescence, advertising, food waste, and student debt.
I’m not particularly opposed to those policies. But they seem laughably inadequate for the magnitude of the task at hand: confronting the climate crisis. Degrowth successfully persuades that guiding humanity and our planet through the 21st century will be really, really hard — but not in a way degrowth particularly solves.
Where degrowth literature is relentlessly pessimistic about the prospect of our problems being solved under our current economic system, it turns oddly optimistic about the prospect that they’ll be solved once we embrace a different way of viewing wealth and progress. If cutting carbon emissions fast enough to matter requires shrinking the global economy by 0.5 percent a year indefinitely, starting right now, as the Nature paper estimates, that’ll take policy measures much larger and more ambitious than any proposed in Less Is More.
“If we are to avert catastrophic warming, we have to lower carbon emissions by a factor of two within the next 10 years. I find it highly implausible that capitalism/market economics will be abandoned by the world on that time frame,” Pennsylvania State University climatologist Michael Mann told me. “That means we have to act on the climate crisis within the framework of the current system.”
Only growth offers a viable path through decoupling and green technology.
Kelsey Piper, 21 – (Kelsey Piper, “Can we save the planet by shrinking the economy?,” Vox, 8-3-2021, Available Online: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22408556/save-planet-shrink-economy-degrowth, Accessed: 6-24-2023)//terra
How to fight climate change while building good human societies
Degrowth’s radicalism isn’t where I part ways with it: The future will almost certainly require us to eat much less meat, dramatically change land use, and potentially invest a significant chunk of society’s resources in mitigation indefinitely.
But I don’t tend to see such efforts as fundamentally futile. Degrowthers do — even when there have been significant successes.
Climate scientists have spent a long time warning the world about climate change, but they nonetheless tend to sound a more optimistic note than degrowthers like Hickel. “It’s undoubtedly a monumental challenge,” Mann told me. “We have the technology to solve the problem — renewable energy, smart grid technology, and existing energy storage. We just need the political will to act.”
Take solar panels. Two decades ago, cheap solar panels were just a dream. Now they’re everywhere and have become a crucial tool in the fight against climate change.
Not only that, solar panels have democratized electricity. Just one small-scale instance: In rural Kenya, you can see donkeys saddled with solar panels so that farmers can charge their phones. And there are many such examples that count as a win for both human progress and our fight against climate change.
It should go without saying that since rich governments got us into this climate mess, they should be at the forefront of getting us out of it. We need massive investments in carbon capture, green energy, plant-based meat, mitigation, and straight-up cash transfers to poor countries disproportionately affected by the climate crisis.
Many of the researchers I spoke to were open to the idea that in the long run, humanity would need to rethink many of our cherished assumptions about how economies work, in order to build a civilization that can flourish for thousands or millions of years. They didn’t reject degrowth as a philosophical contribution to the question of what future human civilizations should care about.
But such articulations of different philosophies of human flourishing should not be mistaken for public policy.
We don’t have very long, and we need to decarbonize quickly. We have technologies that have made a big difference already, and they must be made available on an unprecedented scale. We have more speculative solutions, technological and societal, and we should be prepared to try those, too. The scale of the problem is such that we need to act now — and we need to be clear-eyed about which ideas truly move the needle.
Reject the binary between growth and degrowth – only exploration of partial connections opens up the path to sustainable transformation.
Katsu Masaki, 21 – (Katsu Masaki, Hirao School of Management, Konan University,, “Exploring the ‘Partial Connections’ between Growth and Degrowth Debates: Bhutan’s Policy of Gross National Happiness,” Sage Journals, 7-27-2021, Available Online: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/02601079211032103, pg. 91-92, Accessed: 6-25-2023)//terra
To further elucidate the drawbacks of degrowth (described in the preceding sections), it is useful to draw on the notion of ‘partial connections’, as advocated by Marilyn Strathern (2004). This notion is instrumental in problematising the stance of degrowth debates that downplay the pursuit of economic growth. It draws attention to the need to avoid dichotomising growth-seeking and degrowth- oriented measures and instead to explore complementarities between them. The drawback of degrowth debates arises from the binary worldview prevailing among scholars who are liable, as pointed out by Strathern (2004, p. 209), to complacently accept the ‘part-whole’ distinction. Scholars thus tend to believe a simplistic view that the ‘whole’ is composed of distinctive ‘parts’ that require separate treatment, and that the relation between a ‘part’ and the ‘whole’ is irreducibly hierarchical. Degrowth debates are accordingly founded on the following dubious premises. First, the ‘whole’ debate concerning economic growth consists of the degrowth ‘part’ and the growth-seeking ‘part’. Second, by making a distinction between these two ‘parts’ with recourse to the analytic category named ‘degrowth’, it is plausible to amplify information about the ‘whole’ debate. As long as scholars are complacent with such a ‘part-whole’ distinction, however, ‘information is lost proportionate to … new information gained’ by way of a new analytic category (Strathern, 2004, p. xv). This is because each single ‘part’ making up the plurality of the ‘whole’ consists of a similar plurality that demands an equally close inspection; ‘there are always potentially “more” things to take into account’ (Strathern, 2004, p. xiv). In studying Strathern’s contribution, Holbraad and Pedersen (2017, p. 131) use the example of classifying a dog as a quadruped (a distinct ‘part’ or category of the ‘whole’ life form). This analytic category helps to reduce the complexity of data on various life forms to pave the way for a comparative analysis, say, of quadrupeds and bipeds. At the same time, it also incurs ‘information loss’ (Strathern, 2004, p. xv). A dog is also a mammal and vertebrate, and a ‘partial connection’ can therefore be ascertained, for instance, between a dog as a quadruped and a human being as a biped in that both are mammals. Against this background, ‘[c]omparability is not intrinsic to anything’ (Strathern, 2004, p. 53). On the contrary, there exists fertile ground for forging a ‘working compatibility’ between different analytic categories (Strathern, 2004, p. 35). Such categories should neither be rigidly separated from nor contrasted with each other to make high-level abstractions and generalisations. ‘Partial connections’ can be explored across different analytic categories in such a manner as to collapse hierarchical ‘part-whole’ distinctions. This allows scholars to conduct research ‘at the same order of reality and concretion as the object of study by unearthing differentiations within it’ (Holbraad & Pedersen, 2017, p. 138). As noted above, in reality, growth-seeking and degrowth-oriented measures do not always collide with each other because there is ‘good GDP’ and ‘bad GDP’. The notion of ‘partial connections’ thus helps to illustrate how degrowth advocates erroneously focus on the ‘comparability’ of the two ‘parts’ and resultantly incur ‘information loss’. Instead, a ‘working compatibility’ should be explored to pursue both ‘selective growth’ and ‘selective degrowth’. This is to capture the full range of sustainable development issues, as described above. This proposed approach should not be confused with the fashionable idea of ‘green growth’. The latter fails to break away from excessive economism: It merely proposes to shift the contents of growth-seeking measures towards the development of resource-efficient technologies to stimulate rapid growth and create new jobs (Kallis, 2018, p. 149). While ‘green growth’ thus downplays degrowth, the non-dual approach, put forth in this study, encompasses ‘selected degrowth’ to overcome the economic imperatives that stand in the way of sustainable transformations.
Degrowth alone fails and gets thwarted by current capitalist politics – only perm solves :D
Katsu Masaki, 21 – (Katsu Masaki, Hirao School of Management, Konan University,, “Exploring the ‘Partial Connections’ between Growth and Degrowth Debates: Bhutan’s Policy of Gross National Happiness,” Sage Journals, 7-27-2021, Available Online: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/02601079211032103, pg. 89-91, Accessed: 6-25-2023)//terra
Several proponents of degrowth likewise admit that it is still a hypothesis and requires to be tested through empirical studies (Kallis, 2018, p. 155). Although voluntary simplicity has always existed among small subsets of the populace, ‘[i]t does not follow that others, such as those who never had the choice, or those who enjoy their power, will not mind either’ (Kallis et al., 2012, p. 174). The ways by which degrowth bears on remuneration, employment and work must be thoroughly discussed (Martínez-Alier et al., 2010, p. 1746). Moreover, Nicholas Ashford, who argues for ‘transforming the industrial state’ from a broader perspective (cited in Kallis, 2017, p. 142), states that degrowth fails to capture the full range of issues and may trigger a scarcity of goods and services (Ashford & Hall, 2019, p. 244). This is corroborated by another critic who similarly states that degrowth ‘faces difficulty confronting today’s reality of economic crisis/stagnation’ when it is vital to ensure an adequate supply of and access to essential goods and services for all and to redress the growing inequality trends worldwide (Foster, 2011, p. 30). To attain a full-fledged post-growth order, co-optimising economic development, environmental quality and employment concerns must be prioritised (Ashford & Hall, 2019, p. 459). Economic development represents the whole gamut of change required to widen the distribution of basic life-sustaining goods and services to raise standards of living and to expand the range of socio- economic choices available to individuals and nations (Todaro & Smith, 2015, p. 24). Economic development is distinguishable from economic growth although the former does not preclude the latter given that there is ‘good GDP’ and ‘bad GDP’ (Ashford & Hall, 2019, p. 164). Therefore, it is imperative to place constraints on economic growth and at the same time avoid placing unnecessary constraints on it. We need not contract every material throughput and output as long as stringent measures are in place to curtail undesirable externalities that flow from growth (Van den Bergh, 2011, p. 890). ‘It should be stressed that being against GDP or against unconditional GDP growth is not the same as being against growth’ (Van den Bergh, 2011, p. 885). Historically, economic growth has entailed various social and environmental costs (Borowy & Schmelzer, 2017, pp. 2–14). It has not only brought about severe climate change, resulting in damage and loss of property and livelihoods of vulnerable groups but also degraded ecosystem services such as fresh water, air purification and pest control. The quest for economic growth has also led to rising inequalities within and between countries, provoking hostility among the underclass towards the established classes as well as other vulnerable people such as foreign workers and immigrants. Moreover, the present growth-oriented economic order cannot uproot malnutrition, nor can it stave off land grabbing in lowincome countries. These states of affairs are not intrinsic to growth, according to Joseph Stiglitz, who calls for more investment in public goods and macroeconomic policies that maintain aggregate demand, alleviate inequality and promote employment (Stiglitz, 2019, p. x). While some inequality is unavoidable in a market economy, a sensible approach is to design ‘redistribution’ policies, so that the underprivileged can have better access to finance as well as means of reproduction and production; simultaneously, ‘predistribution’ policies are also called for, such as those making education and health accessible to all (Ostry et al., 2019, pp. 109–110). Moreover, it is plausible to explore measures that decouple profit from unsustainable production by altering the reward structure for profit and investment (Ashford & Hall, 2019, pp. 246–249). This does not imply that degrowth must be discarded. Some of its ideas can be drawn on to pursue ‘selective degrowth’ (Van den Bergh, 2011, p. 890). First, less developed countries should be accorded greater space to ‘find their own trajectories to what they define as the good life’ (Kallis et al., 2015, p. 5). Efforts should be made to contain laissez-faire expansion of cross-border economic exchanges. They are prone to turn less developed countries into commodity frontiers, where corporations engage in practices detrimental to the conservation of local communities and ecosystems (Schneider et al., 2010, p. 516).Masaki 91 Second, degrowth initiatives, such as those mentioned above, are usually valued in accordance with the time spent by those serving others. If individuals start spending more money on people serving people, they can help ‘bypass interests promoted by the entrenched corporations and established businesses that lock-in the present economic system’ (Ashford & Hall, 2019, p. 242). This also allows us to address a pertinent and yet oft-omitted question, namely, ‘who is standing in the way of sustainable transformations’ (Ashford & Hall, 2019, p. 242). Postgrowth transitions are hampered by elite appropriation and control of the means of reproduction and production at the expense of the majority, as pointed out in a paper recapitulating a symposium on degrowth (Saed, 2012, pp. 27–28). In bypassing entrenched businesses, it is imperative to change the nature of consumer demand by enabling a larger number of consumers to earn sufficient income and encouraging them to purchase products and services of labour-intensive degrowth enterprises (Ashford & Hall, 2019, p. 733). The financial rate of return on degrowth undertakings is lower than that of profit-seeking businesses (Jackson, 2017, p. 170). Thus, they are at risk of being driven out of the economy unless the nature of consumer spending is altered as above. Demands for their products and services are normally price elastic, and they are ‘less productive’ as costs tend to rise relative to other less labour-intensive businesses (Jackson, 2017, pp. 170–171). Therefore, it is imperative to explore complementarities between growth-oriented and degrowth initiatives in a way that promotes both ‘selective growth’ and ‘selective degrowth’. A similar stance can be found in a clause of the Declaration adopted at a seminal conference held in Paris in 2008: ‘In countries where severe poverty remains, right-sizing implies increasing consumption by those in poverty as quickly as possible, in a sustainable way, to a level adequate for a decent life, following locally determined poverty-reduction paths’ (Research and Degrowth, 2010, p. 523–524). However, this should not be confined to ‘countries where severe poverty remains’ because a fairer distribution of income has become a pressing concern among rich societies (Stiglitz, 2019, p. ix).
Land privatization renders degrowth unviable.
Alex Baumann, 19 – (Alex Baumann, “Access to land is a barrier to simpler, sustainable living. Public housing could offer a way forward,” Conversation, 8-21-2019, Available Online: https://theconversation.com/access-to-land-is-a-barrier-to-simpler-sustainable-living-public-housing-could-offer-a-way-forward-121246, Accessed: 6-30-2023)//terra
In response to today’s urgent ecological and social problems, we often hear calls from sustainability advocates about the need to “downshift” away from consumer lifestyles, to practise permaculture and to embrace simpler ways to live. When these movements scale up, the argument goes, we will “degrow” our economies to a sustainable scale.
Important though these analyses and perspectives are, they almost always leave something critical out of the conversation. There is a very powerful reason we are currently unable to move toward a simpler and sustainable society: the costs of securing access to land for housing often mean only the relatively affluent can afford such “green lifestyles”.
In response to this problem, we offer some ideas to show how public land could be used for sustainable forms of community-led development.
The property system makes simple living hard
Recognition of the need for system change is growing. But those arguing for high-impact societies to downshift toward cultures of sustainable consumption need to acknowledge a fundamental problem more clearly: simply keeping a roof over our heads can demand an energy-intensive lifestyle and a dependence on market growth.
Why? Having to buy or rent a home in capitalist societies like Australia has huge implications for most of us. It affects what we do for work, how much we work, our need for a car, etc. And, if you can barely afford land or your own home, putting solar panels on the roof, working part-time or growing your own organic food all become very unlikely.
In short, securing the basic need for housing is putting people in more and more debt. This often means any attempt at “dropping out” of market consumerism first involves a whole lot of “dropping in”. The consequences of this reality are anything but simple, local and sustainable.
A different type of land and housing opportunity is needed for reasons of sustainability and equity. Central here is the recognition that access to land, just as with air and water, is not a market product. It is a human right and should be recognised as such.
It’s infeasible or condemns half the population to starvation.
Tiziano Gomiero, 18 – (Tiziano Gomiero is an independent scholar, consultant, and fellow at the Department of Environmental Studies, “Agriculture and degrowth: State of the art and assessment of organic and biotech-based agriculture from a degrowth perspective,” ScienceDirect, 10-1-2018, Available Online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652617306479, Accessed: 6-30-2023)//terra
Degrowth supporters call for the adoption of a more frugal lifestyle, based on lo

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.