"The Sustainable Society: Further Exploration"
- Continued -

Possible Positions

Dobson now explores "various responses to the problem of sustainably" and in this context, he looks at the examples provided by Tim O'Riordan in his book "Environmentalism" (1981). O'Riordan suggests that in political-environmental terms, there are four principle positions available. These are:

1) The possibility of a "new global order" arranged so as to deal with the problems of global coordination presented by the international nature of the environmental crisis. Supporters of this position typically claim that the nation-state is both too big and too small to deal effectively with global problems and bemoan the lack of efficacy of the United Nations, which, nevertheless, seems to be the kind of organization on which they would base their new global order.

2) A position described as "centralized authoritarianism". This position also takes seriously the existence of an environmental crisis, and its supporters believe that, because no one is likely to succumb voluntarily to the measures needed to deal with it, they will have to be made to do so. The locus of authority is generally seen as the governments of nation-states, and in this respect no major political-institutional changes are held to be necessary. Governments would merely decide upon a course of action leading to sustainability and would put it into effect regardless of opposition.

3) The next position described is that of the "authoritarian commune", which is distinguished from the previous position by the scale on which the sustainable society would operate. Institutional structures would be broken down, the locus of decision making would be devolved, but social structures would, of necessity, remain hierarchical. The model is that of the Chinese commune.

4) The final possibility is referred to as the "anarchist solution". This is described as the classic ecocentric proposal, the self-reliant community modeled on "anarchist lines". This shares the commune perspective with the previous position and thus envisages a major shift in the focus of authority an decision making, but differs from it in adopting a left-liberal stance on relations within the community. The anarchist solution is fundamentally egalitarian and participatory.

The point is this:

"One common theme in the debate is that there is no one form of society
which is singularly appropriate to or suitable for sustainability. Ecological limits
may limit political choices, but they do not determine them. A society adapted to
ecological constraints could take widely varying forms". (Martin Ryle)

Dobson ends this section of his text with this quote from Meadows "Limits to Growth":

"It is scarcely necessary to remark that a stationary condition of capital
and population implies no stationary state of human improvement. There
would be as much scope as ever for all kinds of mental culture, and moral
and social progress; as much room for improving the Art of Living and
much more likelihood of its being improved".

At this point, Dobson begins a more detailed look at the characteristics that must make up a "sustainable society". He makes his case for beginning with consumption in these terms: "Political ecologists argue for a contraction in economic growth, or 'throughput' which is made up of resource depletion, production, depreciation (involving consumption) and pollution. Of these four, it is probably production that receives the most attention when commentators consider the bases and implications of the sustainable society, but it seems to me that consumption provides the most useful starting point for discussion. In the first place, this is because the other three terms are founded upon the existence and persistence of consumption: consumption implies depletion implies production implies waste and pollution. And second, the picture of the Good Life that the political ideology of ecologism paints for us is differentiated from most other pictures precisely because of its arguing for less consumption".

Questioning Consumption

"A low-energy strategy means a low-consumption economy; we can do
more with less, but we'd be better off doing less with less" - Porritt

Dobson asserts that "as with growth, the green questioning of consumption has both a pragmatic and an elegiac content, an attitude of 'enough' must replace that of 'more'. It's time for the economics of enough not only because the present rates of consumption are physically unsustainable but also because they are unseemly.

Essential to ecologism's picture of the sustainable society is reduced consumption (in profligate 'advanced' industrial countries, at any rate), and equally essential is the idea that , while this might involve a reduced material standard of living, such sacrifice will be more than made up for by the benefits to be gained in 'satisfactions of a non-material kind, social ones."

Dobson then notes the link between mass consumption and advertising with this quote from Irvine and Ponton:

"Notions such as durability, reduced or shared consumption,
or substituting nonmaterial pleasures for the use of objects,
conflict with the requirements of mass marketing. Advertising
is tied to an expanding economy, the one thing that we, living on
a finite planet, must avoid."

Questioning Consumption: Need

Dobson then notes the difficulty in determining "need" from "want" with these words: "Reducing material consumption is an integral part of ecologism's project and so the green movement has a profound political and intellectual problem on its hands. It is faced, in the first place, with persuading potential supporters that this is a desirable aspiration, and it is saddled with a series of intellectual arguments for its position that presently appear too weak to do the job required. The assertion that a society organized around reduced consumption just would be more pleasurable to live in seems unlikely - in present circumstances - to cut the necessary ice. Likewise, the most favored alternative strategy, the building of a theory of need, is notoriously difficult to carry out." Porritt suggests:

"...most expressions of theories of need are far too vague to be
of much use: needs being those things that are essential to our survival
and to civilized human existence, wants being the extras that serve
to satisfy our desires."

Dobson concludes: "We might all be able to agree on certain 'basic needs' (food, drink, clothing, shelter) but the 'satisfiers' are another matter, and they are precisely what have to be negotiated."

Questioning Consumption: Population

Dobson begins the discussion with this quote from Porritt:

"In terms of reducing overall consumption, there's nothing more
effective than reducing the number of people doing the consuming."

"Greens are aware that some people in some countries consume much more than other people in other countries, and that therefore it is far too simplistic to argue for across-the-board reductions: ' Per capita energy consumption in the United States is two and one-half times the European average and thousands of times that of many Third World countries (Tokar). Nevertheless, the option of population reduction is rather more contentious than it is elegant, constituting as it does a specific aspect of the general green position that even present population levels are unsustainable, let alone projected future levels. Experience suggests that this message is a difficult one to swallow for very many people."

How many people on the planet constitute a 'sustainable' level, and how to arrive at that lower level are the big questions - questions that so far have no answers. Irvine and Ponton offer this thought on reduction strategy:

"There could be payments for periods of non-pregnancy and non-birth;
tax benefits for families with fewer than two children; sterilization bonuses;
withdrawal of maternity and similar benefits after a second child; larger
pensions for people with fewer than two children; free, easily available family
planning; more funds for research into means of contraception, especially for
men; an end to fertility research and treatment; a more realistic approach to
abortion; the banning of surrogate motherhood and similar practices; and the
promotion of equal opportunities for women in all areas of public life."

Questioning Consumption: Technology

"To the extent that green politics is a challenge to the norms and practices of contemporary science and society, to the extent that it will blame scientific development (in a certain direction) for many of the ills it believes we now suffer, and to the extent finally that it attacks the belief that more of the same will cure those ills, technology is always under the green microscope." Dobson reminds us that "greens are forever suspicious of the 'technological fix', and to this extent suspicion towards technology in general is a fundamental feature of the green intellectual make-up."

Energy

"If reduced consumption rather than more technology devices is the answer to the problems raised by the absolute scarcity of resources, then greens will point out that the same must apply ot the use of energy. Energy is, of course, a resource, and, to the extent that present global energy policies rely principally on nonrenewable sources of energy, it is also a limited resource.

In the face of the perceived disadvantages of relying for energy on limited stocks of polluting and dangerous nonrenewable resources, greens usually base their strategy around renewable sources of energy, conservation of energy, and reduced consumption, of both energy and the durable objects that it helps us produce.

Few greens pretend, however, that the energy policy referred to above will produce the fantastic quantities of energy presently required, let alone cope with the dizzying projections associated with the developing nations: 'Dreams of powering the current lifestyles of the industrialized countries from alternative energy sources are illusory' (Irvine and Ponton). This mean that demand for energy will have to lessen beyond the reductions brought about by price increases and improved conservation policies."

Trade and Travel

"Trade is viewed with suspicion by greens on four general grounds:

1) ... it is the site of the exercise of political and economic power and an easy way to exchange self-determination for dependence.

2) It encourages frippery and helps to turn wants into needs (do we need to import apples from New Zealand?).

3) Patterns of trade end up being notoriously wasteful of resources (produce is grown in one location, exported and then, sometimes shipped back for consumption).

4) Reliance on one or two products for export can render economies vulnerable to a drop in prices or a general worsening of the terms of trade.

As as result of these views on trade, green economic practice would be built substantially around protectionism: 'it's clear that selective protection of the domestic economy will be needed to establish its sustainable basis, and to encourage the country to become far more self-sufficient than it is at present' (Porritt).

Part of the effect of protectionism, of course, would be to throw communities back on to their own resources, and this is entirely in line with the green plan of creating a political life founded upon communitarian decentralization. This plan also affects the green position on travel; one of the characteristics of the radical green sustainable society is that people would travel less." This is called the principle of 'limited mobility' and is seen as necessary because current travel practices are wasteful of resources. Also, "greens argue for reduced mobility as a part of their hopes for generating supportive, satisfying relationships in their decentralized, self-reliant communities."

Work

If we are to move toward a 'steady-state economy', and if we are to experience a contraction in industrial output and consumption, then our relationship to work and productivity must change.

"...the general understanding of the green position is that it advocates that the emphasis be in principle on labor-intensive production. In the wider context of the green sustainable society and the reasons for its necessary (limits to growth), this is not simply because work is a fulfilling thing to do, but because it will become a standard requirement: ' With more people and fewer resources, the capital/labor ratio must start shifting back towards labor-intensive production (Porritt). As the price of resources goes up (as greens believe it will do, in the context of scarcity), the amount of capital available for reinvestment in labor-saving machinery will go down. The sustainable society will be more labor-intensive than the one we presently occupy."

Other aspects to consider are the 'informal economy' and unemployment.

On the 'informal economy': ...work done in the informal economy must be liberated and decriminalized, and that policies presently designed to prevent people from working in the informal economy should be abandoned and replaced by policies that will encourage them to work there."

On unemployment: "A Basic Income Scheme would aim to guarantee each man, woman and child the unconditional right to an independent income sufficient to meet basic living costs. Its main purpose would be the prevention of poverty, as opposed to mere relief." (Ekins)

Dobson, having sketched the outlines of the political-institutional characteristics of the sustainable society asks: What will it look like?

Bioregionalism

This section begins with Kirkpatrick Sale's idea of 'the bioregional paradigm':

"We must get to know the land around us, learn its lore and its potential,
and live with it and not against it. We must see that living with the land means living in,
and according to the ways and rhythms of, its natural regions - its bioregions. Living
bioregionally involves identifying bioregional boundaries and living (for the most part)
with what those territories provide in the way of, for example, given ores and minerals,
woods and leathers, cloths and yarns."

"Within these bioregions people would live in communities, because if one were to look for the single basic building block of the ecological world, it would be the community. The bioregional community would seek to 'minimize resource-use, emphasize conservation and recycling, and avoid pollution and waste - and all this would be aimed at achieving sustainability through self-sufficiency."

"...there is not a single bioregion in this country (the United States)
that would not ...be able to provide its residents with sufficient food
energy, shelter, and clothing, their own health care and education and
arts, their own manufactures and crafts." (Sale)

Agriculture

"...the problem of how we feed ourselves is arguably the most
vital component of a Green ecological strategy." (Tokar)

"The green movement considers present agricultural practices (what they would call 'industrial agriculture') to be unacceptable because it is unsustainable. Intensive chemical-based farming is held to pollute watercourses, to encourage erosion, to produce tasteless food of low nutritional value, to bring about salinization of the land through irrigation, to upset ecological balances through insensitive pest control, and to bore us with its monocultural panoramas."

Furthermore, a new sustainable, organic agriculture in the post-carbon age will be labor intensive. A population of "part-time peasants is both necessary and desirable, from a green point of view. It is necessary because sustainable agriculture involves less machinery and therefore more hands."

Diversity

"...truly autonomous bioregions will likely go their own separate ways
and end up with quite disparate political systems - some democracies,
no doubt, some direct, some representative, some federative, but
undoubtedly all kinds of aristocracies, oligarchies, theocracies, principalities,
margravates, duchies and palatinates as well." (Sale)

Decentralization and its Limits

At this point, Dobson begins a long discussion on the pros and cons of communitarian anarchism. Next is Rudolf Bahro's article: Communes.