Staff Contributors
Staff Contributors
Adam Browning
Adam Stein
Alan Durning
Andrew Dessler
Andrew Sharpless
Ariane Lotti
Ben Tuxworth
biodiversivist
Brad Johnson
Coby Beck
Edward Mazria
Eric de Place
Erik Hoffner
Frank O'Donnell
Gar Lipow
Glenn Hurowitz
Guest author
Jason D Scorse
Jim Goodman
JMG
John McGrath
John McQuaid
Jon Rynn
Joseph Romm
Josh Dorner
Ken Ward
Kit Stolz
Laura Hess
Lisa J. Bunin
Lou Bendrick
Maywa Montenegro
Melinda Henneberger
Meredith Niles
Michael Hoexter
Michael Moynihan
Miles Grant
Sean Casten
Sharon Astyk
Steph Larsen
Stephanie Paige Ogburn
Summer Rayne Oakes
Thomas Dobbs
Van Jones
Zoe Bradbury


Rebuild the economy by building green industries

The economy is an ecosystem

Posted by Jon Rynn (Guest Contributor) at 12:59 PM on 03 Dec 2007

Read more about: economy | green jobs

It is increasingly argued by people who used to be climate change deniers that preventing global warming will be too expensive to contemplate; even the Stern report, which was put together by a sympathetic economist, estimates that the world economy would have to decrease annual growth by about 5 percent. On the other hand, reports are emerging that argue that green jobs will reinvigorate the economy, creating an entirely new green-collar job sector.

I want to argue something much stronger -- that by building green industries, such as wind, solar, geothermal, public transit, zero-emission buildings, and others, we will not only provide millions of jobs, we will be able to rebuild our manufacturing and machinery industries and thereby expand the middle class and the long-term source of our wealth. I will argue such an expansion can be environmentally sustainable.

In order to understand why this is so, we have to understand how the economy works, looked at from a production-centered point of view. Think of the economy as a kind of ecosystem -- a system that is full of various niches and levels, as a natural ecosystem is.

The economy as ecosystem

Let's look at the components of a forest ecosystem: the trees, for the most part, are considered the producers; the animals that eat the leaves off of the trees, such as the deer, are called the primary consumers, or herbivores; and the animals that eat the animals that eat the leaves, such as wolves, are called secondary consumers, or carnivores. Finally, there are the bugs, fungi, and worms that eat the dead producers and consumers, called the detrivores. Each of these groups -- trees, herbivores, carnivores, detrivores -- is modelled as a different level of the ecosystem (called a trophic level in ecological sciences).

Now let's look at a modern industrial economy. We can conceive of the economy as consisting of levels as well, although they are set up differently than in nature. When we go into a store, we are participating in the distribution level of the economy, which includes retail. In order to produce the goods, such as clothes, that we buy in the stores, there must exist the consumer goods and services level, for example, the production of those clothes in factories.

The next two levels of the economy are the foundation of most economic wealth and growth. The level which I will call the production machinery level is the one in which the machines that are used in factories are made; sewing machine factories, for instance. As another example, in order to make houses and buildings we need to use a set of production machinery called construction equipment, which must themselves be built. Or to make cars, factories are stuffed full of robots and other specialized equipment; for every kind of product, there is a set of production machineries that are used to make that product, and in turn those production machineries must themselves be produced.

So in order to buy something in a store, first the economy must produce the machinery that is used to make the products that are sold in the stores. But there is one further level that is the most important of all, the level at which we make the machinery that is used to make the production machinery; these machines not only make the production machinery, they make more of themselves. So I will call this level the reproduction machinery level; machinery that reproduces itself collectively, and thus is at the center of a modern economy.

Think of the economy, then, as a set of concentric circles, with the central circle consisting of reproduction machinery, followed by production machinery, then consumer goods and services, and finally distribution. Since the reproduction machinery level is so important, I want to explain how it works in more detail, because this will show why green industries can help rebuild the entire economy and how we can achieve sustainable growth.

Reproducing machinery

How can a machine reproduce itself? It doesn't do it the biological way; a car doesn't gestate another car. In a manufacturing economy, there is a set of critical machines, called machine tools, whose job it is to cut, shape, stamp, grind, and otherwise form metal into a part, so that the created part can be fit into a machine -- for instance, the axle or door of a car. But machine tools have a peculiar property; they must be used to make pieces of other machine tools, no other machine can do the job; so machine tools make more machine tools.

But machine tools are not the only machine that can make, or more properly, help to make more of themselves. The machine tool serves the function of shaping the part, but it does not create the material out of which the part is made. In modern industrial societies, the single most important material is steel. And there is a set of machinery, called steel-making equipment, which makes not only the steel for machines such as machine tools and construction equipment, but also the steel for more steel-making equipment.

So in order to make machine tools, we need not just machine tools, but steel-making equipment; and in order to make the parts for a steel factory, we need, not just steel-making equipment, but also machine tools. Not only do they need each other, but an innovation in one will help spur innovation in the other.

Thus, there are two virtuous cycles, or positive feedback loops, within the reproduction machinery sector -- the machines make more of each other, and they help each other's industries create innovations. This is the basis of economic growth in industrial societies, and without a strong reproduction machinery sector, a society cannot have long-term, sustained economic growth.

But what about energy? Most manufacturing is dependent not on oil, but on electricity. And electrical generation is dependent on a specific group of machines called electricity-generating turbines. These turbines are dependent on -- here they come again -- machine tools to make their very precise parts, and on steel-making equipment to make very high-quality steel. In turn, production of the turbines is dependent on a previous set of turbines that generate the electricity used to make the turbines. So turbines make more turbines -- with the help of machine tools and steel-making equipment. In turn, innovation in turbines leads to cheaper electricity which leads to cheaper cost of machine tools and steel-making equipment.

Finally, I want to introduce a fourth sector: the area of computers, or more generally, information-processing. The core technology used to make information processing equipment of various sorts, from cell phones to laptops, is a group called semiconductor-making equipment. Innovation in this equipment leads to faster processors (and Moore's law), which are used to make machine tools more precise, steel-making more efficient, and electricity-generating equipment more reliable.

So within the reproduction machinery level, we have four sectors, or niches, that form their own sub-ecosystem of enormous productive power (if anyone wants me to, I'll explain Aristotle's relevance to all of this).

Rebuilding the economy, holistically

Now let's address the problem of a healthy economy. The reproduction machinery sector cannot thrive if the production machinery sector, which it is used to produce, is not also thriving, or else the market for reproduction machinery will dry up. And the production machinery sectors cannot thrive unless the consumer goods factories are humming and creating orders for new production machinery. And the distribution level, such as retail and finance, cannot do well unless there are goods to fill the stores.

Just as in an ecosystem, all levels and niches within the economy must be operating at a minimal level, or else the entire system can collapse. In a forest, if the wolves are eliminated, the deer population will explode, leading to the overconsumption of leaves and harming the primary producers of the forest. Without the herbivores, the carnivores will die out, and the forest will become overgrown and vulnerable to new invasive herbivores. And of course, with deforestation comes complete destruction of the forest ecosystem. Just so, an economy needs all of its levels and main niches to be present.

When we build new windmills, solar panels, trains, and retrofitting material, we provide a market to the production machinery makers who fill the factories making the windmills, solar panels, and so on. And when we build a large production machinery sector, we provide the market for the machine-tool, steel-making-machinery, turbine-making, and semiconductor-making equipment makers. By greening our economy, we can rebuild the manufacturing economy ecosystem.

Sustainable growth

Depending on how this economic ecosystem is constructed, we can have either sustainable growth or growth that destroys the ecosystems on which all production is dependent. The main problem is to encourage growth that consists of better quality, not growth that encourages more quantity.

In particular, note that a modern industrial system does not have a level that recycles everything, the detrivore level in an ecosystem. So, when we look at the various material-making niches in an economy, the big question must be, are these materials being recycled, or are they coming from new raw materials? Do we have a situation as in the steel industry, in which about 69 percent of all steel is recycled, or is it more like the plastics industry, with about 5 percent? Are we measuring growth by the increase in steel quality, or the increase in steel quantity?

If an economy is creating its growth mostly from the information processing sectors, then a minimal amount of materials and energy is being used. If an economy is creating growth mostly by creating bigger houses that are further away from cities, then that economy is not sustainable. If an economy is growing because the various kinds of consumer equipment are becoming more sophisticated and better made, as opposed to growth that is occurring because there is more and more equipment, then that economy is more sustainable.

Finally, if the economy is growing because the windmills and solar panels and geothermal plants are becoming more productive, instead of growing because we are sucking more oil and coal out of the ground, then the economy will be more sustainable. Economies that are sustainable are actually richer in the long-run than economies that are unsustainable.

We may currently be witnessing the long-term decline of the United States economy, as seen in the falling dollar, huge trade deficits, shrinking middle class, and sinking financial system. These are all due, ultimately, to a declining manufacturing base. The greening of the economy is not a luxury that we cannot afford; it is a necessity without which the American economy will decline. And since it is necessary for the U.S., it is also necessary for all of the other regions of the world, as I will attempt to explain in my next post.

How do we know how much is enough?

I'm wondering what is driving the growth in the economic system as you describe it. Would it be the outer circle of consumer goods and services? Or could it be at a community level where municipalities are buying green power and transit? Both?

The reason I make the distinction is that I see consumer-driven society as a dead-end (possibly literally). That is, where does this insane appetite for McMansions and $2000 televisions come from? It seems not only unhealthy to me, but pathological. Unless we can break that cycle of addiction to (luxury) consumer goods I don't see how we can open people's minds to the possibilities inherent in the personal growth that accompanies democractic decision-making, and participating in the arts and nature.

On the other hand, if individual passive consumers could be transformed into active citizens who organize for a local green manufacturing economy, then I think we would have a chance of designing a system for a reasonable and equitable distribution of goods that wouldn't endanger the earth. In other words, how do we get to the society that favors quality over quantity?

Ideally, mandate recycling, restrict land use...

Basically, if you can't pull any more minerals, oil, etc., out of the ground, and if you can't convert anymore wildlife areas/farmland into suburbs, and everything has to be able to be completely recyclable, then there won't be the materials for more.  Now, that would obviously be quite the challenge in today's culture.

Another avenue -- utopian, but an avenue -- is to significantly increase tax levels, and funnel most wealth into social investments, not private ones -- including municipal utilities, municipal housing, transit, health care, even some form of keeping a certain amount of agricultural land working and sustainable outside the municipality.  I dare not call this a socialist alternative, as toxic as that might sound to an American audience, so I'll call it a municipal-based economy  -- based on a city or town.  Again, a huge culture shift.

Finally, since you mentioned participation, mandating or at least encouraging employee-ownership-and-control would increase participation levels an order of magnitude. Combined with municipal-based economics, restrictions on land use and mandated recycling, could add up to an economy that would have to concentrate more on quality than quantity.  

Or maybe I should call it ecotopia?

A distinct difference between economy and ecology

I appreciate the effort to analogize the economy as an ecology since the latter is, in the Gaia theory anyway, balanced in the long run with respect to energy and material flows.

But I think Colin raises a good point that needs to be considered. One major difference between the economy of humans and the ecology of Gaia is that in the latter the drive is from the lowest trophic layer. That is, what pumps energy into the system is the photosynthetic activities of plants and some bacteria. The higher trophic levels then dissipate the stored energy and the heat eventually re-radiates to space.

Animals do not demand food so much as simply consume what is present and when their numbers increase beyond the carrying capacity they die off or fail to reproduce to compensate. Hence the balance.

Humans do demand from above. They do want more and find ways to reroute energy flows, or in the case of fossil fuels to tap into the bank as it were, to serve their purposes. They invent the new ways to consume and expropriate energy production systems to provide what they want. There is no balance.

Except, perhaps in the long run. With the peaking of oil and gas production the energy bonanza is over and I seriously doubt that we will ever be able to replace it with alternative energy production systems. Then we will begin to see the similarities between the economy and the ecosystem. But we will also see the similarities between humans and all other animals faced with energy restrictions. That won't be a rebuilding of the economy. It will be what Richard Heinberg calls 'powering down' at best and chaos at worst. The latter seems like a high probability scenario to me in light of humanity, at the same time it is running on less gas, will have to cope with and adapt to the effects of climate change.

Regarding the production of energy: I loved Jon's description of the multi-tiered production system. In some of the work that I am doing at UWT (see my profile) I am building models of what I call the energy production sustainability criterion. Stated simply it says that any form of alternative energy production equipment, or what I call energy conversion capital, must produce sufficient energy to not only feed free energy to the end consumers, but must also feed back into its own maintenance and 'reproduction' cycle. That latter contribution may be minuscule in real-time, but it must cumulatively, over the working life of the unit, provide enough power to produce the next generation of conversion capital. And that includes enough power to produce the next generation of manufacturing plant and machine tools, etc. It remains to be seen that clean energy systems like photovoltaics and wind turbines will actually meet this long-range sustainability criterion.  

George
http://www.questioneverything.typepad.com


George Mobus, Associate Professor, Institute of Technology, University of Washington Tacoma, and Professional Student for Life

Models rule!

George --

I've wanted to create computer models of my ideas for a while now (here's a link to an SVG-based version of a start of a model, but you need Adobe's SVG add-in), and it sounds like you are moving in a similar direction, if I may be so bold.  I'd like to hear more about your work as you move forward (maybe a guest blog post?)

Back to reality, however, I was amazed that William Catton's 1980 book, "Overshoot", is still very relevant to today's problems.  This form of human civilization will certainly have to change, or it will experience overshoot and be changed.  However, I think that it is important to try to create positive "visions", or better yet, "models", of what a different civilization would look like, no matter how utopian the effort might seem now.  I think that Heinberg is sometimes too ready to give up on cities; he seems to think we will go back to villages and small towns, but I think that if we were to tackle our problems logically right now, cities would be a central part of the solution (I attempted sketch a city-centered solution here)


Dear George Mobus

Keep going.

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

Dear John Rynn

Please consider that the global human economy is an artificially designed, momentary, manmade construction, one that appears to be rapidly approaching a point in human history when endless economic growth will become patently unsustainable on the surface of a planetary home the size of ours. To the extent modifications in unbridled economic globalization are chosen by the managers of the human economy that adopt the workings of the sustainable economy of God's good Earth, then it will become sustainable, I suppose.

Steven Earl Salmony, Ph.D., M.P.A.
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

Steve --

Of course our civilization is artificial, humans evolved as tool-makers, changing now into machine-makers.  I think that humans are actually much better at designing and making tools and machinery than they are at managing resources, which we have botched horribly.  So if a civilization was constructed -- and it will take a massive job of construction -- that was sustainable, we would have to have strict rules, even taboos, against destroying our ecosystems -- sort of like the law in Carmel, California that you can't cut down any trees, spread to the whole world.  No more mining, moratoria on fishing -- so that human creativity could be directed toward the arts, entertainment, electronics, science, sustainable engineering -- and away from possessing more and more.  I have no idea if that is a psychological leap that people could make, perhaps you have more experience with that than I.

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
sign in
Search Gristmill
Subscribe
  • subscribe via RSSStay updated with the Gristmill RSS feed.
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Subscribe in Netvibes
  • Subscribe in Google
Using Gristmill
  • What is Gristmill?
  • Posting rules
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Gristmill is powered by Scoop.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks