In his comment to my last post Kyle raises some interesting and difficult points for Greens,
‘The fact is our lifestyles are unsustainable on many levels. Material living standards will inevitably fall in any case as we are living way beyond our means, this does not necessarily mean quality of life needs to fall though. The Green Party of England and Wales should be trying to encourage people to question their wasteful overconsumption, not justifying the idea that our current lifestyles are acceptable or sustainable’. For this reason he argues that “fighting the cuts” trying to preserve ‘the status quo’ is pointless.’ I would like to respond to these points and to explain why even though I agree with some of what he says, I do not believe ‘fighting the cuts’ is in fact ‘pointless’.
The Green Party has two over arching concerns, ecological sustainability and social justice; it understands these to be inextricably linked, prosperity must be shared because sustainability can only be achieved if everyone has a stake. Greens argue that because we only have one planet, which has finite resources and a limited ability to cope with the pollution and degradation that our activities produce, the taken for granted idea of endless economic growth is in fact, pure fantasy. Modern life-styles, now synonymous with consumption, a necessary ingredient for continued economic growth, are becoming increasingly incompatible with the health of the planet. Since we, in our turn depend on this for our health and well-being, modern life-styles are becoming a threat to our continued existence (1).
The Green Party therefore argues against endless economic growth and for ways of increasing prosperity which are sustainable within the earth’s limits. As a Green I believe it is vital that we do this and do so with a sense or urgency. A first step would be to challenge our assumptions not only about prosperity and economic growth but also about happiness, well-being and the role of consumption in our lives. So on these points, Kyle, I totally agree with you.
The second broad concern of the Green Party is with social justice. This for me is where the cuts come in. Arguing against the cuts is not the same as arguing for endless economic growth. In its Manifesto the Green Party states that it would cut the budget deficit by more than half by 2013 (2). The Green Party therefore recognises that ’we are living beyond our means in a fiscal sense’; it is not arguing as Ed. Balls previously did, that there is no problem with this amount of borrowing.
But to protest against the cuts is to argue from the social justice standpoint of green thinking because the cuts will disproportionally affect those in society who are already more disadvantaged; the sorts of services currently under threat are, by their very nature, used more by the most vulnerable. For example, health inequalities have been demonstrated to correlate with income inequalities, meaning the less affluent are more dependent on the NHS than those who are better off (3). Where I live, services supporting the victims of Domestic Violence and Abuse are threatened with the complete withdrawal of their funding, whist many of the excellent support programmes and services which Sure Start give to some of the poorest families, are under significant threat. Simply cutting back services in an attempt to save money is not, in my mind a way to deal with the complex problem of over consumption in (post) modern societies; it is a very blunt instrument to save money and will result in increasing health and social inequalities. These will inevitably cost the country more in the long run through the social problems they engender (3). Fighting the cuts is not about maintaining the status quo, it is about trying to prevent further health and social inequalities.
The dilemma created through the need not to persue economic growth but to invest in services which support people, is resolved in Green thinking through the creation of the Green New Deal (2). This proposes investing money in the things society needs, a decent NHS, Social Care, vital services (such as the above) for the most vulnerable, creating sustainable jobs such as in recycling, green technologies, refurbishing houses and making them energy efficient, in other words through creating a green economy.
The issue of consumption is more complex in my mind because it is not simply a material issue which can be resolved by reducing poorer people’s incomes whilst leaving those of the more affluent untouched. In fact there is a whole corpus of research which demonstrates that poorer people have lower carbon foot prints simply because they cannot consume as much as the more affluent who are more likely to consume more, make more car journeys, own bigger petrol guzzling cars and fly more, even if they do live ‘green life-styles’ through buying ‘ethical products’ and organic food (1). I believe we are unlikely to reduce the need for consumption until we have fully understood it’s symbolic function in our lives. And whilst I absolutely agree that we need to help people satisfy needs in more fulfilling and sustainable ways than through the accumulation of ‘stuff’, I think that this could be better achieved through the work of creating different versions of what it means to be human and what our culture is all about rather than through the blunt instrument of cuts.
(1) Professor Tim Jackson (2009) ‘Prosperity without growth? The transition to a sustainable economy’ The Sustainable Development Commission*.
(2) http://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/resources/Manifesto_web_file.pdf
(3) Wilkinson, R and Pickett, K (2009) ‘ The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better’, Penguin Books, London
*The Sustainable Development Commission has now been axed by the Coalition Government.
Recent Comments