Skip to content

Thursday, Sep 2nd 2010


The Power of Enough

In this time when businesses are failing and people are losing their jobs and in some cases their homes, it may seem crazy to criticise economic growth. But sufficiency, sustainability and security are key needs of people and living systems all over the world, as we move into the rest of this century. We also need maximum citizen participation, diversity, resilience and whole-system health. Untrammeled economic growth did not provide or foster those features, nor can it do so in the future.

In the drive for economic growth at all costs, we brought monetary wealth to a few. At the same time we lost sight of limits, destroyed ecosystems and created huge global and local social injustices. The culture surrounding growth also encouraged many of our worst human capacities: indifference, cruelty, denial, cynicism, a narrow materialism and short-term thinking in an effort to compete with others.

Even if it were desirable to get back to that kind of growth, it is unlikely that we can, given that we are near the end of cheap oil, have immanent crises over water, and face the huge challenges of climate change. The philosophy of enough provides a sane basis for moving into the future.

Enough has an immediate personal value because working out what is enough in one’s life is a way to get some peace of mind and capacity to deal with hectic daily activities. It is a way to be content, not in the sense of tolerating poor quality, but in the sense of knowing what is valuable and what is not, and relishing the good things we have already. It provides security in times of boom and recession.

Enough helps us cope with the world as it is, but it is also good for us morally and ecologically. If we apply enough to our health, finances and personal energy, we automatically restrict the kinds of damage we might be unwittingly doing in the wider world. Practising enough allows us to get what is needed from the world to sustain human flourishing and prosperity, but without taking too much from individuals, or from social and natural systems. It is also about how to give adequately to the world around us. So it is about the relationship between humans and the world. A sense of enough can nourish a culture of adapted human behaviour, which will give at least some of the earth’s ecosystems a chance for renewal and at the same time foster social justice.

Enough is about creating many different channels for human growth and expansion. A culture of enough would judge human progress in diverse ways and not just in the quantitative, measurable sense of increasing GDP. Such a culture would always attempt to balance the considerable scientific and scientific achievements we humans have made, with an increase in our moral, ecological, spiritual and emotional development. Humane and ecologically sound cultures would be a mark of progress and human advancement.

Enough has important reflective and qualitative aspects. It also underpins some very practical proposals for a transition to a more ecologically sound and stable world, which include contraction and convergence, a citizen’s income and official policies for intelligent agriculture.

Contraction and convergence for climate security

Given the imperative that exists to reduce overall global carbon emissions, the crucial question is how to draw everybody and every country into the process. The answer lies in equity, which is the foundation of a framework called contraction and convergence. Contraction is the reduction part of the framework; convergence is the process part.

Contraction is about reducing the carbon dioxide emissions that play a major role in global warming. (Reforming agriculture would mitigate dangerous methane emissions.) Convergence depends on the notion that all countries should participate in reducing carbon emissions, and that every person in the world has equal entitlements to the atmosphere (part of the global commons) and is thus entitled to ‘dump’ a certain amount of carbon in it. Under a convergence policy, our entitlements would come in the form of a fair quota for each citizen of the globe. Each person can use their quota in total, or trade it in a legitimate worldwide carbon market, without the involvement of a ‘middle man’. Trading in excess carbon quotas by individuals would also provide a type of citizens’ income to offset higher energy costs. The Cap and Share campaign is an excellent first step for developing carbon quotas and individual trading.

This framework regulates at the broad parameters, but allows creativity and innovation within the limits set down. It allows everybody to decide for themselves how they will use their quota, which is an exciting alternative to the idea that government will examine minute aspects of our lives to see how we emit carbon. It also contains enticements for every individual and country to participate: on the one hand, carbon-thrifty individuals and countries can make some money from trading their excess quotas; on the other hand, it allows those who want to continue to emit carbon to buy the surplus quotas they need. It thus deals with the objections of third-world countries to paying for the sins of the rich, who are largely responsible for creating a dangerous level of emissions.

A quota system is eminently fair. Quotas are simpler than taxation and they have the moral and political edge because they establish the same broad rules for everybody and for every country, in a radical blend of regulation and freedom.

Citizen’s income for financial security

Basic financial security for everybody in the form of a citizens’ income can contribute to general security and a global retreat from growth, while also encouraging local development. A citizen’s income means that individuals are no longer dependent on jobs for their basic income. If everyone has sufficient for basic needs, simply by virtue of being a citizen, then losing a job is not a disaster. Citizens also have meaningful choices about the kinds of paid and unpaid work they do.

A citizens’ income also provides a way out of the ‘poverty trap’, which is a major problem with the current welfare system. It can benefit employers, because it replaces the minimum wage, which can make businesses difficult to sustain. A minimum wage can also have the effect of forcing growth, no matter what the ecological and moral consequences.

One source of finance for a citizen’s income is taxation. But there are more exciting possibilities, such as the sharing of dividends from earth resources (such as the carbon quotas mentioned earlier). In Alaska, for example, all residents receive a dividend from the state’s oil resources.  In Norway, much of the income from oil reserves goes into the state pension fund, ensuring that all citizens have a decent pension.

Intelligent agriculture for food security

Food security cannot be taken for granted anywhere in the world at this time. Industrialised global agriculture flouts ecological principles and is unsustainable. Agriculture needs to operate on intelligent principles, namely that food production and food consumption should take place as close together as possible. Intelligent farming systems are capable of producing sufficient high-quality food in each bio-region. Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) presents an opportunity for the EU to support such intelligent agriculture, which could revitalise rural communities and reward urban and suburban dwellers for participating in local food production, even on a very small scale.

Such reform of CAP is unlikely in the near future. However, intelligent agriculture can be promoted by groups of farmers, gardeners, growers, scientists and consumers organising worldwide in a new alliance for food security. Indeed, such a worldwide food movement is the thing that most individuals can immediately get involved in.

Government and citizenship

The function of government, in the philosophy of enough, is to regulate for security at the broad parameters, and to allow unlimited creativity and diversity within those parameters.  In a time when the state is not providing structures and policies that foster virtuous action, citizens stand in the gap between what is and what might be. All citizens have the capacity to be leaders while we stand in that gap. The great middle ground is important in bringing about cultural change. Ordinary people, acting together in initiatives for local food, transport and energy, can educate elected leaders and lawmakers.

As individuals, we need to develop the resources and capacities for enough that exist within all of us. An appreciation of enough can help us to get away from our obsession with getting back to ‘business as usual’. Imagination is crucial in this project. Enough facilitates a consideration of what true advancement would look like for the human race. The philosophy supports hope and possibility, rather than cynicism, denial or despair. It can help us to survive in a difficult present world; it can help us to critique and resist what is wrong, and it can help us create new social forms and exciting personal ways to live.

Read more detail at www.enoughisplenty.net.

Anne B. Ryan teaches in NUI, Maynooth and the author of a newly published book Enough is Plenty (0 Books 2009). She has been researching and writing about the philosophy of enough for many years and regularly conducts workshops and seminars on sustainable living, positive futures and balanced living. All profits from Enough is Plenty are being donated to Feasta, the Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability. www.feasta.org

Discussion

We welcome and encourage lively discussion from the public about articles on Irish Left Review. You can leave a comment using the form at the bottom of the page. Please read through the existing comments before posting your own.

  1. Comment by: Pope Epopt

    Feb 4th 2010 at 12:02

    Mary - that’s a fine description of how I would like to be able to live. A consensually limited egalitarian and sustainable material life combined with a rich social and cultural life would suit me just fine. And I don’t think that would necessarily mean giving up the enriching parts of technology like the one that hosts this forum.

    I also applaud the good Germanic ‘enough’ (genug) as a summing up of the principle, as opposed to abstractions like ’sustainability’.

    However, the next obvious question (and it’s the one missing from most green critique) is: can we and how do we get there?

    I see no evidence over the past 50 years that either reform and regulation or revolutionary vanguardism will get us there before social collapse from a combination of capitalist and resource crises.

    History can be read as teaching us that those who have more than enough don’t ever give it up without a fight. It also teaches us that they are quite happy to make small concessions to reformers to ensure that they retain control of excess.

    The ‘achieving’ of a bit of green tokenism by our Greens in government in exchange of a massive transfer of resources to those with more than enough through NAMA and the bank guarantee is a case in point.

    Please excuse my lack of faith and convince me I am wrong.

  2. Comment by: A Meyer

    Feb 4th 2010 at 13:02

    To Pope Epopt

    When you say: -

    “I see no evidence over the past 50 years that either reform and regulation or revolutionary vanguardism will get us there before social collapse from a combination of capitalist and resource crises”

    its hard to disagree with you. However, the resource-crisis we face now is new and without precedent.

    Whatever else it embraces, as globgal climate-change shows, it is: -

    [a] truly global;

    [b] in the atmosphere where restricted rights of access with ‘ghg emissions’ have no obvious ‘natural’ limiting boundaries [we'll have to 'devise' them]:

    [c] internationally recognized as needing ‘limits’ [i.e. the UNFCCC and its objective]:

    [d] internationally recognized as, “inevtiably requiring contraction and convergence” [UNFCCC executive statement COP-9 Milan 2004 and see end of document at link below].

    So with or without the ‘precedent’, bully for Mary for stepping up and making the case for it so well.

    Somebody’s got to.

    We might be a little nearer than you think: -
    http://www.tangentfilms.com/GCIEAC10nov09.pdf

  3. Comment by: dara

    Feb 4th 2010 at 14:02

    “However, the next obvious question (and it’s the one missing from most green critique) is: can we and how do we get there? ”

    This is the million-dollar question at the moment. While there are environmental organisations and initiatives across the country, but they don’t seem to have much power to pursue an agenda of social change. As leftists, our advantage is that we have a pretty good understanding of what is needed for social change, i.e., the organisation of the working class.

    However, the environmental necessities seem to be unfortunately separate from both the left and any bases of class power. My feeling is that leftists need to bring environmentalism into places where we can fight for short & medium-term victories. I think community organisation is probably the most viable place for this, but I’m interested in others’ opinions.

  4. Comment by: Pope Epopt

    Feb 5th 2010 at 00:02

    Anne Ryan - apologies - you’re not a Mary. I don’t know how I got that into my head.

    @dara

    Yes, Green politics (with the exception of ecosocialists) almost universally chooses to ignore the perspective of class antagonism, power and the logic of capital accumulation.

    But equally many leftists choose to ignore the vital message contained in Anne’s article.

    That is, that we have to abandon or, at least, radically re-vision the productivist values implicit in many Marxisms, Leninism and social democracy. We have learned (quite recently for sure, although there were presentiments going back centuries or indeed millenia) that any form of society has extrinsic material limits, and these are now rapidly closing in on us.

    The left must stop seeing ‘environmentalism’ as a nice-to-have but essentially middle class pre-occupation and think through the consequences of resource limitation and eco-system destruction should have for goals and indeed tactics of the left.

  5. Comment by: donagh

    Feb 5th 2010 at 00:02

    On that last point Pope, I think this article from two years ago by Damian O’Broin is still very relevant.

    http://www.irishleftreview.org/2008/06/11/left-climate-change-green-red/

  6. Comment by: A Meyer

    Feb 5th 2010 at 06:02

    To *Anne*

    My apologies too for following the wrong lead and wrongly calling you ‘Mary’.

    So correction to: -

    “So with or without the ‘precedent’, bully for *Anne* for stepping up and making the case for C&C so well.”

    Aubrey

Leave a Comment

(required)

(required, will not be published)

Best of the Web

  • Newspaper Circulation Figures

    CIRCULATION FIGURES:
    Jan - June 2010

    Irish Independent 144896
    Irish Examiner 46687
    The Irish Times 105742
    Irish Daily Star 93729
    Irish Daily Mirror 60460
    The Irish Sun 86064
    Irish Daily Mail 51338
    Weekend Herald 40933

    No comments »
  • EAPN Ireland | Workfare Won’t Work for the Unemployed

    Excellent blog post from Aiden Lloyd, on EAPN’s On the Line blog. This pretty much nails the governments ‘thinking’ behind the workfare scheme. It wants to be seen to be doing something, while doing absolutely nothing. The economic structure of the country is based on attracting foreign capital, aka laundering profits, which only really benefits a small minority. Everything else is supposed to ‘trickle down’ from this. They’re not interested in restructuring the economy to boost indiginous growth.

    Minister O’Cuiv aims to use these schemes to provide unemployed people with short-term work activity, to up-skill them and ‘get them back into the mainstream workforce as speedily as possible’. He further contends that ‘maintaining people’s employability through regular work activity will be important for getting people back into the competitive economy’. This stance is revealing and is indicative of government thinking in terms of job creation for unemployed people. It would appear that the decision has already been made that any recovery will be dependent on a general improvement in the global economy and that the immediate priority is to manage matters until this recovery comes about.

    No comments »
  • Hugh Green | Anglo Grinder

    Hugh Green, on foot of the largest profit loss in Irish history - the 8.2 bn lost by Anglo Irish Bank in six months - has started to look at the figures and its eye watering.

    Grants to Enterprise was ticking over nicely all the way through the boom, making up 5-7% of capital expenditure. Then bam! 2009 we’re up to nearly 25% of capital expenditure. Only problem is that in 2009, it’s mostly down to Anglo Irish Bank.

    And

    But seeing as we’re heading into the propaganda season leading up to the budget, talking about the ‘savings’ that will have to be made, what with the ‘fiscal austerity’ being demanded by the ‘markets’, in the form of cuts to welfare, education and health, consider austerity in relation to spending on Anglo Irish Bank.

    See chart for details.

    No comments »
  • Slavefare: government proposal is a sham

    This comment from an anonymous punter on progressive economy sums up many of my thoughts on the matter
    "The thing that annoys me most about this is that it's not a real proposal. The Department can't provide any detailed proposals because there aren't any!

    The Minister appears to have thrown a (bad) idea out there to convey the impression that something's being done to tackle our unemployment problem when the reality couldn't be further from the truth.
    He's accused unemployed people of widespread fraud, without offering them any hope of getting a real job.

    We've seen the biggest recorded job losses in the history of the state, and Minister O'Cuiv thinks the numbers are high because people are refusing jobs, or working and claiming - what jobs does he think are out there? Employers are complaining because they're inundated with applications for any job advertised, not because no-one's applying!

    No comments »
  • Social Europe Needs a New Economic Model | John Palmer at Social Europe Journal

    There is however, a deep issue at stake if defence of decent European social standards is to be placed at the heart of policy making and not to become an increasingly powerless lobby at the margins of the debate. For that to happen the European Union must surely break with an almost exclusive emphasis on GDP as the be all and end all of economic policy objectives. The time has come to replace GDP with a far wider, more socially and environmentally responsible measure of economic progress.

    No comments »
  • Michael Burke’s common on Michael Taft’s post on progressive-economy@tasc re Service exports

    In the late boom year of 2005 the Gross Value Added (GVA) of the building and construction sector was €12.9bn and industry ex bulding was €33.6bn (2009 National incomes and Accounts, Table 4). By contrast the GVA of 'Other services', which includes financial services was €67.6bn.

    If we turn to the separate Input-Output tables, the 3 categories of financial services (finance, insurance and related) comprised €32bn.

    These are very large numbers and they are based on a fiction.

    The CSO link provided by Michael Taft shows Ireland has a trade deficit in services with the US of some €17.4bn, whereas services trade with the Europe and the rest of the world is in surplus.

    1 comment »
  • New Left Project | NLP Blog

    Good post on the BBC's official response to criticism of their Panorama documentary on the Gaza flotilla
    The BBC has, predictably, “dismiss[ed]” claims that a recent Panorama documentary on the Gaza flotilla was biased towards Israel. But its response itself illustrates the crux of the problem:

    “Israel has been accused of breaking international law by seizing a Turkish ship. Israel says they were terrorists. Turkey insists they were innocent victims.”

    That same opposition was proposed throughout the documentary on the flotilla: were the activists terrorists, or were they innocent peace activists?

    No comments »
  • Companies Dodge $60 Billion in Taxes Even Tea Party Condemns - BusinessWeek

    The Double Irish’

    On advice from Ernst & Young, Forest Laboratories Ireland reorganized that year, dropping the country from its name. The newly dubbed Forest Laboratories Holdings Ltd. established a registered office in Hamilton, Bermuda, declaring the island its tax residence. This unit took control of licensing the patents.

    A second subsidiary in Ireland inherited the old name. It handled the manufacturing, sublicensing the rights to the patents, according to a corporate disclosure and an internal Forest flow chart tracing the arrangement that was reviewed by Bloomberg.

    The change helped the Irish subsidiary cut its effective tax rate to 2.4 percent from 10.3 percent the year before the reorganization, according to its annual reports. It did so by deducting from its taxable income the fees that went to Bermuda, which has no corporate income tax. Charlie Perkins, a spokesman for Ernst & Young, one of the so-called Big Four, declined to comment on its work for Forest.

    No comments »
  • Ireland: A recession of the banks, by the banks, and for the banks | afoe | A Fistful of Euros | European Opinion

    And yet it’s not clear that the worst is over. The banks haven’t yet made a big move on distressed home mortgages and no one is clear what will happen when forebearance is no longer a viable strategy. Notwithstanding the government’s attempts to compare tax revenue to “profile” (i.e. a very recent projection), the fact is that tax revenue is stagnant at last year’s depression-like levels despite an apparent recovery in economic statistics. And while there are those desperate hotels, the tourists will still find fussy and expensive restaurants (plus VAT).

    Are there any tricks left in the bag? The government is looking at privatization, most likely as a way to realize a large amount of cash at fairly short notice — essentially a portfolio switch of state-owned companies for all the bank liabilities it has taken on. And there are some bizarre Thatcherite echoes in the possible appearance of a poll tax by the end of the year (dressed up as a “flat rate” water charge or property tax)

    No comments »
  • How Much Did Eurozone States Spend On Bailing Out Private Banks? | Irish Public Policy

    As a percentage of GDP the Euro-area average is 25.4%, the EU 27 is 31.2%. This is about 1,870 billion for the entire Eurozone. Nothing compared to what has been allocated to the Greek government. But, get this, Ireland spent a whopping 231.8% of its GDP, massively above any other country. Most of this is accounted for by the blanket guarantee of bank liabilities.

    No comments »

Link Archives »