US Dept. of Agriculture

Reading: 'Energy, finance and the end of growth.'

A prescient 2013 analysis predicts Trump's rise—and explains why his promises of endless growth can't happen.

I've been thinking a lot recently about how economics and environmental issues are so intertwined.


And I've been thinking particularly hard about the conflict between our desire for boundless economic growth and the realities of our planet's finite resources.

I've also—like many of us—been struggling to understand Trump.

I recently found this 2013 paper by Tim Morgan, the former global head of research at Tullett Prebon, a firm offering investment advice and risk mitigation to commercial and investment banks.

This is the last report he wrote for the research shop. It is fabulous. I particularly like the way Morgan integrates concerns about globalization as contributing to the collapse to world economies and our larger social order. It's uncanny how he anticipates, way back in 2013, Trump's rise.

And it's great to have this analysis from a deeply qualified source widely separated from hippy preppers (if you want more, Morgan's blog, Surplus Energy Economics, is worth following).

One relevant excerpt from the paper:

The compounding mistake, where the Western countries were concerned, was a wide-eyed belief that 'globalization' would make everyone richer, when the reality was that the out-sourcing of production to emerging economies was a self-inflicted disaster with few parallels in economic history.

One would have to look back to a Spanish empire awash with bullion from the New World to find a combination of economic idiocy and minority self-interest equal to the folly of globalization.

The big problem with globalization was that Western countries reduced their production without making corresponding reductions in their consumption. Corporations' outsourcing of production to emerging economies boosted their earnings (and, consequently, the incomes of the minority at the very top) whilst hollowing out their domestic economies through the export of skilled jobs.

Fundamentally, what had happened here was that skilled, well-paid jobs had been exported, consumption had increased, and ever-greater quantities of debt had been used to fill the gap.

This was, by any definition, unsustainable.

Talk of Western economies modernizing themselves by moving from production into services contained far more waffle than logic—Western consumers sold each other ever greater numbers of hair-cuts, ever greater quantities of fast food and ever more zero-sum financial services whilst depending more and more on imported goods and, critically, on the debts used to buy them.

Corporate executives prospered, as did the gate-holders of the debt economy, whilst the vast majority saw their real wages decline and their indebtedness spiral. For our purposes, what matters here is that reducing production, increasing consumption and taking on escalating debt to fill the gap was never a remotely sustainable course of action.

What this in turn means is that no return to the pre-2008 world is either possible or desirable.

Drilling pipe stacked in Houston, Texas, courtesy Blake Thornberry/flickr.

Pete Myers is the founder and chief scientist of Environmental Health Sciences, publisher of EHN.org and DailyClimate.org.

EHN welcomes republication of our stories, but we require that publications include the author's name and Environmental Health News at the top of the piece, along with a link back to EHN's version.

For questions or feedback about this piece, contact Brian Bienkowski at bbienkowski@ehn.org.

Print Friendly and PDF
SUBSCRIBE TO EHN'S MUST-READ DAILY NEWSLETTER: ABOVE THE FOLD
Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) in February 2019. (Credit: School of Media and Public Affairs at GWU)
Originals

Peter Dykstra: Happy birthday, Senator Inhofe!

On November 17, 1934, Blanche and Perry Inhofe of Des Moines, Iowa, delivered a lasting gift to climate denial. James Mountain Inhofe (the imposing middle name is actually his Mom's maiden name) came into the world.

Keep reading... Show less
Originals

Clouded in Clarity: A comic on chemicals & controversy

Harmful chemicals are difficult to understand. So, to pair with our investigation, "Exposed" we present EHN's first comic, "Clouded in Clarity," which focuses on BPA and the controversy around an ongoing, massive study on it.

Keep reading... Show less
Originals

Exposed: How willful blindness keeps BPA on shelves and contaminating our bodies

We all are exposed daily to bisphenol-A (BPA) and other bisphenols – estrogen-like substances added to food can liners, paper receipts and plastic containers.

Keep reading... Show less
BPA testing in the lab of Cheryl Rosenfeld, a University of Missouri researcher. (Credit: Cheryl Rosenfeld)
Originals

Exposed: A scientific stalemate leaves our hormones and health at risk

This is part 1 of a 4-part investigation of the science surrounding the chemical BPA and the U.S. regulatory push to discredit independent evidence of harm while favoring pro-industry science despite significant shortcomings.

Keep reading... Show less
Researcher Pat Hunt at her Washington State University lab. (Credit: Lynne Peeples)
Originals

Exposed: On the edge of research honesty

This is part 2 of a 4-part investigation of the science surrounding the chemical BPA and the U.S. regulatory push to discredit independent evidence of harm while favoring pro-industry science despite significant shortcomings.

Keep reading... Show less
Researcher Pat Hunt with lab mice in her Washington State University lab. (Credit: Lynne Peeples)
Originals

Exposed: Deciphering the real message about BPA

This is part 3 of a 4-part investigation of the science surrounding the chemical BPA and the U.S. regulatory push to discredit independent evidence of harm while favoring pro-industry science despite significant shortcomings.

Keep reading... Show less
Valspar cans. (Credit Lynne Peeples)
Originals

Exposed: Toward a BPA-free future

This is part 4 of a 4-part investigation of the science surrounding the chemical BPA and the U.S. regulatory push to discredit independent evidence of harm while favoring pro-industry science despite significant shortcomings.

Keep reading... Show less
From our Newsroom

Above The Fold

Daily & Weekly newsletters all free.