De-Growth Transitional Future Visions, Part 3
Unintentional de-growth, the consequences of authoritarian directives
Recap
The two previous posts addressed transitional future visions. Part 1 covered post-capitalism, eco-socialism, and sustainable simplicity, and Part 2 the unintentional de-growth impacts of the Covid-19 epidemic. Earlier topics explore the differences between intentional and unintentional de-growth consequences based on motivations, practices, and outcomes.
Here, we focus solely on the likelihood of unintended de-growth impacts generated by directives instigated by the current U.S. administration. In recent weeks, certain administrative actions, notably the proliferation of vacillating tariffs imposed on numerous trading partners, along with the harshly-managed dismantling attacks on governmental agencies and programs, are experiencing a mounting tide of resistance by political leaders, economists, environmentalists, and the general public. Increasingly, more Americans are voicing support for pushbacks rather than continuing submission to a chaotic, paralyzing barrage of textbook authoritarian-styled decrees.
Unintentional De-Growth as Related to Sociocultural Concerns
As Americans are experiencing most profoundly, critical sociocultural concerns are generating heated controversy, further exacerbating political polarization between conservatives and progressives. In the interest of brevity, here are some of the most egregious examples:
Social equality and equity – Harsh restrictions placed on DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs, particularly regarding transgender rights, and the freedom of women to birth children or, for health reasons, to have abortions.
Immigration and deportation – Trump’s second administration has accelerated ramping up controls of border crossings, including border-wall construction, along with deportations of illegal immigrants identified as criminals, including some family separations.
Education and academic freedom – Orders to delete all references of “improper content” (topics of race, gender, and U.S. history) in the curricula of public schools, colleges, and universities. Additionally, conservative state governments have passed laws supporting charter schools at the expense of public schools, along with book bans and gag-law restrictions regarding what teachers can say or write about race, sexuality, and history.
Science and reality (truth) – Seemingly random firings of federally funded agencies and institutions where scientific research, discoveries, and developments have provisioned society with essential material needs and services; notably, the climate science needed for accurate weather forecasting and making long-range plans for creating a sustainable existence.
Medical care – The administration’s attacks on science have a major negative impact on the medical research required for improving health and wellness through prevention and expertise in identifying and treating diseases. Citizens are increasingly more alarmed regarding future health care, especially the security of Medicare and Medicaid. Concerns include rising costs, access to medical experts, necessary treatments, vaccines, and medicines, and essential research aimed at improving the quality and longevity of life.
Although sociocultural concerns may be more difficult to analyze in determining long-term unintentional de-growth outcomes, it seems reasonable to assume that a systemic chain-reaction principle applies with each topic cited. Trickle-down effects may occur anytime there’s a decline in quality-of-life issues. Highly stressed individuals and groups tend to make irresponsible decisions, for themselves and others.
Hence, while the overall negative de-growth outcome is an overall lower quality of life, there are also positive declines associated with energy use and emissions, along with consumptions of natural materials and the resultant wastes.
The Probable Consequences of Current Governmental Actions
We now consider how the erratic proliferation of directives by the current U.S. administration may actually provide unintended de-growth outcomes, driven mostly by reactions to the “tariff war” with many trading-partner nations. In addition, there are de-growth impacts connected with the executive orders supporting DOGE’s dismantling efforts aimed at government agencies, programs, and institutions. Here, we focus solely on the tariff issue.
The effects tariffs share with the Covid pandemic (Part 2) in lowering economic growth are revealing. First, both global phenomena emerged rather quickly, with the 2019 pandemic originating in China a couple of months before slamming into the U.S. Likewise, although Trump had used tariffs in his first term, his deep commitment to using them reemerged with a vengeance at the beginning of his second term. As occurred with the Covid pandemic, the scope, scale, and severity of imposed tariffs also raised dire concerns of potentially severe negative consequences.
Long-term potential outcomes remain debatable, but widespread reporting indicates that a majority of economic and financial experts, corporations, small-business owners, and a majority of U.S. citizens, are united in fearing the probable negative economic effects of high tariffs. Primary apprehension centers on the potential effects tariffs might have in generating inflationary cost-of-living expenses.
Of course, another related issue is a likely decline in long-term cooperative relationships the U.S. has cultivated with reciprocal trading partners, including next-door neighbors Mexico and Canada, along with Post WWII European allies. As expected, Trump’s White House advisors and spokespersons seem to think all will be well – at least in the long term.
Grave concerns over environmental and climate-change issues have existed for years, in connection with policies promoted by both democratic and republican administrations, particularly in relation to oil, coal, and gas expansion. For example, the Alaskan Willow oil-drilling project alone could release hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 over its lifetime. Also, the allowance of auctioned oil-and-gas leases on public lands and support for certain pipeline approvals, like the Mountain Valley project, provide evidence of pro-growth measures that inadvertently promote more carbon emissions which, in turn, raise harmful emissions that drive global warming. So, here we have another example of how supporting pro-growth goals actually leads to unintended de-growth.
Another issue concerns the administration’s enthusiastic promotion of increasing extraction and production of more carbon-based energy and mining for minerals. Moreover, there are disturbing alarms regarding the loss of scientific research and expertise in essential life-supporting disciplines, notably in medicine (epidemiology, diseases), climate-change (NOAA), and environmental systems, including adequate management of national parks, wild areas, and species protection.
The list goes on, and it seems that everything is at stake. What could eventually happen depends on many complex factors related to socioeconomic, political, and environmental issues and actions.
Unintended De-Growth Benefits of Tariffs and Other Pro-Growth Intentions
As discussed above, most of the de-growth outcomes associated with the Covid epidemic also apply with the Trump administration’s support of tariffs and other radically contrived strategies. For instance, although tariffs aren't designed to directly address environmental issues, they indirectly contribute to reducing CO2 emissions, resource consumption, and pollution when implemented to advance pro-growth objectives.
This is particularly the case when tariffs are coupled with environmental policies that encourage domestic production of cleaner technologies and production methods that potentially result in reduced resource consumption and waste materials. At such a point, Jevon’s Paradox – a concept stating that efficiency gains are partially or fully offset by increased consumption – inevitably comes into play.
For example, while AI (artificial intelligence) applications are increasingly producing efficiency gains in terms of speed, scope, and scale, a corresponding reaction occurs with the greatly increasing demands for more energy and water usage. AI Data Centers are huge, heavily equipped, energy-consuming infrastructures, and they are rapidly proliferating, with many well established and others either under construction or being planned.
Unintended General Benefits of Tariffs
In general, there are at least six unintended benefits that imposed tariffs might produce. Based on a long-term goal of creating a sustainable future, the following positive outcomes may align well with ultimate de-growth objectives, by. . .
1. Promoting domestic production of cleaner technologies, especially solar, wind, and geothermal.
2. Reducing carbon leakage, which can occur when tariffs limit the potential for industries to avoid costs associated with environmental protection by relocating to countries with lax environmental regulations.
3. Incentivizing green innovation by creating a market incentive for domestic firms to develop and deploy innovative, environmentally friendly technologies that lead to long-term reductions in emissions and resource use.
4. Protecting ecosystems and biodiversity, with tariffs placed on imported products derived from unsustainable practices (deforestation, overfishing, child labor, etc.).
5. Placing border carbon adjustment (BCA) tariffs on imports from countries with lower environmental standards to ensure a level playing field and encourage global environmental cooperation.
6. Increasing revenue for environmental initiatives to fund environmental protection projects, research and development of clean technologies, and other initiatives aimed at reducing emissions and pollution.
Unintended Specific Benefits of Tariffs
Additional positive effects could result from increasing tariffs on foreign goods, including the reduction of fossil-fuel usage connected to tourism, transportation, and shipping. Additionally, fewer toxic chemicals would enter and pollute ecosystems, possibly producing complex consequences, depending on various factors. Here’s a more specific breakdown of such effects:
1. Reduced fossil-fuel consumption. Tariffs making imported goods more expensive can reduce demands and consumption, resulting in several positive outcomes. A reduced demand for imported goods from abroad should reduce the amount of transportation and shipping, in turn lowering fossil-fuel consumption. (On the other hand, since companies may need to find alternative routes or use more expensive shipping methods, so tariffs could also lead to increased transportation and shipping costs.) The domestic production of goods could reduce reliance on imported goods by reducing their associated transportation and energy needs. Reduction in fossil-fuel consumption could also be achieved by tariffs’ effects on tourism, principally by limiting long-distance travel by air, land, and sea. Also, people may be motivated to travel shorter distances and times, while remaining nearer to their home bases.
2. Improved social and environmental health. A lower demand and sales for imported goods could potentially reduce the amount of polluting chemicals in our atmosphere, water, soil, and in all lifeforms. Similarly, depending on the production methods used, a shift from global trade to local and regional domestic production could lead to restoring damaged bio-ecological systems. Another important benefit relates to the use of toxic chemicals in the production and consumption of goods.
As with most human concepts and actions, there are some potential drawbacks with tariffs. Perhaps the most serious drawback would be triggering economic instability via trade wars. Ample evidence of this concern exists with the back-and-forth threats and matching imports imposed by major U.S. trading partners, notably China, the U.S.’s principal competitor. Americans may well experience the brunt of tariffs’ negative impacts, as the rising cost of imported goods create inflation throughout the economy, and American hegemony, prestige, good-neighbor image, and the dollar faltering and potentially plummeting.
In sum, the effects of tariffs are complex and depend on many factors, including the size, scope, and scale of specific goods targeted and the reactions of other countries. For certain, global national leaders, as well as global citizens, need to seriously consider the potential benefits and drawbacks of any action before implementing any policies. So far, the U.S. administration seems loyally beholden to whatever wishful thinking and dreaming their leader espouses.
Wrap Up
This post turned out longer than anticipated, causing me to rethink the content topics. For instance, I think it’s important to consider long-term ramifications of the current administration’s shenanigans, particular as related to such issues as social justice, equality-equity, democracy, population growth, immigration, freedom of the press, and many other relevant subjects. Perhaps I will eventually muster the motivation and requisite expertise to tackle such issues.
Subsequent posts will cover post-growth predictions and prognostications, including some that actually are at play now and will likely help prepare increasing numbers of people to adopt more modest lifestyles in preparation for what could be a supremely challenging future. The movements under consideration include: Low-Tech, Eco-Community, Post-Industrial, and Nature-Integrated Living, in company with similar movements like Resilient Adaptation, Selective Progress, and Ecological Modernism.
The more surface-seeming pessimistic movements of Doomerism, Post-Doomerism, and Catastrophism may actually be less pessimistic than assumed, instead, perhaps a more realistic expectation. We older folks will likely miss out on experiencing such a future existence, but it does seem likely that children today will face a more challenging future. Hopefully not. Only time – plus our human values, beliefs, and actions – will determine the eventual outcomes.
Stay safe, sane, and well!