Is More GDP sustainable?

Fundamentally growing GDP, by the way we measure it, is not sustainable.

If we're consuming too much and the only measure of growth is how much more we consumed this year vs last, then GDP is not a good measure of how we are managing the earth's resources.

Hazel Henderson spoke on the matter far better than I can:

"HAZEL HENDERSON: The GDP became our official report card back in World War II. We used it to measure war production. It still tracks our output of goods and services in money terms.

But that calculation ignores about half of all goods and services in this country that are unpaid or don't generate instant income. That includes everything from owner-built housing, to volunteering, child-rearing, care of the sick and elderly. Without these services, our output would collapse.

The GDP values all paid goods and services. But the value of our human capital, infrastructure like roads and schools, and our environmental resources like land and water, are valued at zero. GDP adds instead of subtracting costs and paid services like cleaning up pollution and other collateral damage from production.

GDP only counts increases in production and average incomes, obscuring how many people became poorer and how many grew richer.

GDP could include broader measures of quality of life. Why not take into account statistics on education, health, public safety, our energy grid, water supplies and the environment? These indicators complete the picture of national trends, real wealth and progress.

All such investments in our infrastructure should be booked on GDP accounts as investments. Instead, they're all "expensed" in one year like money down a rat hole.

Relying on GDP to steer our country is like flying a Boeing 777 with nothing on the cockpit dashboard but an oil pressure gauge, no fuel gauge or altimeter. Crazy.

It's time to broaden GDP so we can steer national policies toward less wasteful, more sustainable resource use, and invest more wisely in our people and our future."