One issue with both of these views, however, is the underlying fundamental assumption that growth is both possible and good. There have been many respected economists (even some of the ones quoted by people supporting either of the views of the Govt or Opposition) who state, within their ecomomic theories, that there are limits to natural resources and therefore that it cannot be assumed that growth can continue forever. Unfettered growth through the captialist processes often leads to over-exploitation of resources, in many cases even well beyond the 'point of no return' (to a sustainable level of resource supported within a balanced ecosystem). Apart from the impact on resource depletion and ecosystems, there is a moral imperative when this happens. When supply-and-demand forces drive prices exponentially high for the remaining stocks of the scarce resources, only the super-rich can afford them and the less well off suffer the most from lack of supply.
The real question that arises, therefore, is how we identify what I might call a "Bounded Efficiency Space" within which resources, products, services and supply chains can be subject to efficient exploitation for growth. Outside this space, resources cannot be exploited for growth, so in order to avoid catastrophic damage to ecosystems, the rules of the game outside the Bounded Efficiency Space must be altered in such a way that growth objectives are replaced with steady-state or 'balanced equilibrium' objectives. The reason I would argue for a Bounded Efficiency Space, instead of a Bounded Equilibrium Space, is so that it would be possible to define that growth can only be pursued for resources specifically listed in the Bounded Efficiency Space, and everything outside the Space is maintained at equilibrium. Defining these matters the other way round would present various risks, eg that dangerous growth was allowed to continue purely because the custodians of the rules were unaware of it happening or of its consequences. The way I have defined the Space above means that growth would only be allowed where data, information and opinions supported the inclusion of a resource in the Space where it can safely be exploited for growth. The Space would need to be kept under review to determine additions to, or removals from, the Space.
So who would maintain the Bounded Efficiency Space (and police it)? It would need international (preferably global) management, and authority to act to ensure compliance - a new or existing body of National Governments from all nations of the World? Answers on a postcard, please ...
I subsequently found an excerpt from a 2006 seminal text by Miriam Kennet (Kennet, M. and Heinemann, V. (2006) ‘Green Economics: setting the scene. Aims, context, and philosophical underpinning of the distinctive new
solutions offered by Green Economics’, Int. J. Green Economics, Vol. 1, Nos. 1/2, pp.68–102)
The following excerpt from that paper links nicely with my concept of a Bounded Efficiency Space:
"Ecological Economics regards the economy as a subsystem of a larger global finite ecosystem (which Boulding (1966) calls Spaceship Earth) and is subject to the laws of thermodynamics, entropy and to the conservation and
dissipation of energy and demonstrated biophysical limits to growth (Constanza, 1991; Martinez-Alier, 1987). Ecological economics does recognise the interdependencies of the economic, social and ecological spheres, with the market being brought in only after equity and sustainability considerations are met, and only as a facilitator of the efficient allocation of resources. "