European Stars and Stripes (Newspaper) - November 20, 1973, Darmstadt, Hesse                              Poverty. Redistribution of the existing in comes becomes the Only Hope of better ment. Thus income redistribution is a logical consequence of stopping economic growth. One May argue that an evening up of the rewards from economic activity is in order in any event and should not wait for a decision to Stop growth. But the Man with the Good Job and comfortable Home should not talk about an end of growth without realizing that it also Means the end of his style of life. We face an even More dramatic confrontation As we look at the devel Oping countries. Among countries they Are the world s poor. If they keep increasing their popu lations and raising their living standards As they Are trying to do stopping economic growth in the United states would accomplish Little in improving the Environ ment. Such sacrifice would simply be a drop in the bucket. But How can we per Suade the developing countries set on speeding up their growth to reverse gears and Stop growing that confrontation was evident at last year s conference on the environment held by the United nations at Stockholm Sweden. Many of the developing countries took the position that the environmental Issue was simply a new form of Imperial ism and exploitation by the Industrial countries. Spokesmen for the Zero popu lation growth movement and for the environment caved in before the onslaught of representatives of the developing count Ries who declared that whatever the United states might do they would go on multiplying growing and polluting. In the face of All these con sequences of trying to Stop growth it clearly takes an enormous decision to go that Way. We had better be completely sure that the environmentalists Are right before we follow their advice. There Are some very Good reasons for thinking that they vastly exaggerate. Con sequently it would be unwise to take dras tic measures that May turn out not to have been necessary. Equally however it would be unwise to ignore warnings that May turn out to be True. Is there a Way to protect ourselves against resource Short Ages starvation and pollution without going to the extreme of stopping economic growth there is indeed. Obviously we cannot go on As heretofore disregarding pollution and exhaustion of resources. We must do what is necessary to clean up and to pro vide for the future. But Why not turn the resources provided by economic growth to doing those jobs it would mean diverting some of our growing output from its principal use which is to raise consumption. But we would then have a clean environment assured supplies for the future liable cities and most of what the environmentalists fear growth will destroy. This will of course Cost a lot of Money. But if growth continues that Money will be available. Calculations for moderately clean air and water put the Price tag by 1980 at an annual $40 billion. If we wanted them very clean the Cost might be More than twice As much. But consider the gains growth would have brought by 1980. At the Normal growth rate of the american Economy Gross National product will have advanced in con Stant prices from about $1,150 billion in 1972 to Over $1,600 billion in 1980. The gain of about $450 billion will be More than sufficient to meet the Cost of keeping air and water clean with plenty to spare to take care of our growing population and of the Normal demands of people for More ? consider the consequences if we were to slow Down economic growth drastically or even bring it to a halt. There would still be More Mouths to feed and people demand ing  there would still be some air and water pollution to be cleaned up Al though not As urgently As if growth were to continue. But there would be Little or no additional Money. What priorities then Are Likely to develop would we take resources away from consumption in order to devote them to the clean up or Are we More Likely to ignore the clean up Job in order to meet the import unities of the consumer in my judgment the environment would run a poor second to consumer demands. In either Case obviously there would be a bit Ter political struggle fraught with great risks. We can avoid this by continuing to grow keeping the environment in better shape than we have done. Someday the time might come when we no longer could do this. The Cost of cleaning up and the Cost of digging and drilling Ever deeper for Ever scarcer minerals and Oil might exceed the gains from growth. That would indeed be the time to Stop. The political difficulties of read lusting society to such a condition Are enormous. But at least we would have gained time to make these and j ust ments. Meanwhile we would have reached a Standard of living at which such changes could be made More easily than is pos sible today. Cot3, regents of the University of California cd / a o a co h m 73cn o m co