You said in Bilbao that it would be better if Stockholm+40 had been done instead of Rio+20.

That's right. It seems that we want to forget the United Nations Summit held in Stockholm in 1972 with the intention of concealing the regression between that 1972 summit and that which took place in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.

Why the involution?

The Stockholm objectives were freedom, equality and the environment, while in Rio 92 there was only talk of the environment. In Stockholm it was said that the cause of the destruction of the Earth was growth; in Rio the two things were not related, only pollution was mentioned. In Stockholm, it was agreed to protect resources, with the only objective being sustainable development in Rio.

From the present point of view, it is surprising that these things are being discussed in Stockholm.

The context in which the summit was held must be taken into account: In 1971 the Club of Rome published a report on the limits of growth. Development and conservation enthusiasts were competing with each other, and the concept of growth was at stake.

However, the limits of growth were not taken into account in Rio 92. What happened in those two decades?

The 1972 summit took place in the midst of the oil crisis. But then they started to lower oil prices and leave behind the discussion about the limits of growth. And above all, the concept of sustainable development emerged. If there is a contradiction between the advocates of development and conservation – and that was the great contradiction in the 1970s – we create sustainable development and are all satisfied. This concept is a gift for politicians and business owners, but its compensation is to leave without content, because if development means “growth” and has to do with the physical world, by definition it cannot endure. It is enough paper and pencil to make it clear. In Stockholm it was said that the ecological deterioration was precisely a consequence of growth, and in 1992 there was talk of measures to prevent it and preserve the quality of the environment, but without jeopardising growth. Moreover, it seemed that economic growth was necessary to preserve the environment. The original approach was completely upside down.

What you have said is that the dominant economic point of view – the ordinary economic point of view, using your own words – has the function of concealing the ecological problems of the Earth, which are becoming increasingly evident.

Yes, in this sense: the common economic point of view is governed by monetary reductionism. The green economy has maximized its meter to assimilate the elements left out, which everyone calls “the environment.” To do so, it has created two options: one, the “polluter pays” principle; the other, “the conservator charges”. Both are easy to sell, apparently they do not harm anyone. And it's true that they don't do any harm, but prioritizing that monetary reductionism of the economy puts aside other points of view. On the other hand, it must be borne in mind that monetary tools are unfounded if there is no solid knowledge of what needs to be managed.

For example?

Water, for example. We need to know exactly who is polluting, whether the tariffs are set accordingly. But the one who does not pollute and exhausts the resource, doesn't he have to pay anything? And what? A fee in case the damage caused can be repaired? Or a fine in case of damage that is difficult to repair (contamination with heavy metals, for example)? What I mean is that putting this principle into practice requires a very broad knowledge of what is going on. However, the desire to solve concrete problems with such patches shows that we are turning a blind eye to the deep reasons for ecological and social deterioration.

What do you think those reasons are?

Above all, monetary reductionism. In addition, a valuation model that takes into account the cost of extraction of natural resources, but not its restoration, is accepted without discussion. Consequently, everything is joy and optimism. Let's get the oil calmly! “Because renewables are not competitive!” they say. This has led us to destroy the essence of the planet's resources and increase entropy. This type of assessment responds to what Antonio Valero and I have called the “notarial rule”: there is an increasing asymmetry between the monetary value of the processes and the physical and human cost. The higher the physical cost, the higher the job, the lower the monetary value. The union of all these elements gives us a territorial and social division, a north-south gap. Then comes the institutional framework, which guarantees the imbalance of property rights. It seems that these hierarchical institutions (political parties, capitalist companies) will by themselves build a society composed of free and equal individuals. It is an absurd contradiction. These are the basic reasons that have led us to the present situation. Of course, with those rules of the game, you can't get anywhere else.

As you said in Bilbao, the lack of growth has already come, but from the hand of the system.

The word growth comes from monetary reductionism. Growth of what? For the aggregates of national income; the monetary aggregates, in short. Growth has no more meaning than the growth of these aggregates. On the contrary, the alternative approach is multidimensional, and there's no variable you can say growth or growth is good at. The point is that theoretical work of almost a century of the ordinary economy has been needed to make what is called economic growth a good thing, and it has very concrete quantitative references: national accounts. On the other side there is no reductionism with opposite significance. The words growth and decay, in themselves, are nothing more than simple verbs; which subject you take away, then they will be good or bad. I believe that the use of the word “growth” as an anti-growth can be appropriate, for example, as the title of a publication that wants to attract attention, but which does not have a theoretical and conceptual construction in its essence.

You have considered it an inadequate concept.

I said it in an article published in the journal Viento Sur. At the moment, the system is giving us the gift of growth, not only by cutting everything that can be cut in the monetary sphere (social aid, wages…), but also in the physical sphere. By calculating the metabolism of Madrid and the surrounding cities, I have measured that the demand for materials per capita has decreased by 50%. Therefore, to continue to speak blindly of the lack of growth, which we already have here… The lack of growth is already great and the system gives it to us. Therefore, mere lack of growth is not the key; something must be added.

What?

I say that we do not need growth, but reconversion. If not, what are we going to ask for about growth? “Energy consumption,” one will say, “but also renewables?” “no, not renewables.” Some things will have to grow as others diminish. The only thing that can be used as a reference is the increase in the entropy of the planet. Antonio Valero and I have tried to measure the limit of the Earth’s maximum entropy, as industrial civilization leads to this planet. From this point of view, you can say, “Well, the deterioration of the planet will get rid of.” But those moving in those areas have not paid much attention to this work.

Who, the movements for growth?

Yes. It didn't add that theoretical wealth has increased. Lack of growth is an ambiguous slogan, and above all, inadequate. It takes a minimal appeal for people to move, it has to have strength in the field of metaphors, and think that when we are, seeing what the system is giving us, people are going to move because of the growth ... Ah! That's what comes to us every day! The lack of theoretical definition has been linked to the inconvenience of using it at this time. To say what is meant by the word growth, it is better the expression “with less better”, it makes more sense.