re: global effective demand

two interesting problems re: global effective demand and its growth
(a) Hutchinson raises the problem of sustainability and favours a red+green
strategy
(b) Beatty raises the problem of political feasibility: "How is a political
coalition in favor of lowering aggregate consumption in the developed
countries to be constructed?"

I agree with the notion of a red+green strategy for the globe. One may even
call it "red+green accumulation", instead of "grey accumulation". Beyond
this generality, the devil is in the details. As a comment on Hutchinson's
and Beatty's points, which I find both equally important, this:

One could think about "aggregate demand" and "technological innovation" in
an unconventional way. Each of the two concepts could be split into a "grey"
and a "green" component. Thus you have:

aggregate demand = grey demand + green demand
technological advances = grey advances + green advances

At the present time, we have, say, 80% grey demand (non-sustainable) + 20%
green demand (sustainable); correspondingly, we have, say, 80% grey
technology (non-sustainable) and 20% green technology (sustainable). (the
figures are probably totally wrong, but just for the sake of argument).
"Green demand" includes health, education and social services demand. And
"green technology" includes technological support for those services, as
well as the internet+computers as tools of work, a fishfarm of a wsn member,
windmills, etc. Given these distinctions, it is quite imaginable that demand
and technological output (and world income) could increase without being
unsustainable -- namely, if the mix of grey and green is drastically shifted
in the green direction -- say, to 80% green and 20% grey. Seen this way,
"green" could even be a driving force of (money-valued) "(red+green)
growth", or "(red+green) accumulation", or whatever you call it. Political
feasibility would be less of a problem in this scenario, too. $10,000 worth
of computer hardware and software is relatively "green", compared with
$10,000 worth of automobile. $10,000 worth of solar collectors in the Sahara
desert is relatively "green", compared with $10,000 worth of gasoline.
$10,000 worth of hydrogen-powered busses is relatively "green", compared
worth $10,000 worth of gasoline-powered automobiles, and so on. By switching
from the green to the grey variety, the Canadian consumer would not suffer a
drop in (money-valued) consumption; and farmers in the Sudan don't care
wether they get irrigation using solar-powered electrical pumps or
gasoline-powered pumps, as long as they get them. What do you think?

Gert Kohler
Oakville, Canada