You may not see explicit calls for 'zero growth' in any green party manifesto these days, but I still hear environmental activists celebrating the recession. This post was inspired by my frustration at the quality of the debate at the recent Festival of Politics Debate - 'From Economic Crash to Eco Recovery'. 

I'm a member of the Green party. I want them to get elected more often. But, in my opinion, one of the key issues that prevents the Greens from getting more votes is that apparent 'zero growth,' policy stance.

To many people, calling for Zero Growth sounds immoral. And in many senses it is. After all it is growth in our economy that pays for improvements to our health service, our education system and provides our pensions. Therefore when rich greens call for zero growth, and complain about our sick society that suffers so much from "affluenza," it is no wonder that it looks to poorer folk, who rely on what public services we have, as astonishing hypocrisy.

And then when poorer greens themselves argue for 'zero growth,' at best it can sound to many like a yearning for some romantic agricultural past when we were "poorer but happier". At worst it sounds naively anti-establishment. But the script is the same..

We are apparently more unhappy than ever before, or at least no happier because we have flat panel TVs....And so the standard pitch goes...The neo-malthusian mega crunch is impending any day now - and we're about to be hit by peak oil, peak wood, peak fish, peak water, peak food, and a climate change catastrophe in all places at once, and judgement day on the evil free market capitalists shall surely come. But those with solar panels on the roof shall be saved...to live in a steady state financial system that's a peaceful and ecologically harmonious utopia.

Whoops that last bit is never actually said, but often implied. Surely we need to change the record? Too many greens sound like crazed southern preachers to me. We all know Environmental Armageddon is a tough message to sell at the ballot box, so let's look for solutions, not add to the problem.

Greens have used the battering ram of science and rationality to win the early arguments on climate change. To a lesser extent, at least in Scotland, rational argument has won the day on the nuclear power debate too. Is there much rationality in the call for zero growth - or 'steady state' economics - if you prefer?

I don't see it. Economic growth is not the same as an increase in the use of physical resources - although historically they are closely correlated. To many greens the planet is a 'closed system', and therefore it is self evident there are limits to growth. There are undoubtedly limits to the growth of our use of finite resources, notably oil. But there are many resources in the world - and what we understand as global resource today, could be superseded, or augmented by other unimagined resources tomorrow. Even that closed system of 'renewable resources' is not as fixed as many people imagine.

For example, in many parts of our oceans we've long passed 'peak fish' - as local fisheries have been exploited beyond their 'maximum sustainable yield' (MSY). A short term boom, is followed by a long economic decline, as more and more fishermen scramble about for less and less fish. But in places where research and regulation work well together, fish stocks are showing some signs of recovery. And so, with improved knowledge and regulation the MSY from fisheries could grow. What green could argue against growth in a sustainably managed fishing industry?

The reality is, that for many of our renewable resources, from fish to fresh water, our local knowledge and the quality of our regulation is so poor, that we are miles from 'sustainable management.' Around the world, in many places, we know when we've over exploited our resources, our yields are starting to go down, but we haven't yet got the capability of stopping the decline in yields, let alone figuring out the best way to grow yields sustainably. Surely that is what Greens should be arguing for globally? A simplistic 'zero growth' stance, offers nothing to anyone.

And of course, the prices we pay for our resources are affected by more than just supply and demand. The global 'free' market is heavily regulated, and set up to benefit some and not others. That affects prices. Political instability affects prices. It's unlikely there will ever be a biblical style global environmental judgement day. Instead we'll probably see an increasing number of shocks to our system - these too will affect prices. So perhaps we should be looking again at nature for inspiration.

If Gaia really is self-regulating - how can we make our economic system more self-regulating? What can we learn from the most resilient ecosystems? How can we redesign our economy to make it more resilient, and better able to withstand external shocks? Nothing in nature is in stasis - so why should that be a green party policy aim for our economy?

Instead of zero growth - lets demand resilient growth, genuine sustainable growth, equitable growth and so forth. Significant changes to the way we regulate our economies to make them more sustainable are needed, and these will cause economic, and yes social, pain. We must do this if we are to prevent the greater catastrophe - runaway climate change. But, why then within this, do some Greens pour salt on the wound by demanding zero growth, or worse celebrating global recession, too?

As we've learnt, recessions mean a decline in the amount of cash to pay for pensions, health care, and all the other public services we rely on - and these things make us happy, even if we don't admit it when we're asked in surveys. These things are progress. As our population grows, it is growth in our economy that pays for these things and improves them. 

'More' is not always 'better' - that is obvious. But 'less', or even 'the same' is not always 'better' either. Given that we're going to struggle to support ourselves as it is, we're going to need as much "good growth" as we can get. Let's stop the 'zero growth' chat - and focus on working out what "good" growth actually is, and how we, as greens, might deliver it.