The belief that reducing anthropogenic climate change is essential for the survival of sustainable societies is held by a substantial majority of governments and individuals worldwide. Among other terms, the two most frequently proposed solutions are frequently referred to as “degrowth” and “green growth.” Is it possible to reconcile these concepts? What are their respective viewpoints on the climate challenge?
The solution that is most frequently discussed in developed nations is a basic version of green growth, which essentially posits that technology can be the solution if the appropriate incentives are implemented. It is permissible to maintain the notion that human flourishing is predominantly determined by economic development; however, technological solutions are required to address unsustainable industrial practices. These will become a reality if prices begin to suggest a green trajectory, which is primarily focused on carbon taxes.
However, this method of reasoning continues to seem to be in the shadows. In general, the emissions intensity of per capita GDP growth is decreasing, which is partly attributable to the fact that concepts, rather than physical products, are increasingly contributing to added economic value.
Sweden has experienced a 76% increase in its GDP since 1995, despite a mere 2.5% increase in its domestic energy consumption. The implementation of meaningful carbon pricing remains a challenge, as we continue to fall significantly short of the carbon reduction deadlines.
The degrowth satirical: eco-socialism and political suicide
The most fundamental definition of degrowth is the necessity for GDP to decrease in order to guarantee sustainability. We have reached this position as a result of our perpetual expansion, and it will ultimately lead to our demise. It is imperative that we forsake the status quo and pursue a revolutionary course toward ecosocialism. In order to guarantee a more equitable distribution of our resources, it is imperative that wealthy nations discontinue their current course of action and transfer their wealth to impoverished nations.
This line of reasoning is easily recognizable as political suicide and is likely to undermine support for sustainability rather than strengthen it.
Nevertheless, these caricatures are easily disregarded. Despite the fact that the amorphous aggregations of ideas that constitute their rapidly evolving discourse make it difficult to precisely define what each faction represents, many proponents of both green growth and degrowth appear to be well-informed and have many points of agreement.
A planetary boundary violation occurred in the Great Barrier Reef as a consequence of ocean acidification, which resulted in bleached coral at the reef.
The convergence of degrowth and green growth
The excessive environmental impact of modern industry is a primary concern, as it surpasses numerous planetary boundaries through its carbon emissions, acidification of the oceans, incursion of nitrogen and phosphorus, and other related activities.
Additionally, in order to avert ecological collapse, a variety of sectors, such as fast fashion, industrial livestock husbandry, air travel, and plastics, must decrease their economic activity.
In the interim, it is necessary for other sectors to expand. These include biodegradable materials, green steel, pesticide-free agriculture, and purified energy, among other things. The implementation of carbon levies and a more robust industrial policy reminiscent of the Green New Deal will be required as a result of this structural transition.
Additionally, the promotion and intensification of environmental degradation are facilitated by a limited policy emphasis on gross domestic product (GDP). Priorities must be redirected from GDP to frameworks and budgets that assess the efficiency of resource utilization to enhance human well-being, such as those implemented in the Australian Capital Territory, New Zealand, and other regions. The frameworks and budgets are primarily focused on indicators of environmental sustainability, health, education, and inequality.
Life expectancy and literacy levels are comparable in Cuba, which has an eighth of the United States’ GDP per capita.
Additionally, a significant number of these well-being objectives can be achieved with a fraction of the financial resources that are allocated to developed countries. For example, Cuba maintains literacy and life expectancy rates that are comparable to those of the United States, despite having a GDP per capita that is just one-eighth of that of the United States.
Innovative methods for quantifying and improving human welfare
A complementary approach to income measurement is the measurement of comprehensive wealth, which encompasses financial, natural, human, and social assets. Economic activity that replaces a substantial amount of natural capital with a relatively modest amount of financial capital that is concentrated in a few hands is neither sustainable nor wealth-generating.
Lastly, productivity—the extent to which we can achieve more with reduced resources—must be assessed. Economic growth models underscore that sustained prosperity can only be achieved through long-term productivity enhancements. All that is accomplished is a temporary increase in investment, such as that which is frequently associated with extractive industries.
Creative destruction, which is a further advantage of productivity growth, is the process by which innovation eliminates obsolete industries, concepts, and operational methods. At present, creative destruction is impeded by the capacity of vested interests, particularly those in the fossil fuel industry, to exert pressure on governments in order to obstruct the industrial transition that is essential to combat climate change.
Wealth accounts, productivity growth, and quality of life frameworks all present measurement challenges and obstacles; however, they all offer valuable insights. They facilitate the understanding of GDP as a method rather than an objective. The development of the twenty-first century cannot be accurately measured using statistics from the twentieth century.
Proponents of green growth and degrowth agree that it is politically and culturally difficult to persuade individuals to adopt less carbon-intensive behaviors, particularly in developed nations. Consider the recent public outcry in Spain, where the government implemented a law that prohibits the chilling of public and commercial buildings below 27 degrees and the heating of buildings above 19 degrees.
Financial incentives are necessary for the viability of Green New Deals. Greens leader Adam Bandt introduces a Green New Deal measure in Parliament.
The political rationale that underpins Green New Deals is significantly influenced by sweeteners. For example, income generated from carbon taxes may be reimbursed to households as compensation.
In regions where green growth and degrowth diverge
The extent to which our political economy must be transformed to withstand climate change is the most contentious issue between proponents of green growth and degrowth.
The incremental approach of liberal democracy will be sufficient to conclude the green transition on schedule, according to the consensus among proponents of green growth. While acknowledging the significance of green industrial policy, it is apprehensive about excessive government intervention and is confident in the functionality of markets.
Degrowth advocates for a more radical approach that prioritizes equality. It is essential that we understand the concept of “sufficient” in order to enable individuals to lead fulfilling lives and consequently shift resources from those who possess significantly more than they need to those who possess significantly less.
This strategy would encompass the provision of energy-efficient social accommodation and international assistance for ecological development. The climate transition should be regarded by the government as a strategic objective, comparable to overcoming a total conflict. It is imperative that it engages in the regulation of private aircraft and low-emission traffic zones, as well as in society and the economy.
Proponents of degrowth are in a predicament, as the implementation of such an extreme agenda requires a significant change in public values. Nevertheless, the movement’s emphasis on global political economy—including its tendency to direct its efforts toward administrators and quasi-governmental organizations like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—damages cultural transformation by fostering populist discourse regarding the overreach of technology.
Spain serves as an illustration that the citizens have not yet completely internalized the lifestyle adjustments that degrowth considers essential. “Degrowth” and other politically futile slogans that fail to capture the essence of the movement must be discarded in favor of marketing the experience of living green in sustainable societies, which necessitates a significant amount of attention. This approach will significantly more effectively promote sustainable living than advocating for “degrowth.”
