The Degrowth Alternative

A Path to Address our Environmental Crisis?

Diana Stuart, Ryan Gunderson, Brian Petersen

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000226683
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Commerce
• Subtopic: Commerce Général

Degrowth is a planned economic contraction in wealthy countries that reduces production and consumption—and, by extension, greenhouse gas emissions and stresses on global ecosystems—to sustainable levels within ecological limits. This book explores the idea of degrowth as an economic alternative to offer a more sustainable and just future.

A growing number of scientists and scholars now recognize that a system that continues to prioritize economic growth will prevent us from effectively addressing the dual environmental crises of climate change and biodiversity loss. To establish the case for degrowth, the text opens by posing critical questions about our current system and identifying its limitations, as well as discussing the ineffectiveness of "false solutions" that seem to offer something new but would actually preserve the status quo. The concept of degrowth is then fully introduced along with a discussion of core principles and goals as well as major critiques and questions. The book explores what living in a degrowth society would entail and the policies needed to support degrowth. Finally, the work concludes by examining the opportunities and challenges for degrowth and a successful transition to a sustainable steady-state economy.

This book provides an advanced introduction to the environmental issues around degrowth for students, scholars and activists interested in economic alternatives, sustainability and the environment.

1 Addressing our environmental crisis

The words “crisis” and “emergency” are increasingly used by scientists and in the media to describe the state of our environment. For example, in 2019 an article representing the views of 11,000 scientists was published in BioScience, titled “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency” (Ripple et al. 2019). Also, in 2019, the “Call it a Climate Crisis” campaign urged media organizations to use the words “climate crisis” instead of “climate change,” resulting in a widespread increase in the use of the term.

The terms “ecological crisis” and “biodiversity crisis” are also now commonly used by conservation scientists and in the media. For example, a letter representing almost 100 scientists was published in October of 2018 titled: “Facts about our ecological crisis are incontrovertible” (Green et al. 2018). A year later, a “bleak” United Nations report on biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES 2019a) resulted in scientists publicly calling for rapid funding and intervention to address the “biodiversity crisis” (Malcom et al. 2019).

Are we indeed facing multiple environmental crises? General definitions of a “crisis” include a decisive moment or crucial time, a critical phase that determines all future events, a condition of danger or precarity, threats to primary goals, being affected by serious problems, extreme trouble, and a time of great difficulty. In addition, according to Venette (2003: 43), a “crisis is a process of transformation where the old system can no longer be maintained.” Evidence suggests that, in terms of all of these different meanings, we are in a state of environmental crisis, which includes the dual crises of climate change and biodiversity loss. We briefly present some of the most recent and compelling scientific evidence demonstrating the reality and severity of these crises below.

Our presentation of the evidence of these crises is brief, as the overall objective of this book is to examine how we can best address them. We present some of the most authoritative and boldest statements from scientists about the possible and likely impacts if we stay on our current course. Then we quickly shift to focus on solutions. For reasons we will describe, we are skeptical of popularly proposed solutions to tackle these crises and instead seek out more far-reaching and transformative alternatives. We focus on a key lever in our system that drives the speed and direction of our material and energy flows, economic growth, and examine degrowth as an alternative to move us towards a better and more sustainable future.

Evidence of our climate and biodiversity crises

Mounting evidence indicates that we are in a climate crisis. With only a little more than 1°C increase in average global temperatures since preindustrial levels, we are already seeing serious impacts including unprecedented fires, floods, and hurricanes; and much more severe impacts are projected as warming continues. Steffen et al. (2018) explain the real possibility of reaching a critical threshold of warming or a global tipping point after which additional warming would be uncontrollable, resulting in a “Hothouse Earth” scenario. In Nature, Lenton et al. (2019: 595) state that climate change “is an existential threat to civilization,” explaining that “the evidence from tipping points alone suggests that we are in a state of planetary emergency: both the risk and urgency of the situation are acute.”

Climate impacts are already unfolding and the crisis will amplify with increasing climate-related disasters, melting ice, and rising sea levels. The 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report Global Warming of 1.5°C contains much bolder language than previous reports to stress the significant difference in impacts between a 1.5°C and a 2°C increase in average global temperatures and the need for immediate, unprecedented, and far-reaching action. In addition, a 2019 report in the Lancet details how climate change is already impacting human health globally and warns of devastating health impacts as warming continues (Watts et al. 2019). Lastly, Ripple et al. (2019: 1), representing the Alliance of World Scientists, identify “disturbing” and “worrisome” vital signs of climate impacts that they state “clearly and unequivocally” illustrates we are in a “climate emergency.”

Although the climate crisis contributes to biodiversity loss (Thomas et al. 2004), it is considered a separate, yet related, crisis. Conservation biologists pointed out years ago that we are in the midst of the sixth global mass extinction event, driven by humans (Barnosky et al. 2011), also referred to as the “extinction tsunami” (Lovejoy 2017) or “biological annihilation” (Ceballos et al. 2017). Recent indicators of a biodiversity crisis include half of all vertebrate populations in decline (Ceballos et al. 2017), a global extinction rate of approximately 200 species each day (Green et al. 2018), the loss of 29% of birds in North America since 1970 (Rosenberg et al. 2019), and 1 million species (25%) facing extinction globally (IPBES 2019a). A comprehensive report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES 2019a) concludes that humans are driving global changes in plant and animal life that are unprecedented in history.

The biodiversity crisis will increasingly impact human societies. While many people overlook human dependency on other species, scientists continue to argue that at current rates we will alter the natural world in ways that threaten not only human well-being but also human existence (Ceballos et al. 2015). The concept of ecosystem services has been used for decades to emphasize the ways that humans benefit from and depend on ecosystems (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005) and projections of global change reveal the potential severity of social impacts from biodiversity loss. The IPBES media release (2019b) states that species loss has accelerated to rates that “constitutes a direct threat to human well-being in all regions of the world.” The United Nations biodiversity chief warns of ecological thresholds and tipping points that could result in a cascade of extinctions, collapse, and social impacts (Conley 2019).

If a crisis is a decisive moment, crucial time, or a critical phase that determines future events, then, according to scientists, we are in a state of environmental crisis. If a crisis is a condition of danger or precarity that poses serious problems, extreme trouble, and great difficulty, then the science again indicates we are in a climate and ecological crisis. In addition to scientists, an increasing number of other people now recognize these serious threats. For example, United States (US) public opinion polls reveal that more than a quarter of Americans consider climate change a “crisis” with a further 36% defining it as a “serious problem” (CBS News 2019). In addition, 60% of Americans polled think government should do something to address global warming and 70% believe environmental protection is more important than economic growth (Marlon et al. 2019). In the United Kingdom (UK), 85% of citizens are concerned about climate change, 52% are very concerned, and 55% think the UK should bring emissions to net zero before 2050 targets (Dickman and Skinner 2019).

If we define a crisis as “a process of transformation where the old system can no longer be maintained” (Venette 2003: 43), we also see mounting evidence that we are in a state of crisis. According to scientists, the status quo can no longer be maintained and instead “rapid and far-reaching changes are needed in all aspects of society” (IPCC 2018). Lenton et al. (2019: 595) explain that “[n]o amount of economic cost–benefit analysis is going to help us. We need to change our approach to the climate problem.” Ripple et al. (2019: 3, 4) and the Alliance of World Scientist state that to “secure a sustainable future, we must change how we live” and “[t]he good news is that such transformative change, with social and economic justice for all, promises far greater human well-being than does business as usual.” If we are indeed in a state of crisis, where the old system must be replaced, what kind of new system do we need? What changes are necessary to minimize ecological and social impacts?

What kind of change is needed?

There is a vast amount of scientific evidence supporting the reality and seriousness of both the climate and biodiversity crises. We presented only a small portion of this evidence and every week more is produced by scientists across the globe. Instead of going any further into the science supporting the realities of these crises, this book focuses on what changes are needed to address them. In other words, if we accept that we are indeed facing an unprecedented environmental crisis, how can society respond in ways that are effective and just?

There are many proposed solutions to address our environmental crisis. As we will discuss in Chapter 2, popularly discussed solutions include individual behavior changes, market-based schemes, technological innovations and efficiency gains, renewable energy creation,¹ and geoengineering. But will these be enough? Do they represent the “far-reaching” changes in all aspects of society called for by scientists? Do they represent the “transformative change” that scientists call for? In Chapter 2, we present evidence demonstrating the inadequacy of popular proposed solutions. We also illustrate exactly why these proposed solutions will not be sufficient—because they are not transformative or far-reaching and, most critically, they fail to address the root driver of these problematic environmental conditions.

Many scientists now agree that a system prioritizing economic growth is a root driver of both the climate and biodiversity crises. Green et al. (2018: 1), representing nearly 100 scientists, argue that governments have betrayed us “in failing to acknowledge that infinite economic growth on a planet with finite resources is non-viable.” Steffen et al. (2018: 5–6) state that “[t]he present dominant socioeconomic system, however, is based on high-carbon economic growth and exploitative resource use” and we need “changes in behavior, technology and innovation, governance, and values.” The IPBES summary report (2019a: 10) similarly explains:

A key component of sustainable pathways is the evolution of global financial and economic systems to build a global sustainable economy, steering away from the current, limited paradigm of economic growth… It would also entail a shift beyond standard economic indicators such as gross domestic product to include those able to capture more holistic, long-term views of economics and quality of life.

Lastly, Ripple et al. (2019: 4) state that:

Excessive extraction of materials and overexploitation of ecosystems, driven by economic growth, must be quickly curtailed to maintain long-term sustainability of the biosphere … Our goals need to shift from GDP growth and the pursuit of affluence toward sustaining ecosystems and improving human well-being by prioritizing basic needs and reducing inequality.

Why are these scientists focusing so much on GDP? GDP stands for Gross Domestic Product and represents the market value of all goods and services produced in a specific time period. GDP was created as an indicator during World War II, aimed to assess productive capabilities for the war effort. Increasing GDP annually was then widely adopted as a global economic goal, with average yearly increases in the US of around 3%. That means every year more and more goods are produced and services offered.

However, producing an ever-increasing amount of goods and services each year continues to require an increasing amount of materials and energy. It therefore makes sense that a GDP growth of 1% equals a 0.6% growth in material use (Wiedmann et al. 2015) and a 1% increase in GDP equals a 0.5–0.7% increase in carbon emissions (Burke et al. 2015). It also makes sense that the most notable carbon emissions reductions have occurred during economic recession due to a reduction in production and consumption (Feng et al. 2015). Based on their analyses of carbon budgets, Anderson and Bows (2011) find that overall reductions in economic growth are necessary to effectively address climate change.

In terms of biodiversity loss, the production of goods drives higher rates of extraction and use of resources impacting land use, habitat, hunting/harvesting, pollution, invasive species, and climate change—all major drivers of extinction (Ceballos et al. 2017; IPBES 2019a; Otero et al. 2020). The production of beef, soybeans, and biofuels (Rudell et al. 2009) drives deforestation in the tropics, the leading cause of terrestrial extinction (Sodhi et al. 2009). In addition, globalized trade has resulted in the proliferation of invasive species (Mooney and Hobbs 2000; Otero et al. 2020). Czech et al. (2012) and Sol’s (2019) analyses reveal a strong positive association between GDP growth and species endangerment. In a 2020 review, Otero et al. illustrate how economic growth increases resource use, trade, land use change, climate change, and invasive species—all contributing to biodiversity loss. As the United Nations biodiversity chief Paşca Palmer explains, this means that to address the biodiversity crisis, “[w]e need a transformation in the way we consume and produce” (Conley 2019). Scientists increasingly agree that to address climate change and biodiversity loss we need to rethink and even recreate our economic system.

Questioning economic growth

The science illustrates that it is not GDP growth that results in increased carbon emissions and species extinction, but the increase in material and energy use associated with economic growth. Thus, many people have turned to the idea of decoupling to address this problematic relationship. Decoupling, in absolute terms, would mean creating a production system where economic growth could increase without increasing environmental impacts. Yet, as we will detail in Chapter 3, absolute decoupling remains elusive in terms of resource use and much too slow in terms of reducing carbon emissions (Hickel and Kallis 2019; Schor and Jorgenson 2019). Those who continue to defend decoupling and the idea of “green growth” largely rely upon data that fails to take into account imported goods and system complexities beyond national borders (see Knight and Schor 2014; Schor and Jorgenson 2019).

What the evidence shows is that absolute decoupling for materials is likely impossibl...