Dhanada K Mishra
The just-released ‘IPCC Report 2021’ has been called ‘code red’ for humanity. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, short for IPCC, has been issuing these warnings for over three decades now based on the near-unanimous scientific consensus that anthropogenic emissions are causing global heating leading to the climate crisis. The current report was authored by 233 scientists who have studied thousands of recent publications since the last report. It has been predicted that the planet is likely to exceed 2°C heating above pre-industrial age by mid-century rather than the end of the century as hoped earlier. This also implies that the 1.5°C threshold will be exceeded by 2040 with dire consequences in terms of disrupted weather patterns and catastrophic natural disasters, the scale of which is difficult to imagine! As I write this article, thousand-year events (meaning those events that have a probability of occurring once in a thousand years) are taking place worldwide, starting from unprecedented floods in China and Europe and wildfires in Greece and California in the United States. Most disturbingly, scientists have only recently observed the signs of disruptions of the polar jet stream, leading to significant changes in rainfall patterns and crop loss in large parts of the world. It’s one of the climate tipping points that would be almost impossible to recover from!
None of the climate pathways simulated by scenario building climate models considered ‘a constant or declining GDP growth’ by IPCC in its Special Report SR 1.5 published in 2018. On the other hand, all of the scenarios included assumptions of Negative Emission Technologies (NETs) such as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) that are yet to be proven at scale, having a high risk of feasibility. Keyßer & Lenzen, in their recent paper in Nature, have pointed out this major lacuna and suggested that considering ‘degrowth’ is the only way to avoid 2°C heating while ensuring social and economic equality focused on delivering minimum quality of life or all.
The modern-day idea of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) introduced in 1934 by American economist Simon Kuznets was a construct that has clearly outlived its utility. It only accounted for the benefits neglecting the costs such as environmental degradation. Even the efforts to supplement it with the so-called Gross Eco Services Products (GEP) can only partially address this glaring weakness. On the other hand, the substitution of consumerism led economic growth with so-called ‘green growth’ seems to have been utterly inadequate in the face of the imminent existential threat faced by humanity.
The French philosopher Andre Gorz first introduced the term ‘Decroissance’ (French for degrowth) and asked whether capitalism is compatible with a state of the earth in balance with human need, which would require no growth or even degrowth? Shortly afterwards, the Club of Rome, a think tank, published the famous report titled ‘Limits to Growth’. It questioned the idea of limitless growth in a planet of limited natural resources. A recent KPMG study reveals that the 1972 prediction of social collapse, based on an MIT computer simulation model, is on track by 2040. Such a collapse would mean an abrupt decline in quality of life, food production, industrial output and ultimately, the human population.
As opposed to an economic recession, degrowth is a controlled contraction of the economy while ensuring that socio-economic equality is enhanced both within and among countries. To that extent, degrowth policy would reject economic growth at any cost per se while placing quality of life at the centre of policy making. It would consist of programmes such as job guarantees, universal minimum basic income and shorter workweeks. High-income, developed countries would be expected to follow the degrowth principles to bring down their unsustainable environmental footprints rapidly. The lower-income developing and under-developed countries would be encouraged to implement green growth policies to ensure growth and employment generation without damaging the environment. Such policies would encourage investment in healthcare, education, public transport, women’s empowerment, environmental protection, renewable energy, etc.
Even the original proposers of economic growth based models never imagined it to be enforced in perpetuity. Instead, they had proposed a temporary growth-based model until a given society was prosperous enough to ensure basic minimum living standards akin to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). One estimate shows that the earth can
sustain a population of 10 billion in 2050, three times as large as the 1960’s population if we were to live sustainably. In other words, all the basic human needs such as shelter, mobility, food and hygiene are met while also having access to modern, high-quality healthcare, education and information technology for everyone!
To reconcile the ideas of macro-accountability with micro-responsibility, or more simply – the role the individual must envisage for themselves as they hold accountable the state structures and mega-corporations. However, in terms of what they might have the state responsible for, the study of degrowth strategies becomes relevant. Mega-corporations, especially the fossil fuel industry, spend vast amounts on blaming the climate crisis on individual choices and promoting concepts like ‘personal carbon footprint’ as a way of deflecting their culpability. It is clear that no matter how well-intentioned and practical at the micro-scale, particular action would hardly make a dent. The time for ‘be the change you want to see’ is long past. Urgent action in scale requires that individuals devote all of their energy to making sure their voice is heard loud and clear. The ‘Friday for Future (FFF)’ and ‘Extinction Rebellion (XR)’ movements have been the most compelling examples in this direction.
Economic output will decline due to either the impact of runaway global heating and climate disruption or stringent climate mitigation to avoid it. This should be given more weight in crafting policies to meet the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It would appear that degrowth strategies have been ignored in favour of pro-growth strategies that rely on unproven, forward-looking technological solutions. Like an obese person shedding extra weight in the form of stored fat to regain health, the time has come for humanity to shape up by fasting in the form of degrowth to shed the excess baggage and avoid climate catastrophe.
The author is a civil engineer, academician and technologist with a strong interest in the sustainability of the built environment. He is currently working in Hong Kong. He can be reached at dhanadam@gmail.com