Economists and politicians lean heavily on the promise of "green growth" as a last-ditch defense of capitalism. But is green growth possible? This year brought a lot of new research to bear on this question. Here's a summary:
1. In this 2020 NPE review, we found that it is not feasible to reduce emissions fast enough stay under 1.5C while growing the global economy at the same time. Why? Because growth requires more energy use, which makes decarbonization much more difficult. tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108…
2. To be clear: absolute decoupling of GDP from emissions is possible (renewables!), and some nations are already doing it. The question is whether we can do it fast enough to remain within safe carbon budgets, while pursuing growth at the same time. And the answer to that is no.
3. As for resource use, we find that any absolute decoupling of GDP from resource use is unlikely to be achieved, even under highly optimistic assumptions. Why? Because of rebound effects and physical limits to material efficiency. Here's a free PDF: jasonhickel.org/s/Hickel-and-K…
4. There's more. This 2020 review examines 835 empirical studies and comes to similar conclusions: decoupling alone is not adequate to achieve climate targets, and is not adequate to reduce resource use in absolute terms. iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108…
5. Finally, this 2020 review looks at 179 studies on decoupling published since 1990 and finds “no evidence of national or international absolute resource decoupling, and no evidence of the kind of decoupling needed for ecological sustainability.” sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
In other words, "green growth" is not a thing. If we want to reverse ecological breakdown, we need to be smarter than this. High-income nations need to actively scale down resource and energy use, and organize the economy around well-being rather than around perpetual expansion.
The good news is that we can do this while ending poverty and ensuring decent lives for all. This 2020 article in Global Environmental Change crunches the data: sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
The right have attacked the Green New Deal on the grounds that it will hurt economic growth. In response, the left have defended it by saying it will *increase* growth. And maybe it will. But taking this approach is a bad strategy for a number of reasons:
1. If the GND *does* generate growth, that will drive aggregate resource use and energy demand up, and therefore make it paradoxically more difficult (and probably unfeasible) to decarbonize the economy in the short time we have left.
2. Clean energy infrastructure requires material extraction (for solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, etc). More energy demand means more extractivism, which will have significant social and ecological impacts - on global South communities in particular.
Global South countries, led by South Africa and India, have requested a suspension of the WTO's patent rules to enable them to manufacture or import affordable generic versions of the COVID-19 vaccine. Shockingly, Britain and other rich countries have refused.
This decision could be a death sentence to hundreds of thousands of people. All to enable pharma corporations to profiteer, in the middle of a pandemic, from vaccines that have been developed overwhelmingly with public funds.
Here's more on the new mitigation scenario for 1.5C. How does it work? What would society look like? Are we willing to do what's required to stop climate breakdown? See thread.
1. Most models assume we need to keep growing the economy indefinitely. The problem is this makes it impossible to transition to zero emissions quickly enough; so they speculate on geoengineering and negative-emissions technologies to save us. Scientists reject this as too risky.
2. By contrast, this scenario proposes that high-income countries don't *need* more growth, and can scale down unnecessary production and consumption. This reduces energy demand (from 140 EJ in 2020 to 40 EJ in 2050), and enables a rapid transition to renewable energy.
This is a powerful new intervention: a climate mitigation scenario for staying under 1.5C that does not rely on speculative negative emissions technologies. Check it out: boell.de/en/2020/12/09/…
How does it work? By scaling down excess resource and energy use in global North countries. In other words, it's a degrowth scenario. Less energy use enables a rapid transition to renewable energy. It also proposes a shift to regenerative farming to restore lands and soils.
The scenario shows that this can be accomplished while improving human well-being and providing a good life for all, in both the North and South, by reorganizing the economy around human needs rather than around capital accumulation.
People mistakenly assume that the World Bank's poverty line ($1.90 PPP per day) represents what an American might be able to buy with $1.90 in poor countries abroad. But in fact the opposite is true: it represents what $1.90 can buy in the US. In other words, virtually nothing.
To put this in perspective, $1.90 can just about buy a loaf of bread in the US, or a can of tuna. To say nothing of actual nutrition, much less shelter, clothing, energy and transportation.
A minimum wage job in the US earns you about $60 per day. So living on $1.90 would be like 30 people trying to survive on a single minimum wage... with no begging, scavenging, or welfare systems to draw on, since all of these are counted as "income" by the World Bank.
Last year I wrote an open letter to Steven Pinker, questioning his triumphalist narrative about global poverty reduction. I never received an answer. But I've worked on this issue a bit more since then... jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/2/3/…
Here, elaborating the argument further and connecting it to the problem of inequality: newint.org/features/2019/…