Article by Toby Bowes

Photo by Mika Baumeister on Unsplash

Global climate change is upon us. As the temperature of the planet fast approaches the agreed-upon tipping point of 1.5° above pre-industrial levels, it is undeniable that action against global warming needs to be swift and effective. Many corporations have taken it upon themselves to solve climate change by developing newer, more sustainable technologies which will, in theory, lower our greenhouse gas emissions and save the world from catastrophe. However, for these companies, solving the climate crisis is a secondary goal, with their main priority being to increase profits. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have explored whether this idea of sustainable development is the right way forward in tackling climate change or if an alternative method may be more suitable such as degrowth, where the environment is prioritised over the economy.

Currently, the objective of our society is economic growth. Allan Schnaiberg (1980) refers to this as the ‘treadmill of production’ where there is a “relentless scaling up and intensification of economic production”. As this intensification of production keeps occurring, the pollution, waste and environmental damage caused by this will, most likely, keep intensifying too. The development of greener technologies is not exempt from this issue. For example, multiple companies have begun to extract lithium from the Cornish countryside with the aim to produce enough lithium-ion batteries to power 500,000 vehicles a year by 2030. While this sounds like a significant step towards reaching net-zero emissions, the process of both mining lithium and making electric cars is extremely costly to our environment. Extracting the lithium is incredibly water intensive and the creation of these electric vehicles can produce as much as 80% more emissions than a car powered by fossil fuels. With 180,000 tonnes of lithium being mined in 2023, and electric car production continuing to ramp up, the ‘treadmill’ of electric car production, in the push for limiting the effects of climate change, will, in itself, have a negative effect on the planet.

Is this production focused approach the only option available? John Urry (2009) argues that “to slow down, let alone reverse, increasing carbon emissions and temperatures requires the reorganisation of social life”. Here, he is arguing against the systems put in place which encourage economic prioritisation and posits that a change is necessary in order to get control of the climate situation. One of the possible changes being discussed is a move to economic degrowth, which would involve a change in focus, from growth of the economy to sustainability and the environment. The Himalayan nation of Bhutan is at the forefront of this issue. There, instead of measuring success on their GDP, they measure success on their Gross National Happiness. This change in priorities has been a success for Bhutan, as their GNH has risen from 40.9% in 2010 to 48.1% in 2022. However, Bhutan has a population of less than 800,000 so it is not yet proven whether using this metric would be successful on a larger scale.

While asking whether degrowth would work on a global scale is an important question, the arguably more important question is whether it will even be attempted in the first place. The decisions on global issues, such as climate change, are no longer solely in the hands of governments but also in the hands of corporations. Corporations have been able to use their power to inhibit governmental decision-making on climate change, both through the use of lobbying and the threat of moving elsewhere (Bartley, 2018). This was made clear at COP26, where there were at least 503 fossil fuel lobbyists, more than any country’s delegation at the event. They do this as improvements in the fight against global warming would hurt their profits. If this power dynamic, with corporations getting in the way of decisive action, continues, it seems unlikely that economic degrowth will be a feasible solution for the climate crisis as it goes against the corporations’ need for financial success.

If we are wanting to keep our home planet inhabitable, we are going to need to make some substantial changes to the way we live, degrowth or otherwise. While economic degrowth may be unlikely to happen due to the capitalistic need for continual growth, we, as individuals, have a responsibility to ‘degrow’ our own consuming habits – not only for ourselves, but for all the generations that come after us.

Related