Growing out of consumption?
Authors: None The Lancet Planetary Health
Journal: The Lancet Planetary Health (2019)

Just over a year ago, the IPCC published a Special Report outlining what it would take to prevent global heating of more than 1·5°C and 2°C above preindustrial levels, and the projected impacts of each outcome. For many climate change insiders this felt like it was going to be a “more of the same” report. One that provided updated and stronger, but largely confirmatory information on the emission cuts needed to avoid the most damaging effects of climate breakdown and meet the Paris Agreement objectives. In certain respects that was true, but the report has undoubtedly made an impact in the world as discussed in a Feature in this issue. One of the key messages, that if we are to limit warming to 1·5°C then greenhouse gas emissions need to be halved by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050 brought home in clear terms what Naomi Klein had previously observed about climate change, “This changes everything.” These cuts and the short time in which they need to be made reveal the climate crisis to be not simply a big bump in the road that stretches out before us, but a chasm that cannot be navigated through conventional means, and without wanting to stretch the analogy too far, a growing chasm caused by the very means of travel we have been utilising. There is, as yet, no agreed plan for accomplishing the herculean task of emissions reduction even among those who do not deny the overwhelming evidence of climate heating, and naturally people hold very different perspectives on how the chasm should best be navigated. Perhaps the most fundamental and therefore controversial question relates to the role of continuing global economic growth in the pursuit of planetary health. Economic growth as measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is at the very core of the economic system we are accustomed to, and for many economic growth is the very engine needed for a green transition. Indeed, Sustainable Development Goal eight enshrines economic growthcentral to the 2030 Agenda. We have become so accustomed to equating GDP growth with human progress and increased wellbeing that it is almost heretical to question the necessity for ever more growth, but here is the crux of the issue. Economists tend to think of the economy as being freed from the material constraints of the world by the ingenuity of humankind, but empirical evidence shows that growth in the economy has always involved comparable growth in resource use. When Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, was recently challenged on the issue of endless growth being impossible on a finite planet he remarked that he does not accept that, arguing instead that “there is carbon-light growth, there is asset-light growth”. Is he right? The answer depends on whether we can decouple economic growth from carbon and wider resource use fast enough and to a sufficient extent to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050 while the global economy grows by around 3% per year. This equates to a doubling just over every 20 years, or approximately once every generation. Investigations into the rate of decarbonisation required to meet the Paris objectives in a growing global economy show them to be well above what is likely achievable, based on modelling and historical evidence. This shortfall has been dealt with by assuming that negative emissions technologies can be brought in to fill the gap. However, these technologies remain almost completely untested at the scale required to meaningfully impact atmospheric CO2 levels. The IPCC 1·5° C report did investigate a scenario for reducing emissions in line with the Paris Agreement that does not rely on negative emissions technology development. This Low Energy Demand scenario assumes reductions in global energy consumption of 40% by 2050, making the transition to 100% clean energy much more achievable. The key feature of this scenario is that global material production and consumption declines significantly. In other words, a planned reduction in the material and energy throughput of the global economy; what is sometimes referred to as degrowth. It remains unclear whether the pursuit of endless global economic growth is the engine of our salvation or our demise, but there is enough evidence to have some scepticism that growth is always good for people and the planet. The issues at stake are too important for this to rest on thought experiments, and faith. If we are to tackle the ecological and climate emergencies and make progress on human wellbeing, we need to be willing to investigate the very heart of our economy. A year of pushing for 1·5°CTo many, it seemed unlikely to have an impact. Full-Text PDF Open Access