Degrowth Criticism, Part 3

Green growth is a fantasy.

Let’s continue with our exploration of the article, Four Problems for the Degrowth Movement. The author is Daniel Driscoll, a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the Rhodes Center for International Economics and Finance at Brown University.

3.      Degrowth adopts unjustified assumptions from orthodox economics.

Driscoll argues that degrowth’s emphasis on reducing consumption is deeply rooted in orthodox economics. An orthodox economics perspective would claim that we must decrease consumption to decrease emissions. This position assumes that resources and worker productivity are always being maximized and also that energy unit costs will not decrease.

Driscoll says that these are false assumptions, and that resource utilization, productivity, and energy costs change a great deal. He states that decarbonization through decreased consumption may not be necessary, stating that degrowthers often focus too much on economic suppression when we need to acknowledge that electrification, energy replacement, and economic justice may require one last economic boom.

Green growth is a bit of a myth, and it alone won’t save you.

Driscoll is right that degrowth can't make assumptions rooted in orthodox economics and expect them to always hold and the world that is to come.

But green growth isn't the answer, not by itself anyway. Green growth is a bit like Santa Claus. You believe at first, with the naïve optimism of youth, but once you start digging into the facts, you realize that it’s just a nice story that makes people feel better. So, some people stop there. But if you start doing the math, you realize the story doesn’t hold up.

Yes, green growth is better than fossil fuel-led growth. But just electrifying everything and saying, “Now we have no problems,” is a fairy tale. Every solar panel produced, every wind turbine produced, every ounce of cement that goes into building that nuclear power plant or that hydroelectric dam has a carbon footprint. And that is still largely fossil fuel-based.

As I said before in this series, the world's energy mix is still over 80% fossil fuel-based. That is going down at a very slow pace as energy demand rises with a growing population and economies that are growing. As I noted in the first part of this series, the relationship between growth in GDP and CO2 has loosened; but it needs to be cut completely. That IEA report showed that even green energy production is still highly dependent on fossil fuel use.

Jevon’s paradox shows us that as energy becomes cheaper and more efficient, we use more of it, meaning we have to build more power plants – no matter how green – to meet demand. A solar power plant may have a lower carbon footprint than a coal-fired power plant. But it still has a footprint, requiring land, construction of the solar plant, transmission lines, maintenance and replacement, and recycling of those solar panels (if they are even remotely recyclable). No energy comes with no footprint.

So, in addition to making that supply curve “green”, move the demand curve down and to the left (degrowth) so you need less of it.

Move that demand curve down AND green the supply. 

You have to decrease demand. Greening the supply won't get you where you need to be.

As I said in my last writing on this subject, degrowth challenges the current economic system. Our current economic models assume that ever-growing GDP can continue forever. That is a fantasy, a fairy tale, a fiction, a lie. But so many of us, especially the very wealthy of us, have our material well-being and in some cases, our emotional well-being tied to this system. The classic economic models on which our economy and our society are based say that we can grow forever because there will always be more energy available, and there will always be more materials available.

That simply is not the case.

Even with unlimited resources, we would destroy ourselves before we could use them.

There is only so much copper, so much cobalt, and so much lithium in the ground. There is only so much of almost any mineral, metal, or commodity in the ground.

But even if these were things that were unlimited, the planetary boundaries framework shows us that we've pushed past the safe zone in most parts of the natural world. Continuing to exploit these natural resources when we're well past the safe zone will only make things worse.

If all energy is greened tomorrow, climate change will still be a major issue due to the CO2 we have put in the atmosphere. If all energy is greened tomorrow, we will still be suffering through the 6th mass extinction in the history of our planet. If all energy is greened tomorrow, we will still have huge problems with the phosphorus cycle and the nitrogen cycle that is destroying the viability of our land and waterways. If all energy is greened tomorrow, we will still be facing a future where wars are increasingly fought over water, as the availability of clean water shrinks as our population grows.

All energy will not be greened tomorrow.

Energy is the lifeblood of economic activity. In an economic system that does not accept that lower growth is acceptable, we always have to justify and rationalize ways to get to more energy availability. Such an outlook will not accept that we need to shift that demand curve down as a solution to our environmental problems.

But we do.

It's not a great mystery. We know how to do this.

It takes a change in mindset and a changing culture to get off the growth for growth sake treadmill, to change the system that disproportionately rewards the richest 10% to the detriment of everyone (including that 10%).

Degrowth is the answer that isn't being considered, because it challenges the status quo, and the status quo has made those who created the status quo very rich and very powerful. Giving up that status quo to save our civilization and save themselves is uncomfortable to even think about, much less undertake.

But that's what it will take.

An argument claiming that green growth alone is the answer only delays the actions needed to be taken to take a degrowth path, to lower that demand curve.

Yes, make that energy as green as you can. But also use less of it. This will bring very disruptive change to our culture and our civilization. But failing to do so will destroy our culture and our civilization.