Kreinin MA MSc - PDF document

1 Halliki Kreinin, MA, MSc Institute for
Halliki Kreinin, MA, MSc Institute for Ecological Economics Vienna Degrowth Association Halliki.kreinin@wu.ac.at 01.10.2019 Degrowth and limits to growth ÖKOVERNETZUNG 1. We are facing Hothouse Earth. Growing economic growth and production („the treadmill system “) are the cause . We need to act now . 2. We have known this for some time („Limits to growth “ 1972), but „ fudging “ narratives have delayed

2 action , because our current economic s
action , because our current economic system is fundamentally incompatible with a habitable planet. 3. We need a fundamental transformation of the economic system , which drives environmental crises . Degrowth is one approach that considers how to achieve welfare within planetary limits to further economic growth . 2 Four main arguments : " the current state of global ecological overshoot was at least partially ca

3 used by our focus on, and attempt to ma
used by our focus on, and attempt to maximise , a narrow set of economic indicators . It is arguable whether economic growth would have become such a high priority had indicators such as GDP not been invented . GDP has undermined the goal of economic welfare that it was supposed to support because people have ended up serving the abstract (but quantitative) indicator instead of the concrete (but qualitative) goal

4 ." (O'Neill, 2012) 3 1. Where we are at
." (O'Neill, 2012) 3 1. Where we are at now – Hothouse Earth Basic assumptions (Helga Kromp - Kolb): 1. We have one planet and no escape options 2. We have an interest in surviving as a species , not just individuals 3. No D eus - ex - machina (or Matt Damon) to save us, as we shape our own fate – this means no last minute technological fixes or heroes that will swoop in to save us. 5 6 https:// www.cambridg

5 e.org/core/journals/global - sustainabil
e.org/core/journals/global - sustainability/article/discourses - of - climate - delay/7B11B722E3E3454BB6212378E32985A7 1 2 3 4 7 8 GOAL CONSUMPTION AFFECTING CLIMATE. Rodney and Otamatea Times, Waitemata and Kaipara Gazette, 14 August 1912 1912 issue of Popular Mechanics Term “Greenhouse gas” coined by Swedish scientist named Svante Arrhenius in 1896 9 http:// www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius 1896_tcm18 - 173546.pdf 1

6 0 https:// pbs.twimg.com/media/EvJUnciXU
0 https:// pbs.twimg.com/media/EvJUnciXUAYvwOO?format=png&name=medium ( - � 2020) 11 Carbon budget? At 1.5 degrees…  „ Hothouse Earth“ scenario of feedback loops that keep Earth heating up , so impossible to balance heating if we cross the ~1.5 threshold (Wilcox 1975; IPCC 2019; Schröder and Storm 2020 ) 12 Why is it important to stay below 1.5 degrees warming ? https://climategamechangers.org/game -

7 changers/climate - restoration/iron - sa
changers/climate - restoration/iron - salt - aerosol - brief - summary / 13 Economic growth and material footprint / global GHG emissions Source : (EEA 2021 ) Firms Households The Ecological Economics view of the economy (ELKE PYRGMAIER) Firms Households THIS IS THE ECONOMY IN NEOCLASSICAL ECONOMICS… PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE 2. We have known about the effects of the economy on the environment for some time. We

8 have done nothing because of the growt
have done nothing because of the growth imperative and our addiction to economic growth . http:// www.wrforum.org/wp - content/uploads/2015/09/Limits - to - growth.pdf World Resources Forum https://www.cusp.ac.uk/themes/p/limitsrevisited / Limits Revisited Limits to Growth – The Club of Rome 17 1972 Surprisingly accurate depiction of scenario – we are on the “standard run” 18 http:// www.wrforum.org/wp - conten

9 t/uploads/2015/09/Limits - to - growth.p
t/uploads/2015/09/Limits - to - growth.pdf World Resources Forum Mainstream Economics & Limits to growth… Mainstream discourse in several waves and intensities 1970s: There are no limits - � then Limits to Growth 1980s: There might be limits, but they are far away . 1990s: The limits might not be too far away, but the market will solve the problem [Neoliberal Climate Discourse ] 2000s: The markets might

10 not function, but technology will sa
not function, but technology will save us [ Ecological Modernisation Climate Discourse /Green Growth] 2020s: Experiencing Limits to Growth Green growth and decoupling … 20 21 22 What has so far had a real effect on stopping climate change? https:// www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/03/04/811019032/why - chinas - air - has - been - cleaner - during - the - coronavirus - outbreak?t=1583407577120  There is no

11 magic bullet .  No technology will
magic bullet .  No technology will save us .  We need to limit production to limit the effects of the economy on the environment .  We need to focus on providing welfare within the boundaries of the planet and face the fact that our lifestyles in the Global North are unsustainable and based on continued expropriation of resources , land and labour from ex - colonies …  This means reshaping our e

12 conomic and societal systems , the welf
conomic and societal systems , the welfare state , reducing working hours and production , slowing down the economy …  We need to change the economic system and the societal system , because we do not have the power to change the natural system ( only to destroy it ).  What are our options ? 23 Trying to avoid Hothouse Earth, and the collapse of civilisation (s) in the next century ?...  Economic gro

13 wth as a phenomenon is coupled to the de
wth as a phenomenon is coupled to the devastation of the natural world and thus undermines the long - term survival of human civilisations.  Economic growth is a REALLY BAD WAY of solving the problem of poverty, especially extreme poverty, since these are caused by neo - colonial relations, global inequality and exploitation.  I t would take 207 years to eliminate poverty ($5 a day) via economic growth, and requ

14 ire the global economy to grow to a size
ire the global economy to grow to a size 175 times larger than in 2015 ( Hickel 2015; Salleh 2016). This is physically impossible.  A much better way to deal with poverty would be deal with inequality and overconsumption in the Global North ( Scientists’ warning on affluence Wiedmann et al. 2020)  Economic growth is currently used to justify inequality (“rising tide”) instead of dealing with it.  OUR

15 WORLD IS ABUNDANT! We have enough for ev
WORLD IS ABUNDANT! We have enough for everyone to have a good life materially, if it is not hoarded (Brand - Corea & Steinberger 2017)  HISTORY!!! How was poverty reduced in Europe? That‘s right ;) trade unions , social movements , institutions … not economic growth alone .  Finally , degrowth is not against „ economic growth in the Global South“ per se, rather the obsession with economic growth . W

16 e should focus on providing people with
e should focus on providing people with material needs in or outside of the market system , and if the economy grows in the Global South, that is also ok. ( Kallis 2017) 24 Do we need economic growth for poverty reduction ? 3. We need transformative change and a move away from the focus on more economic growth to a focus on welfare and staying within planetary boundaries .  Steady State Economy (Herman Daly

17 , 1990s… no longer an option )  A
, 1990s… no longer an option )  A - growth (i.e. van der Bergh)  Doughnut Economics (Kate Raworth )  „Living well within limits “ model (Degrowth / Doughnut economics model ) (Dan O‘Neill, Julia Steinberger)  Postgrowth (i.e. Tim Jackson, Peter Victor)  Degrowth (Giorgos Kallis , Serge Latouche , Jason Hickel )  Social - Ecological Transformation  (A NEW Social - Ecological Contract ???

18 )  … 26 There is not a lack of app
)  … 26 There is not a lack of approaches that consider material and energy realities when discussing the economy , welfare and a habitable planet…  Started out as a „ missile word “ (Serge Latouche ) to criticise economic growth and draw attention to the problems of the current economic system  i.e. Degrowth by design or by disaster  Critical of capitalism , due to the growth imperative, bu

19 t also critical of socialist /Marxist
t also critical of socialist /Marxist thought ( especially naive technological utopianists like „ luxury automated communism “)  Not to be confused with an economic recession !  About shrinking the Global North, so the Global South can breathe  Academic ~ movement ~ of sorts – based on Ecological Economics, Environmental Science, Social Ecology, Political Ecology… 27 Degrowth 28 Degrowth 1. Sustai

20 nable degrowth is a downscaling of prod
nable degrowth is a downscaling of production and consumption that increases human well - being and enhances ecological conditions and equity on the planet. 2. It calls for a future where societies live within their ecological means , with open, localized economies and resources more equally distributed through new forms of democratic institutions. Such societies will no longer have to “grow or die.” 3. Materi

21 al accumulation will no longer hold a
al accumulation will no longer hold a prime position in the population’s cultural imaginary. 4. The primacy of efficiency will be substituted by a focus on sufficiency , and innovation will no longer focus on technology for technology ’s sake but will concentrate on new social and technical arrangements that will enable us to live convivially and frugally . 5. Degrowth does not only challenge the centrali

22 ty of GDP as an overarching policy obje
ty of GDP as an overarching policy objective but proposes a framework for transformation to a lower and sustainable level of production and consumption , a shrinking of the economic system to leave more space for human cooperation and ecosystems. (Malmö Degrowth Conference, 2018 - https://degrowth.org/definition - 2/ ) 10 points of convergence in degrowth ( Kallis et al., 2015): The Ecological - Economic Strand  Th

23 esis 1: Growth Is Senseless  Thesis 2
esis 1: Growth Is Senseless  Thesis 2: Growth Is Uneconomic and Unjust  Thesis 3: Growth Is Ecologically Unsustainable  Thesis 4: Growth Is Coming to an End The Culturalist Strand  Thesis 5: The Growth Consensus Has Eroded the Political  Thesis 6: Limits Liberate The ‘Alternatives’ Strand  Thesis 7: A Transition beyond Growth Is a Transition beyond Capitalism  Thesis 8: Degrowth Alternatives Already

24 Exist  Thesis 9: The Politics of a D
Exist  Thesis 9: The Politics of a Degrowth Transition Are Open and Plural  Thesis 10: Degrowth in the North Will Let the South Live Well 29 Problems: Waste, purposeful overproduction and overconsumption as driving force behind capitalist development and growth – yes, but how to move beyond consumer society? • Problem with political strategy ~ mentioning degrowth is still political suicide despite the multiple

25 crises… (due to growth dependence of c
crises… (due to growth dependence of current system). • Lacks focus and understanding of financial and monetary system and how it drives the growth economy. • Debates over name “degrowth” ( ie Kate Raworth, 2015) thus: postgrowth, beyond growth, also social - ecological transformation, living within limits, good life for all… (Degrowth Vienna working on Doughnut City Vienna Project!) • Degrowth as a largely

26 intellectual, affluent voice of bubble?
intellectual, affluent voice of bubble? “Sustainability of unsustainable behaviours ”, rise of far - right, ecomodernism dominates (i.e. recent EU Green Deal). Also need a huge mentality change… • ? 30 31 32 ZOE report on sustainable wefare state in a non - growing economy 34 Thanks for listening ! 35  What is decoupling?  Decoupling: whether profit (or “value”) creation can be “decoupled” (i.e

27 . set free) from energy - matter  i.
. set free) from energy - matter  i.e. whether we can have “green economic growth” or not  This is one of the biggest controversies in economics, natural sciences and the environmental discourses – also between Ecological Economists and Neoclassical Economists  Why is it controversial? Decoupling is very appealing: it would mean that we wouldn’t have to change anything about the current economic system,

28 we could simply “green” it and con
we could simply “green” it and continue as we have until now (this goes completely against any understanding of material flows, energy use, etc).  Central tenet of sustainable development, green growth and ecomodernism: Profits do not necessarily require a material basis,  i.e. a structural shift towards the service economy and/or technological change ( clean energy and Matt Damon ) will lead us to reduction

29 in energy and resource intensities and
in energy and resource intensities and absolute decoupling of matter - energy use and economic growth 36 Decoupling 37 Economic growth and material footprint / global GHG emissions Source : (EEA 2021 )  What kinds of decoupling are we talking about?  Energy /materials or emissions decoupling?  Absolute or relative decoupling?  Relative decoupling of energy and materials (= gain in efficiency ) has been

30 observed in some countries (i.e. China,
observed in some countries (i.e. China, where GDP has grown 20 times, while energy and materials use 4 times)  Absolute decoupling of emissions has not been observed anywhere on a scale necessary to avoid the collapse of civilisations (also due to country - based accounting methods, easily reachable decarbonisation projects, etc )  The illusion of decoupling can be created from many things… 1) the substitution o

31 f one resource for another; 2) the fina
f one resource for another; 2) the financialization of one or more components of GDP that involves increasing monetary flows without a concomitant rise in material and/or energy throughput 3) the exporting of environmental impact to another nation or region of the world (i.e. the separation of production and consumption) [4 ) growing inequality of income and wealth (rise in productivity and production i.e. GDP growth d

32 oes not correspond to equivalent rise in
oes not correspond to equivalent rise in consumption and emissions as a wealthy minority deprives the majority of the workers from a real increase in income )] (Ward et al., 2016) Is decoupling possible? 38  Why is relative decoupling of materials/energy/emissions not enough for sustainability?  Because economic production overall is too large already. Even if we relatively decouple materials energy or emissions fr

33 om economic growth, that does not help u
om economic growth, that does not help us with the fact that we need to reduce emissions (staying at the same spot and same level not enough). i.e. the pie is too big already.  Let’s say that Matt Damon came back from Mars with magic solar panels made of kale and Kanye’s tears that fuelled all our energy needs for ever, decoupling energy from economic growth… Would material decoupling from economic growth be

34 possible?  NO. Material decoupling o
possible?  NO. Material decoupling of economic growth is impossible even if Yeezy gave us magic energy for ever.  Remember that the economy is a materials - processing system – even “the knowledge economy” has a huge material basis; also most of the economy is not based on the “knowledge economy” or the “service economy” but on material throughput.  Unfortunately, though, even energy decoupling i

35 s not likely to be possible globally (i
s not likely to be possible globally (i.e. dependent on local context), as renewable energy itself has a big energy and emissions footprint (solar panels, wind turbines also “material”, need to be produced and replaced – “clean energy” hard to come by). Decoupling – emissions and materials 39  Rebound effects (Jevon’s paradox)  “Efficiency improvements are often partly or totally compensated by

36 a reallocation of saved resources and m
a reallocation of saved resources and money to either more of the same consumption (e.g. using a fuel - efficient car more often), or other impactful consumptions (e.g. buying plane tickets for remote holidays with the money saved from fuel economies). It can also generate structural changes in the economy that induce higher consumption (e.g. more fuel - efficient cars reinforce a car - based transport system at the

37 expense of greener alternatives, such a
expense of greener alternatives, such as public transport and cycling).” ( Parrique et al., 2019)  Rising energy expenditures  This is explained by researchers like Ayres and Warr – we have depleted high EROI sources of energy. Having to resort to fracking for example causes increasing damage and requires increasing levels of energy input to get energy out (i.e. lower EROI). Other reasons to be wary of decoup

38 ling as a strategy for sustainabilityâ€
ling as a strategy for sustainability… 40  Decoupling/green growth dreams are largely based on and reliant on accounting on rapid future technological change and developments (from Matt Damon via Mars) – i.e. EU Green Deal “disruptive technologies” that do not yet exist (part of discourse of climate delay)  Underestimation of whole life - cycle energy and resource requirements of even “intellectual goods

39 ” (art, literature, music), knowledge
” (art, literature, music), knowledge products as well as the service sector are the basis of ideas of green growth and decoupling.  The service economy can only exist on top of the material economy, not instead of it. Services have a significant footprint that often adds to, rather than substitute, that of goods ( Parrique et al., 2019). Other reasons to be wary of decoupling as a strategy for sustainability… 41

40  No questions asked about the value
 No questions asked about the value and interests of economy and production (i.e. question of human needs) – what and whom is the economy even for?  GDP is a poor proxy for societal wellbeing and GDP growth is a questionable societal goal (Ward et al., 2016).  Should we be measuring whether our societies are meeting human needs and limiting environmental degradation instead?  Economic growth is not even

41 meeting our needs currently.  It is
meeting our needs currently.  It is very unequally distributed in society. Other reasons to be wary of decoupling as a strategy for sustainability… 42  Due to increase in bitcoin mining (i.e. in China), the energy required globally to mine bitcoin for the new „digital economy “ 1/10th of the solar energy generated in the world and growing …  We are wiping out all the „ technological progress “

42 with bitcoin  Despite talks of e - ca
with bitcoin  Despite talks of e - cars, there is an SUV - boom, with cars that consume many times the energy requirements of small cars . Again we are wiping out technological progress … 43 FYI be wary of „ technological fixes“…  Energy and materials not accounted for in mainstream economics debate about productivity, productivity growth, technological change and GDP – hard to consider something tha

43 t does not exist in your analysis of th
t does not exist in your analysis of the world and economic system [while economics prides itself on being based on physics, actually based on physics from the 1950s, not current understandings of physics].  Increasing fossil fuel use, “Enlightenment”, technological change, “development” all tied together in a bouquet  Huge implications for economic system, welfare states, people’s lives, unemployme

44 nt, current organisation of society…
nt, current organisation of society…  Short - termist political cycle – politics not able to deal with deep unsustainability of our whole way of life; easier to hope for decoupling – political suicide to discuss degrowth - � change will not come from above  Most importantly… powerful vested interests that benefit in current global economic system So why is decoupling still a part of the debate?