“Sustainable Growth” promoters or “Degrowth” supporters?

"You may think I am a dreamer, but I am not the only one"

Nowadays, it is generally accepted that we, as Humanity, live in an unsustainable manner. Deteriorations of the earth’s system are visible to such a point that some of our planet’s boundaries have already been passed and are potentially approaching a tipping point threatening Humanity’s very survival.

Let’s keep in mind that, in essence, human activity relies on an extractive economy. Indeed, every human activity needs energy. And the?law of conservation of energy?states that in a?closed system (or planet), the total amount of energy within the system can only be changed through energy entering or leaving the system. In other words, Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another.

Practically, it means that human activity will always have an impact on nature. Should we use fossil fuel that we burn or renewable energy that we transform into electricity through artefacts composed by minerals that we extract from earth.

If the diagnosis is less and less challenged, we however see growing debates, oppositions and sometimes tensions between Sustainable Growth promoters and Degrowth supporters when it comes to defining what we should do about it.

So, how can we succeed in making a planetary human society enjoying universal well-being in balance with nature come true? How can we transition toward such a desired world while operating within Planetary boundaries?

What are Sustainable Growth Promoters telling us?

Sustainable Growth promoters remind that GDP growth since 2000s’ has started to slightely decouple from energy, resources, and fossil fuel production. They also emphasize estimations projecting a world global GDP growth of 100% between 2000 – 2050 while the Energy, Resources and Fossil Production will “only” grow by 30 to 50 %.

If such decoupling is a positive sign, it is far from enough as what is required for our economy to be truly sustainable is an economic growth occurring while Energy, Resource and Fossil fuel production decreases and remains capped below our planetary boundaries’ limits.

This very recent decoupling being the result of a tremendous innovation acceleration in many sectors, the core belief of Sustainable Growth promoters is that we will continue to innovate at an accelerated pace helping us to gain further productivity. Which doesn’t mean they are denying the “rebound effect” phenomenon tied to innovation. On the contrary, they acknowledge that there is a difference between the expected and the actual environmental savings from efficiency improvements. They also recognize that so far, the rebound effect might have nulled the technological improvements brought in the way we extract, transport, store, transform, use and dispose matter in the physical world.?

However, their main assumption is that the rebound effect doesn’t apply similarly in the physical world, in the data world and in the intellectual world. From their standpoint, since 2000’s, the exponential growth of the Data economy has generated the first Economic growth’s decoupling in modern history, because technologies that improve the way humans extract, transform, transport, use and store data has a higher contribution to GPD growth than to the Energy, Resources and Fossil Fuels they consume.

Sustainable Growth promoters pursue their reasoning assuming that GDP growth and the use of Energy, Resources and Fossil Fuel is expected to further decouple as we enter into the new era of the Knowledge economy where technologies (such as Artificial Intelligence) could exponentially contribute to human intellectual work.

Some questions, however, remain open: Will we see a continuous exponential innovation development? If the answer is yes, will this exponential innovation development really translate into a larger level of decoupling that will bring us back to the Paris agreement trajectory? Are we able to estimate the environmental impact of such new technologies’ infrastructures development? Are we ready to risk humanity’s survival on a gamble relying on potential technologies that we don’t know about nor can assess their impact in case of adoption?

What are Degrowth supporters telling us?

Over the past decade, the Degrowth concept has gained traction. The number of academic papers on Degrowth have multiplied tenfold since 2011. The term “Degrowth” itself gained recognition as it was mentioned for the first time in the last IPCC report.

Degrowth supporters remind that if until 2023, G7 (US, Japan, Germany, UK, France, Italy, Canada) countries represented 8.8% of the world population and 43.6% of the world GDP, the newly extended BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa adding the 6 new members: Argentina, Ethiopia, Egypt, UEA, Iran, Saudi) group representing in 2023 29,2% of the world GDP and 45,8% of the world population should catch-up on G7 in the few coming years.

As Humanity have only one set of planetary resources, Degrowth supporters’ perspective states that the best use of those resources, at the global level, is to reduce consumption in rich countries by evolving toward a soberer lifestyle to save enough planetary resources to allow developing countries (most of the humanity) to meet essential needs and increase their living standards.

Their main assumption is that Humanity is capable to act one unified human society and that every country’s population will accept to engage in a peaceful resources reallocation process that will translate this general idea into a practical plan coordinated at the global level. ?

They pursue their reasoning, developing the idea of a global framework that would (at least in a first phase) allow an international orchestration and synchronization would be composed by a double set of UN SDGs: for rich countries, Sustainable Degrowth Goals and for developing countries Sustainable Development Goals.

Some questions, however, remain open: How will such Sustainable Degrowth Goals be defined? Do we know for certain that interrupting (or slowing) the current decoupling effect from the on-going innovation process happening in rich countries will not cause more harm than good?? Considering the current geopolitical context, how much a global Degrowth policies would be realistically compatible with the preservation of rich countries’ sovereignty and security? What international governance changes should be required to practically implement proper plan considering each country’s particular regulations, challenges, and interests? Are we ready to risk humanity’s survival on a gamble relying on potential plans that we don’t know nor can assess the practicality and likelihood of success?

?

Why do both visions have much more in common than they think?

Let’s start by explaining why choosing between Sustainable Growth and Degrowth is, for several reasons, trying to solve the wrong problem.

First, both approaches are purely speculative, and considering the urgency we are facing, it seems reasonable to avoid any distraction. There is no point trying to estimate the future GDP resulting from: either the unknown potential future decoupling acceleration produced by the growing knowledge economy or the unknown effects of Sustainable Degrowth policies that don’t exist. Second, it is already well accepted that GDP is a very poor indicator when it comes to estimating the level of well-being of a population or how fair is a society.

The third and most important reason is that both theories of change happen to be perfectly complementary when we look at the problem from a different perspective. Let’s see how Humanity can make better use of our Planetary resources (from decreased consumption or increased efficiency) by moving from a linear economy paradigm to a circular economy referential.

Today only 7% of our economy is circular. Meaning that 93% of our economy mainly consists in linearly extracting, transporting, transforming, using and disposing (sometimes after a single use only) matter.

Building a circular economy may or may not result in GDP growth and it doesn’t really matter. A circular economy, in essence, is contributing to both visions at the same time: Bringing further decoupling effect through innovations that will allow us to turn wastes into value (re-use, re-cycling) AND bringing degrowth in some part of the economy (reduce, extend product life cycles).

Putting all our energy into building a global circular economy is a sure win that is not speculative. It is safe enough to try because it can only direct us toward the right direction. This approach will put everybody at work without antagonizing technology and sobriety. It will open a gigantic potential of positive change by : Redirecting innovation in the most critical domains (including public services) that can effectively contribute to humanity’s well-being in balance with nature. Rethinking our production completely differently from the design phase. Revolutionizing business models to scale the social and solidarity economy.

?

To conclude, if Sustainable Growth theory of change is a top-down approach mainly orchestrated by mainstream organizations such as UN and COPs, while the Degrowth perspective is a bottom-up approach developed by activists, academics and civil society, both groups of stakeholders claim to tackle the same problem “building a universal well-being in balance with nature”.

But to be clear, this doesn’t, at all, mean an absence of conflicts. On the contrary, like in any high-stake situation, we feel a huge amount of pressure and fear. Because we are worried and scared, we are exposed to the temptation to rely more on our pre-existing, familiar and reinsuring beliefs rather than to “painfully” search for contradictory information to build a set of new, more reliable (even if still incomplete) knowledge. This tendency is perfectly natural as nothing could be of higher stake than our future generations expecting us to be up to the challenge of solving an existential threat that ultimately puts humanity’s very survival at risk.

Furthermore, as our resources are decreasing, it is also projected to see the rise of tensions between the Haves and the Have Nots across all dimensions at local, regional and global levels. And let’s face it, polarization and rise of conflicts has already started. Consequently, more than ever, we need to revisit our institutions everywhere as answering “In which world and planetary society do we want to leave?” or “How to ensure universal well-being in balance with nature?” are intrinsically political questions.

Considering the urgency of the situation, we need to ensure everyone is mobilized muscling our individual and collective capacity to work together and cooperate in a respectful manner to build a viable pathway considering the vast diversity of perspectives, concerns and conflicting interests. Everywhere we are, we need to engage in the political space with self-disciple to embrace nuanced perspectives. Whoever we are, we have a role to play in contributing to a Humanity evolving and progressing toward a one planetary society that can respectfully solve highly complex problems and conflicts in a constructive manner.

Let’s at least agree, as a starting point in all our interactions, that our counterparts are also part of the solution and that there is no viable peaceful pathway that relies on ignoring or leaving aside part of humanity.