Can't connect right now! retry

add The News to homescreen

tap to bring up your browser menu and select 'Add to homescreen' to pin the The News web app

Got it!

add The News to homescreen

tap to bring up your browser menu and select 'Add to homescreen' to pin the The News web app

Got it!

Never-ending growth?


July 31, 2019

The most ambitious internationally agreed plan to make this world a better place are the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). But during their annual review, nobody dared to admit that the SDG that calls for sustained economic growth is fatally flawed, undermining the possibility to achieve the other SDGs.

Agreed by all nations back in 2015, the SDGs set a course of action until 2030. However, just the word ‘Development’ implies there is a single good path of change for all countries. Great minds like Arturo Escobar, Wolfgang Sachs, Gustavo Esteva and many others have argued against this idea for at least 30 years. That makes the Sustainable Development Goals slightly problematic by name. But there is a bigger problem with one of the 17 goals: SDG 8. This goal calls on all nations to go for sustained economic growth. That’s neither desirable nor sustainable.

SDG 8 is the fatal flaw within the SDGs. By taking this trojan horse in, the other SDGs will not be achieved. During the recent High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) at the United Nation’s (UN) headquarters in New York this was clear for all who were willing to see it, but very few dared to face this inconvenient truth.

The most obvious incompatibility is between SDG 8 and SDG 13. The latter aims to ‘combat climate change’. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due mostly to the burning of dirty fuels continues to grow steadily (see Figure 1). The Kyoto (1997), Copenhagen (2009) and Paris (2015) agreements nor the first 4 years of the SDGs “2030 Agenda” register as a trend change on the Keeling curve.

Let’s be clear. The link between burning fossil fuels, rising CO2 concentrations in the air and rising temperatures on the ground was made in 1896, by Svante Arrhenius. By the 1970s companies like Exxon knew that burning fossil fuels causes dangerous climate disruption, but they decided to manufacture doubt. International commitments to prevent the climate chaos we are already in were made in the 1990s and ever since there has been only one year in which global emissions declined: 2009. That was also the only year in decades in which GDP declined.

The concept of green, sustainable or ‘decoupled’ economic growth is based on the belief that expansion of the economy is possible without an accompanying increase in environmental harm. This idea gained political acceptance in the past decade.

However, all data show that there is no evidence supporting the existence of a decoupling of economic growth from environmental pressures on anywhere remotely close to the scale needed. This is one conclusion of the new report ‘Decoupling Debunked: Evidence and arguments against green growth as a sole strategy for sustainability’, produced by six scientists for the European Environmental Bureau. It is far from the only study that comes to this conclusion but it puts an unprecedented challenge to those who claim that decoupling justifies a continuation of the pursuit of GDP growth, even in a ‘green’ variety.

The authors write that there are at least seven reasons why sufficient decoupling is extremely unlikely to ever happen: rising energy expenditures, rebound effects, problem shifting, the underestimated impact of services, limited recycling potential, insufficient and inappropriate technological change, and cost shifting. They give enough and convincing arguments for each of these seven reasons to justify their Loch Ness monster on the cover of their report: sufficient decoupling as a mythical creature of the mind.

The objective of SDG 8 is to “sustain per capita economic growth in accordance with national circumstances and, in particular, at least 7 per cent gross domestic product growth per annum in the least developed countries.” This is supposed to magically happen by “improving progressively, through 2030, global resource efficiency in consumption and production and endeavour to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation ….” Never mind that whatever efficiency gains humanity made so far did not resulted in any decrease in total fossil fuels consumption.

As policymakers clearly fail to stop the rise of burning dirty fuels, they have tried to ‘make up’ by finding additional carbon dioxide sinks. This resulted in things like REDD(Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation) schemes that usually displace peasants and tribal peoples under the banner of being a climate solution. These ‘solutions’ are new problems. They don’t stop the march towards the commodity extraction frontiers to get hold of energy and materials sources that should be called “unburnable” and “unextractable”.

Even a non-growing industrial economy would continue to be untenable because most energy is not recyclable and the circularity of the global economy is only 6 percent or 9 percent, depending on how you measure. The industrial economy is not circular but entropic, as explained by Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen already in 1971. The law of physics are immune to our framing, mind-games and psychological weaknesses, such as the urge for never-ending growth.

Who are the first victims of this never-ending growth model? In the EJAtlas (Atlas of Environmental Justice, we have gathered 2850 documented cases of environmental conflict as of July 2019. The cases in the EJAtlas are only a sample of a broader, unknown number of environmental conflicts happening in the world. About 12 percent of those involve mortal victims and the number of murdered environmental defenders has quadrupled in a decade.

While indigenous peoples are only 5 percent of the world population, they represent 15 percent of the world’s poorest people and even more striking: they are involved in 40 percent of all environmental conflicts globally. But the push for growth of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is coming not only at their expense. Study after study shows that on average, the poor, people of colour and indigenous peoples live closer to extraction sites, highly polluted areas, flood-prone areas and other risky or degraded sites. GDP growth already leads to unequally distributed extra environmental harm which in turn deepens existing social inequalities.

It should not come as a surprise that at the HLPF, experts agreed that we are far off track to address inequalities, which is SDG 10. They are also rising, instead of declining. No less than 56 people contributed to a state of the art report exposing the failure to deal with this crisis in ‘Falling through the cracks. Exposing inequalities in the EU and beyond.’

Excerpted from: ‘Never-Ending Growth?’.