Keywords like “degrowth”, “post-growth”, “post-Promethean technology” or “long-termism”: They all address concepts that aim to save the world from climate change with less economic growth and less traditional industry. Sometimes other buzzwords such as “free planned economy” are added, or the Metaverse is even recommended as a place of refuge, as in an issue of “Philosophie Magazin” from March 9th under the heading “Which vision can save us?”.
There is a concise comment on this under the headline “Degrowth can work” in “Nature” from December 15, 2022 by Jason Hickel and seven other colleagues from various disciplines ranging from economics and ecology to anthropology and sociology. He calls for the elimination of harmful subsidies, the taxation of climate-damaging activities and the promotion of climate-friendly concepts. Japan and Cuba are named as role models for countries with little growth.
Overall, the direction is clear: secure at the bottom of the social ladder and then increasingly take away a lot of “luxury” at the top. The unquestioned prerequisite for these ideas is that the world economy is built around the “idea” that companies and countries have to increase their production every year, “regardless of what is needed”. Growth is seen as an ideology here. Instead, it recommends redefining wealth and offsetting increases in productivity with a reduction in working hours.
This raises a crucial question: Are growth and climate damage inextricably linked? In the long run, there is certainly a connection: Mankind has been using fossil fuels extensively for a good 200 years, and growth rates have increased significantly since then. Even in the short term, the same applies to this day: if a recession threatens, the price of oil falls because less consumption is expected; if there is a recovery, it rises again.
But does that also apply to the future? After all, with renewable energies there is no longer a connection between consumption and climate damage, and the conversion of the economy to climate-friendliness promotes a large number of investments that are also included in growth. In fact, per capita energy consumption in Germany and other developed countries peaked in the 1980s and 1990s and has since declined from trend. But does that justify calling out “Growing healthy instead of shrinking”, as the headline in the “Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung” (“FAS”) put it on March 26?
Why non-growth is a nonsensical detour
Don’t assume what you don’t know. In response to the “FAS” text on his favorite medium, Twitter, the economist Rudi Bachmann, who lives in the USA, suggested simply leaving this question open: “It is clear that we want to change the conditions for doing business towards net-zero CO2 emissions. No one can seriously answer whether that will still allow growth.” He believes that it is possible, but adds: “And if not, then so be it.” This idea was also shared by Jerode van den Bergh already featured in a March 15, 2011 article in Ecological Economics and labeled “A-Growth.”
>> Read also: Why there is no end to capitalism
This starting point allows for a sensible strategy. Why should one try to slow down growth in order to protect the climate instead of directly striving for climate protection? This is questionable from an economic point of view: Why should one target a proxy variable whose correlation to the target variable is disputed instead of targeting a variable directly?
Politically, this detour makes even less sense. Of course, it is important to educate citizens about the consequences of politics, and consistent climate protection will also cause pain. But how sensible is it to set the goal “We want to make you all poorer because it benefits the climate”? So it makes more sense to directly announce the fight against a development that is no longer denied in serious discussions.
The discussion about degrowth is also about lifestyles and concepts of freedom. Some have the vision of a modest life with little work, little consumption and, for example, a lot of shared use of consumer goods. The others want pleasure, and if possible without restrictions.
Both can refer to the Greek philosopher Epicurus: He preached the pleasure principle, but at the same time a modest, withdrawn life dedicated to human relationships. Some see freedom and responsibility in close connection, right down to the problematic thesis stemming from German idealism that freedom is the insight into necessity. The others see freedom as freedom and resist restrictions.
What global climate movements are needed for.
(Photo: AP)
Personal renunciation can certainly support the fight against climate change. Demanding “green” politics and then flying to the Far East on vacation is not convincing. And renunciation alone is not politics. If politics relies solely on this, it also serves at least in part as a distraction from the goal. We have long known what needs to be done: more renewable energy, thermal insulation, heat pumps, use of waste heat, electric drives, intelligent power grids, local public transport and bicycle lanes, but less flying, energy through combustion and less waste, to name just a few key points.
The fact that this is so difficult to implement is due to the incentive structure: the costs are incurred locally, the benefits are distributed globally. This is why global climate movements like “Fridays for Future” are so important, even if they have so far been too weak to be able to overturn this structural problem.
What works better than personal renunciation
Relying solely on personal renunciation, however, is only one way of preventing oneself from pursuing straightforward politics. Mixing the climate issue with other political goals, which is particularly popular with activists, is also part of this. Of course, we can first abolish capitalism and then see what happens next. To a certain extent, this idea is understandable, especially for young people who only know this system and find that it is moving too little in the right direction. But it is certain that this detour will only bring more resistance politically and lead to economic disaster.
>> Read also: What investors can learn from professionals about sustainable investments
We can also formulate the climate issue as a global justice issue. But does that bring us closer to the solution? On the other hand, the flow of refugees that global warming will trigger is probably still underestimated.
However, it is also problematic to attach too much importance to the subject of ESG – as an abbreviation for environment, social affairs and good corporate governance. It is difficult to measure how much ecological investments actually bring and how much the avoidance of investing in “brown”, i.e. climate-damaging companies prevents. The suspicion is obvious that more comfortable attitude ethics is indulged here. Then you can calm yourself with the thought: “It’s not my fault if the world goes under.”
Monetary policy should only be “greened” if it has a measurable effect.
This is an evasive strategy that doesn’t even require sacrifice and maybe that’s why it’s so popular. It is also very clear that monetary policy should only be “greened” if it has a measurable effect. If you don’t even ask for it, you’re more likely to be in the cozy corner.
Of course, there are also evasive strategies and ideological fronts when it comes to the difficult question of how climate policy should be implemented. On the purely technical side, this happens when ignorance of technology is disguised as “technology openness”. For example, you can explain to a schoolchild that combustion generates heat and is not used in a combustion engine, but rather wasted as energy. Against this background, the discussion about e-fuels is grotesque, not to mention the energy-intensive production of these fuels.
The problem with supposed future technologies.
(Photo: dpa)
Nor would it be wise to rely on a “technology of the future” such as nuclear fusion. In 1942, just a few years after the discovery of nuclear fission, Enrico Fermi built the first experimental reactor in Chicago. Fusion has been known as a principle even longer than fission and was used in a bomb as early as 1952 – but there is still no experimental reactor; the probable time of technical maturity has been postponed for decades with a relatively stable forecast horizon of around 25 years.
Nuclear energy, on the other hand, has been tried and tested, but is mostly rejected by climate protectionists, whose movement is also rooted in resistance to nuclear power. In fact, it would probably have been better to phase out coal before phasing out nuclear power, rather than the other way around.
On the other hand, those who advocate nuclear power should not conceal the extraordinary risks. Risk can be defined as damage times the probability of occurrence and is therefore mathematically moderate if there is a low probability. But every insurance expert knows that huge losses with a low probability are not comparable to small but frequent losses. In addition, there are high costs and long construction times for new buildings, as was recently shown in Finland: There, in 2021, a reactor went online 13 years later and three times more expensive than planned.
>>Read also: The new strategies of climate protection brakes
Going by prices alone would be too expensive when it comes to climate protection.
(Photo: IMAGO/photothek)
Even more important is the economic dimension. The market economy approach is initially promising in a market economy, i.e. the pricing of CO2 emissions. But it also invites you to dodge maneuvers. For example, when European or even global solutions are demanded, which of course do not come about all at once. Or when massive savings in individual areas are downplayed, pointing out that this would only free up CO2 quotas and then be used elsewhere. This second problem could perhaps be countered by also allowing the buyback of allowances to stabilize prices.
Economics Monika Schnitzer recently named the basic problem: going by prices alone would initially be too expensive to be politically feasible. Therefore, there will probably be no climate policy based purely on theory, but at least for a transitional phase there will also be bans, bids and subsidies.
The trick will always be that the two don’t interfere with each other. The issue is reminiscent of what Chinese politician Deng Xiaoping said about capitalism and socialism: “It doesn’t matter whether a cat is black or white; if she catches a mouse, she’s a good cat.” The problem is that the two cats shouldn’t interfere.
More: What mini solar systems cost and when they are worthwhile