中国与世界,环境危机大家谈

china and the world discuss the environment

  • linkedin group
  • sini weibo
  • facebook
  • twitter
envelope

注册订阅每周免费邮件
Sign up for email updates


文章 Articles

“Growth can’t go on”

Viki Johnson

Readinch

To have any hope of protecting Earth’s resources, we must first abandon our obsession with economic expansion, argues Viki Johnson.

article image
 

From birth to puberty a hamster doubles its weight each week. If, then, instead of levelling-off in maturity as animals do, the hamster continued to grow at the same rate, on its first birthday we would be facing a nine-billion tonne hamster. If it kept eating at the same ratio of food to body weight, by then its daily intake would be greater than the total, annual amount of maize produced worldwide.

There is a reason that in nature things do not grow indefinitely.

Yet the entire canon of mainstream contemporary economics seems to believe that economics exists independently of the laws of biology, chemistry and physics. It assumes, without exception, that infinite economic growth on a finite planet is both desirable and possible.

In economics, “growth”, or the lack of it, describes the trajectory of Gross Domestic Product and Gross National Product, two slightly different measures of national income (they differ, basically, only in that one includes earnings from overseas assets). An economy is said to be growing if the financial value of all the exchanges of goods and services within it goes up. The absence of growth gets described, pejoratively, as recession. Prolonged recessions are called depressions.

Yet it is not that simple. An economy may grow, for example, because money is being spent on clearing up after disasters or pollution incidents, or to control rising crime or widespread disease. You may also have “jobless growth”, in which the headline figure for GDP rises but new employment is not generated, or environmentally destructive growth, in which a kind of false monetary value is created by liquidating irreplaceable natural assets on which livelihoods depend.

The fact that an economy is growing tells you nothing about the “quality” of economic activity that is happening within it. For example, research by the centre for well being at nef (the new economics foundation) shows that the link between rising GDP and higher life satisfaction in developed nations broke down decades ago.

Research by nef also highlighted a flaw at the heart of the general economic strategy that relies upon global economic growth to reduce poverty. The distribution of costs and benefits from economic growth, it demonstrated, is highly unbalanced. The share of benefits reaching those on the lowest incomes is shrinking. In this system, paradoxically, in order to generate ever smaller benefits for the poorest, those who are already rich and “over-consuming” are required to consume ever more.

For every doubling in the global economy, as it is currently measured, we use the equivalent in resources of all of the previous doublings combined.  For modest growth rates of 3% each year, common to developed economies, the doubling period is around 23 years. For higher growth rates of 10%, more common to developing economies, the doubling period is approximately seven years.

In a unique study published in the science journal Nature in September 2009, a group of 29 leading international scientists identified nine processes in the biosphere for which they considered it necessary to define “planetary boundaries”. Of the nine boundaries, three had already been transgressed: climate change, interference in the nitrogen cycle and biodiversity loss. Clearly, anyone who thinks the Earth can take another doubling of the global economy is, as economist Kenneth Boulding famously stated, “a madman or an economist”.

To illustrate this, and in the context of climate change, nef looked in detail at the relationship between economic growth and the need to avert catastrophic climate change. Based on the leading models for climate change and the global economy’s use of fossil fuels, the report comes to a seemingly inescapable and self-explanatory conclusion.

It asks whether global economic growth can be maintained, while keeping a good likelihood of limiting global temperature rise to two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the target set out in the Copenhagen Accord, and widely considered the maximum rise to which humanity can adapt without serious difficulty.

The report shows that none of the scenarios studied, including the most optimistic variations of low-carbon energy and efficiency, could square the circle of endless global economic growth with climate safety. This is in part due to the fact that, over the last decade, carbon intensity (carbon per unit of GDP) has not gone down, it has generally flat-lined and, in some years, even gone up. This is the result of rapid economic growth in developing nations such as India and China, which have fuelled their economic boom with carbon-intensive coal. However, globally, there has also been a lack of investment in low-carbon energy infrastructure such as solar or wind energy.

At the same time, improvement in energy intensity of the economy (energy per unit of GDP) has slowed – implying we may be approaching efficiency limits in both the supply side (such as power stations) and demand side (such as domestic appliances). So, for all the promise of magic bullet technologies such as biofuels, carbon capture and storage and nuclear, and ever improving energy and resource efficiencies; continual growth drowns out energy and natural resource efficiency gains.

Well-being economics offers an alternative to the problems associated with unsustainable economic growth. Underpinning it is the recognition that economic growth was only ever intended as a means to an end, and that by prioritising the “means” – in other words focusing so heavily on economic growth – we have lost track of the “end”, of what really matters.

At the heart of well-being economics is the understanding that the “end” in question is a high level of well-being for all, achieved through economic activity that uses environmental resources in a sustainable way. If society’s goal is understood to be high well-being, and the means of achieving it is recognised as sustainable economic activity, we will be better equipped to deal with the biggest challenge that we face in the twenty-first century. 

Unending global economic growth is not only impossible, it is also neither desirable nor necessary. If you have any doubts, ask a hamster.

 

Viki Johnson is head of climate change and energy policy at nef.

Homepage image from hk3389

Andrew Pendleton of the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr) has written a response to Viki Johnson on our blog. Read it here.

Also in this series:

Is earth justice possible?

How to make China happy

Towards sustainable capitalism

Tim Jackson on restoring social balance

The dangers of happiness indices

Famine to feast: health impacts of a rising China

“China must measure happiness”

Bhutan’s experiment with happiness

 

评论 comments

5

评论 comments

中文

EN

嗨 Hi Guest user

退出 Logout /


发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文 最大字符 1200

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200

排序 Sort By:

无线和无限

“无限的增长是不可能的”原来是growth can't go on的翻译,让人诧异。很多人都会觉得这不是一码事。

另外,没人会认为会有什么无限的增长,就像人不可能无限长高一样,所以没有什么大惊小怪的,我总感觉这个作者有小看读者和普通大众的嫌疑。我们重点需要解决现在的问题,或者中短期的问题,而不是动不动就说未来50年的事情,那时候我们“都翘辫子了”。万事万物都有个度,越过了这个度,那么就有些现在不可预测的事情发生,这也是常识,所以呢,不要忧虑,今天的烦恼已经够多的了。

wireless and endless (in Chinese these two words are homophonous)

It turned out that "endless growth is impossible" is translated from "growth can't go on", which is surprising. Many people don't consider them as the same thing.

Moreover, nobody thinks there will be endless growth, just like human beings cannot grow unceasingly. I have a feeling that the author is running some risks of dismissing readers and common people. We should prioritize the current issues or the problems in the short and medium run, instead of what will happen in another fifty years, by the time we will all "kick the bucket". It is common sense that everything has a limit, beyond which unexpected things will happen. So let's not worry about future as today's concerns are enough.


可持续经济

当下需要的是通过绿色清洁技术实现可持续发展。我再又想起这个著名的等式:
C = B : E
任何一块土地的承载能力取决于生物潜力和环境阻力。

A. Jagadeesh Nellore博士(美联社),印度

Sustainable Economy

The need of the hour is sustainable Development through Clean and green technologies. I again recall the famous equation:
C = B : E
The carrying capacity of any land depends on the biotic potential and environmental resistance.

Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore (AP), India


愈发混乱

GDP增长的性质与其他富裕指标的关系非常深刻,但这篇文章论述并不成功。其他人可能想从经济学角度辩论,但这里有两个根本的缺陷:

——气候变化不是关于资源枯竭本身,而是碳从一个系统转移到另一个的运动。这完全归于矿物能源的使用;替代能源不会有这种影响,所以文章将经济增长和气候变化混为一谈是错误的。

——稳定或负增长的政治主张,至少在现在,是不合时宜的。此文并没有提供替代技术或政治战略来实现他的主张。

Growing confusion

There is a very profound to be had concerning the nature of GDP growth and its relationship with other indicators of prosperity, but this article doesn't cut the mustard. Others may want to weigh in on the economics; but there are two fundamental flaws here:

- climate change is not about resource depletion per se but about the movement of carbon from one sink to another. This is entirely due to the use of fossil energy; alternative sources of energy would not have this effect, so it erroneous to conflate growth and climate change in this way.

- the politics of steady state or de-growth are, at least for now, a non-starter. This article presents no alternative nor political strategy for getting there.


知足常乐

中国有句老话叫知足常乐。人的欲望可能是无穷的,一定时期内的精力和能力却是有限的,如果不能控制和平衡,自然就离快乐远了。

Satisfaction is bliss

There's an old Chinese saying: "satisfaction is bliss." People may have insatiable desires, but there is a limit to their energy and capacity within a certain period. If the desire cannot be controlled or balanced, people may drift further from happiness.


经济VS环境

GDP增长和环境之间是有联系的。比如一个发帖者在另一个论坛里谈到25年前的印度(因长度限制有改动):

......“人们从市场回来提着布袋。店主们过去用陶罐装的凝乳和糖浆甜点,现在他们则用聚乙烯袋子来装。大多数食物如豆子,白糖和油炸小吃是用纸袋来装的,小孩子做这种纸袋以赚取零花钱。而现在人们拿着布袋的时候觉得不好意思。
我祖母以前用的篮子是在水里泡一两天的废纸再利用制作的,而现在贮存干货都用塑料篮子。

用篮子或自制纸袋是环保的,但不算经济活动。而制作塑料袋正相反,是经济活动,但不利于环境。

economy versus environment

There are connections between GDP growth and environment. For example, in another forum, a contributor posted this (edited for length) talking about the India of 25 years ago.

.. " people carrying cloth bags from the market. Shopkeepers used to sell curd and sweets with sugar syrup in earthen pots. Nowadays, they are using polythene bags for the same. For packaging of most of the eatables like pulses, sugar, namkeens a paper bags were in use, made by small children to earn pocket money. Nowadays people feel shame in carrying cloth bags.
my grandmother used to bring baskets made of waste paper soaked in water for few days but nowadays plastic baskets are available for dry material storage purposes. "

Using baskets or homemade paper bags is environmentally benign but does not register as economic activity. Making plastic bags does, but is environmentally unsustainable.


合作伙伴 Partners

项目 Projects