Skip to main content

We need to 'Degrow'

We have argued in previous articles that growth and world trade are driving forces for climate change. Unless this driver is understood and dealt with, then talk of containing global warming is simply hot air. Politicians need to lead in efforts to get voters to realise that our lifestyles must change.

If we want to tackle climate change and protect our future on the Earth, societies will need to adopt a degrowth model, in which we consume less, and use fewer materials and resources. Given how reliant we are on the growth model, this won’t be an easy transition.

Now, two researchers in the UK and Sweden have been awarded the latest Atlas Award for examining this current and growing debate on the strategy to tackle climate change from the degrowth angle.

The article by Dr Milena Büchs, University of Leeds, UK and Prof. Max Koch, Lund University, Sweden, appeared this month in Futures, published by Elsevier.

While degrowth doesn’t mean going back to a prehistoric way of life, it does mean reducing our consumption. To make the model work, we need to understand its impact on people’s wellbeing, and therefore the concerns they might have about degrowth. This approach is dramatically different to the growth model that most countries around the world have adopted, and because of this, changing to a degrowth model may have far-reaching consequences.

“People aspire to buy a house, have a car and fly on really exotic holidays; these are the expectations that we grew up with,” said Dr. Büchs explaining the close link between consumption and people’s identities. “I think this will be the change that is required, to not see consumption of material goods and services as something that can fulfill our need to have an identity and some kind of status in society. The question is how that can be addressed in zero carbon ways.”

In the paper, Dr. Büchs and Prof. Koch explore the concerns people have about the impact degrowth could have on their wellbeing in the short- to medium-term. The broader links degrowth has to our culture and society also have implications for wellbeing that might hinder its adoption; many of society’s welfare-related institutions rely on the growth model: the education system; the labor market; and the legal system, for example.

Changing all this would be an unprecedented undertaking, but it’s vital to our very survival, according to Dr. Büchs and Prof. Koch, who says


“If we don't understand the potential implications of degrowth on people’s wellbeing, it will never become a reality.”

“We need the public’s support for this, which requires a lot of discussion and cultural change.”

The researchers are planning further research in this area, including looking at engaging people in the transition, so they can better understand the concerns and overcome the barriers. If we are to plan for the future we need to understand the constraints on change.

It is hoped the research will help understand the thresholds within which we can live – the minimum amount of consumption, resource use or travel, and how we will satisfy our basic needs and what is the maximum level the planet can support within the limitations of climate change.

“If we don't do anything, if we just carry on as usual, very soon our survival will be under threat,” said Prof. Koch.

“One of the counter-arguments to degrowth is that ‘degrowthers’ want to make people poorer and that this would have negative wellbeing implications; I think what one would need to make clear is that everybody’s wellbeing will be undermined by climate change if we don’t act on this now.”







Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,