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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As