In a Renewable Energy World, Is There an Alternative to Growth?

One of many conservative talking points against climate change of late has been that that environmental campaigners are tree-hugging, humanity-hating Luddites. So they really couldn’t have asked for a better present than the latest liberal think-tank report on climate change: “Growth isn’t possible,” cries the New Economics Foundation, in a 145-page jeremiad that compares humanity to an overweight hamster.
The report itself lacks a good executive summary. If I were to write it, I’d put it this way:

Carbon intensity has not fallen even in countries that are attempting to reduce emissions. This proves that technology like solar or nuclear energy plants can’t save us. The problem is that we want the wrong things. We should give up economic growth and instead pursue happiness.

Chances are, I won’t be receiving any writing job offers from the NEF, but I think my summary gets the gist. Unfortunately, with its somewhat hyped headline, the report looks like a repeat of the old anti-growth screed that’s the standby of groups like Greenpeace, with roots going back to Thomas Malthus.

Human-caused climate change (if you accept it as a real phenomenon) presents a new problem: even if enough resources exist to continuing rapid growth, it’s the growth itself that is introducing weaknesses. Without the ability to find and utilize new resources, the same ability that disproved the theories of Malthus, climate change wouldn’t be a problem. Witness the current recession, which stopped growth — in both the economy and emissions.

To the NEF’s eye, it’s impossible for us to simultaneously cut off our emissions and continue to grow. You’ll have to look at the report for the specifics, but they aren’t the first to point out that ongoing growth puts serious emission reduction out of reach. Therefore, they argue, our concept of “growth” needs some recalibration.

BNET