Transcript Diapositiva 1 - Uppsala University

Sustainable Degrowth
Giorgos Kallis
ICREA Professor,
ICTA, Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona
www.eco2bcn.es
Uppsala, 23 September 2010
I will try to convince you, that:
1.
Degrowth is a new, exciting
and inevitable policy proposal.
2.
Degrowth poses new
questions and opens new
avenues for research.
Structure of this presentation
1.
Growth is unsustainable.
2.
The sustainable degrowth
proposal.
3.
Criticism and defence.
4.
New questions.
Structure of this presentation
Growth is unsustainable.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
Ecologically.
Socially.
Economically.
2.
The sustainable degrowth proposal.
3.
Criticism and defence.
4.
New questions.
Infinite growth is impossible
in a finite planet.
Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen (1906-1994)

The economy is an
entropic process.

Finite stocks are being
depleted.

“Thermal pollution”.

Degrowth is inevitable,
the objective should be
to arrest its pace by
turning from “funds” to
“flows”.
Limits to Growth
The optimist response:

Denial

“We’ve been
through this again”

No limits anytime
soon.

Technology and
efficiency.

No climate
change.

Sustainable
Development via
Green Growth.
Energy Return on Energy
Investment (EROI)
The impossible arithmetics
of climate change

To achieve the
450ppm
stabilization target
by 2050, we need
21 to 130-fold
improvement in
carbon intensity
(gCO2/$)
Absolute decoupling is not
happening.
Rebound effects

Responses that
tend to offset the
conservation
benefits of a more
efficient technology
and that they are
causally related to
the new
technology.
Jevon’s Paradox
A “weightless economy”?

A “weightless” economy still weighs
(Odum).

Labour intensive dematerialized
services do not lead to growth
(Jackson).

Dual economy and over-accumulation
(Gorz)
Growth cannot be sustained
even in its own terms.
Over-accumulation
Ecological limits to new
investment
Rising costs of growth
So, what´s the problem if we
can’t grow?
Real GDP per capita and subjective Life Satisfaction in the UK
200%
180%
GDP
160%
Life Satisfaction
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
Does growth reduce
poverty?

Globally less poor.

But the very poor are getting poorer.

Rising inequalities => more relative
poverty.
Beyond GDP is not enough.

Complementary
indicators are not
enough.

There are good,
structural reasons why
GDP is measured.

GDP is not the cause,
but the effect of a
growth economy.
From Growth to Degrowth

Growth is unsustainable ≠ Degrowth
is sustainable.

Degrowth can be catastrophic => how
can we turn it into an opportunity? =>
how can we make it stable?
Structure of this presentation
1.
Growth is unsustainable.
2.
The sustainable degrowth proposal.
i.
ii.
iii.
Definition
Measurement
Policies
3.
Criticism and defence.
4.
New questions.
What is “sustainable
degrowth”?

“An equitable
downscaling of
production and
consumption that
increases human wellbeing and enhances
ecological conditions”
Schneider, Kallis and
Martinez-Alier, Vol 18
(6), 2010-
Key notions

Downscaling and relocalization, not
just efficiency improvements.

“Selective” (geographically and
sectorally) degrowth.
Measurement

Not negative GDP.

Function of well-being, (sectoral)
consumption and impact, and
distribution.
Policies










Reduced working hours.
Complementary currencies.
Impact Caps.
Taxing environmental bads.
Investment in social services and relational goods.
Ecological investments.
Leaving resources under the ground (extended
sanctuaries)
Basic income and salary caps (redistributive taxes)
Stonger regulation of commercial media.
Facilitate cooperative/communal forms of property and
ownership.
www.degrowth.eu
Structure of this presentation
1.
Growth is unsustainable.
2.
The sustainable degrowth
proposal.
3.
Criticism and defence.
4.
New questions.
Imprecise
CRITICISM

What is to degrow
(GDP, tons of
materials, impact)?
RESPONSE

Do we need single
indicators?

“Growth” was also
imprecise.

Clear direction,
(alternative) metrics
can be worked out.
Uncertain results
CRITICISM

What if less output with
more input?

What if ecological
investments decline
because of degrowth?

What about “dirty”
degrowth?
RESPONSE

Yes, let´s study
conditions under which
degrowth becomes
“sustainable”.
What about the “South” and
the “Poor”?
CRITICISM
RESPONSE

“Go tell India and China”.

The West should offer an
example of commitment.

Poverty alleviation requires
growth.

Growth to satisfy basic
material needs.

Reduce inequality to tackle
poverty.

Yes, alternative, postdevelopment formulations
should emerge from the
“South”.

Condescending and
patronizing.
Totalitarian
CRITICISM

You can only do this with
a dictatorship.

You can´t tell people
what to consume.

Technocratic elites will
set limits and assume
more power.
RESPONSE

Democratically-elected
governments have
imposed in the past
radical changes.

Do not have to intervene
directly on consumption.

Degrowth has to be
deeply democratic, or
nothing at all. “Bottomup”.
Too voluntaristic
CRITICISM


Humans are selfish and
status-seeking; capitalism is
our nature.
People like “jeans and fast
foods”.
RESPONSE

Biology shows multiple
potentialities; “conditioned by
genes, cultures still decide”.

There have been alternative
societies that were not
unhappy.

People like also what they are
offered.

Public action is about
controlling self-destructive or
group-destructive individual
actions.
Politically unrealistic
CRITICISM
RESPONSE

People will never
vote for this.

Small ideas can
(and have) turn(ed)
hegemonic.

Elites will not let it
happen.

Big and
unexpected
changes happen in
times of crisis.
Dangerously risky
CRITICISM
RESPONSE

Polarises politics – the other
extreme might as well benefit
from the crisis.

True, but democracy should
be capable of handling
antagonisms.

Risks unforeseen cascade
effects – “we have something,
even if imperfect, why risk
loosing it all”?

True, but it is unlikely that
what we have can be
sustained indefinitely –
“sustainable degrowth or
barbarism?”

Change can also be gradual –
address current problems but
differently.
Structure of this presentation
1.
Growth is unsustainable.
2.
The sustainable degrowth
proposal.
3.
Criticism and defence.
4.
New questions.
Research

“Metabolic scenarios” of labour, energy, labour
(population), product.

Policy-impact models.

Alternatives
 anthropology
 “modern” nations, regions, communities

Social movement theory and “big” social change.

New (macro)economics
Thank you!
[email protected]
www.eco2bcn.es