Whether or not climate change is man-made, we cannot escape from the harsh truth.
I admit I was late. I did not pay much attention to the crusade of that young Swedish girl, having a natural repulsion for mainstream media idols, often created for the sake of ratings and readily forgotten as soon as a new big event shows up. But the curiosity about the 'stare of death' video (geez, I could watch it all day!) led me to the actual speech, and a single sentence blew me away: "fairy tales about eternal economic growth". Now, that is the key.
Because if we want to tackle global emissions or, at least, improve the quality of our lives and health, a radical change in the way we think the economy and we measure wealth is necessary. Cancer, car crashes, forest fires and other detrimental events contribute to the GDP, and a shift to a better economic grow indicator could make a huge difference: the consequence is that the pursuing of intensive animal farming or oil drilling, for instance, will be less convenient.
The whole concept of endless growth is also unreliable, since natural resources are finite, and we already started to consume more than the earth can produce. Despite that, some economists, journalists and private companies, including banks (to be fair the latter have massive interests in carbon industries), claim that only an increasing growth will be able to achieve 'greener' goals.
But is it a green growth possible? The theory assumes that a continuing economic expansion will allow to speed up technological change and substitutions, with the result to decouple GDP with the same amount of resources consumed. The policymakers agree with the theory, and that is the direction undertaken by the wealthiest nations to achieve sustainable development goals.
Unfortunately, there is no actual empirical evidence that demonstrates the decoupling of growth from a fixed supply of resources, based on an endlessly increasing economic development on a global scale. Further analysis of historical trends and models projections showed that the decouple of wealth with the same amount of carbon emissions would not be achieved at the rate necessary to prevent an increase in global temperatures.
Nevertheless, most economists agree that a system without growth would collapse. A Canadian economist though, claims that there is a choice, providing that we manage to adapt from the current vision of the economy to a model based on 'sustainable prosperity'. The concept relies on low-growth simulation and an expanded pool of factors traditionally not captured by GDP (e.g. creating arts). The recalibration allows dynamic shifts of growth within a steady, capped overall growth: for example, the switch of some sectors from fossil fuel to renewables.
Certainly, adapting to a new world economy implies complexity and challenges. However, a slower economy implemented by design is a better option than an unsustainable system pursuing continuous growth with a lack of natural resources. So, does Greta Thunberg have a point? Definitely yes, and I am sorry she receives so much hate. I guess people worry that new -maybe imposed- behavioural changes and standards could affect their quality of life, or the environmental protection will come with a cost in financial or job losses terms.
The harsh truth is that the current way to achieve growth does not make people happier or give them more free time. Likely, a cultural change is necessary, to shift our vision towards different objectives and indicators: human wellbeing, biocapacity, equality, and so on. Changes take time to occur, even under favourable conditions; however, Greta's fierce 'battle' and other students initiatives could speed up that process, especially within younger generations.
Lastly, back to Greta; one part of me would suggest her to pick a specific environmental issue and pursue a more reachable goal while she has the attention of the media. But one should not put limits on own dreams, particularly at such a young age. So, go girl!
Comments