In my 1973 book, “Poverty and Progress: An Ecological Perspective on Economic Development,” I described the major innovations from the beginnings of agriculture through the Industrial Revolution as “the lifeline of societies caught in the ecological pincers of population growth and Human societies have been forced to exploit the environment more intensively to meet our growing needs. This exploitation has been an essential part of what we call economic development.
Nor has change always been welcome. Early agricultural populations were shorter, less healthy, and had to work longer, backbreaking hours than their hunter-gatherer ancestors. Conditions in early Industrial Revolution Britain were appalling. We were forced to extract coal as wood supplies dwindled. My children will have to choose between artificial meat, insects or vegetarianism, living in houses made of wood substitutes and not being able to enjoy the countryside due to high temperatures. As economic historian Jack Fisher wrote, “It is one of the eternal truths of history that as societies become rich, they are no longer able to afford the pleasures that were so readily available when they were poor.”
Richard Wilkinson, North Yorkshire, England
The Global South’s dream of becoming El Dorado through a Western economic model has led to a rude awakening. The resources that are the very basis of survival – water, fertile land and a predictable climate – are threatened in these countries because of the Western globalized industrial project. This includes the Green Revolution lauded in The Post’s June 23 editorial, which has had serious ecological and social consequences in India and the African countries where it has been implemented. Similarly, the “new green energy infrastructure and new clean technologies” mentioned in the editorial require the rapid growth of lithium extraction and export to the Global North from countries in the Global South, causing severe problems for communities local and nature in countries such as Bolivia and Chile. . The time has come to cast doubt on the naïve vision of a favorable world, oriented towards “growth and innovation”. That very model of eternal expansion has brought us face to face with environmental destruction. A serious and respectful discussion of degradation is the only way for us to find our way out of the maze we have built for ourselves.
Nadia Johanisova, Brno, Czech Republic
A recent series of Post editorials argued that population and economic growth are essential to advancing the quality of life, and that innovation and ingenuity have overcome ecological limitations in the past. This may have been true during the early Industrial Revolution. But technology has not overcome our rapid approach to the 1.5 degree climate threshold. Nor has it stopped the decline of fish populations in the oceans or in terrestrial species.
The latest major technological breakthrough driving economic growth is artificial intelligence. But the amount of electricity it takes to power AI servers is astronomical. ChatGPT alone consumes over half a million kilowatt-hours of electricity each day, equivalent to the consumption of approximately 17,000 American households. AI’s energy needs are growing so fast that economic analysts predict they could “fuel a natural gas boom” at a time when we most need to move away from old fuel sources. Not all technological innovations are good for the world. Innovations that benefit only the investors in that technology at the expense of society and the planet are not positive contributions to our overall well-being.
The Post editorial says that even with zero per capita economic growth between now and 2050, the planet will fall short of its net zero carbon emissions goals. The implication is “Why bother trying?” But zero economic growth will bring us much closer to our target than our current trajectory. And a 5 percent increase over that time period will bring us closer to the 2050 target.
Financial advisors tell us to live within our means. This also applies to society as a whole. Captains of industry don’t need to sell us more stuff we don’t need to grow the economy at the expense of our home planet. You can only recover from your problems for so long. There is an absolute limit to how many people this planet can accommodate and how much industrial and economic activity the planet can handle. We are fast approaching that limit and we need to slow down, not speed up.
The Post recently mocked “a steady parade of Cassandras who worry that humanity is about to exhaust the planet’s carrying capacity.”
The original Cassandra was a Trojan princess and seer. After a decade of war, the beleaguered Greeks appeared to have left, leaving behind a large wooden horse, which the Trojans interpreted as a parting gift. Cassandra warned them in the gravest possible terms not to let the horse inside the gates. But the Trojans, giddy with relief at the end of the war, thought she was mad. They brought the horse into the city – and, with it, hid the Greek soldiers. Cassandra was right. Troy was destroyed.
It’s not a matter of if humanity will reach the limits of the planet, but when. I can pick up The Post every day and read a story, whether it’s about disappearing aquifers and drying up rivers or mass migrations and regional wars exacerbated by a scramble for depleted resources, that suggests the time is near.
Complacency in the face of an existential threat is just as bad as alarmism. Remember: The last time the boy in the fable cried wolf, he was right.
Gary Norton, Charlottesville
The Post’s June 23 editorial, “The Light Is Crazy,” gets the headline right, but the story is wrong. It is not true that “cutting emissions to safer levels would require epic growth”: The United States economy has more than doubled in real terms since 1990, while greenhouse gas emissions have remained flat or are sitting From 1990 to 2021, greenhouse gas emissions per dollar of goods and services produced by the US economy actually fell by 53 percent.
The United States is not alone. About 30 countries, including developing economies such as Nigeria and the Dominican Republic, achieved significant economic growth by reducing carbon dioxide emissions from 2005 to 2020. Renewable energy, energy efficiency, building a circular economy and reducing waste all contribute to breaking the link between “economic goods” and “environmental evils”. We can enable economic growth while respecting the planetary boundaries essential for survival.
The writer is the environment director at the Banking Information Center.
Growthists are neither crazy, nor do we claim that ending or reversing growth will save the planet. Instead, we simply look around at what several centuries of demographic and economic growth have done to the prospects for the long-term survival of healthy ecosystems and civilization itself. Then we ask, does humanity really need it? more of this at this point in our expansion or something different?
Can we celebrate the possibility that population growth will end relatively quickly through lower birth rates? Can we find ways to reduce poverty by reducing inequality in wealth and income, rather than mindlessly pumping up gross domestic product, which the editorial admits is not a measure of individual happiness?
Robert Engelman, Takoma Park
The writer is a senior fellow of the Population Institute and former president of the Worldwatch Institute.
The real issue is not the size of the pie, but its composition. We need more of the things that enhance well-being, such as health care, knowledge and music, and less of the things that diminish it, including pollution and the depletion of natural resources.
James K. Boyce, Amherst, Mass.
The writer is the author of Economics for People and the Planet.
The editors answer:
The many thoughtful letters criticizing or praising our editorial confront a critical question: How much human activity can the Earth support? The question has followed humans throughout the Anthropocene, as humans have continuously exploited the ecosystems in which they have settled.
Innovation may not save humanity from the climate crisis as it has saved us from other challenges such as mass starvation. But as Mr Wilkinson points out, from the invention of agriculture to the Industrial Revolution, innovation has always been “the lifeline of societies caught in the ecological binds of population growth and scarce resources”. Slowing economic growth will slow the emission of climate-changing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. But getting to zero (or even negative) emissions will require more innovation, and innovation is harder in a world without growth to support it.
“The real issue is not the size of the pie, but its composition,” writes Mr. Boyce. Indeed: Growth is not inherently destructive. Yes, that means more (and, hopefully, cleaner) cars and fridges – and also better vaccines, less polluting industrial processes, public transport and less carbon emissions. In 1981, 42 percent of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty, according to the World Bank. The weight today is 9 percent. This improvement would not have happened without economic growth.
In part because of the engaging responses from our writers, we plan to return to these issues in another editorial soon.
#Opinion #save #planet #scale #humanitys #ambitions
Image Source : www.washingtonpost.com