The limits to growth are reflected in the increase in extreme weather events such as droughts and forest fires.
Photo: AFP/Patrick T. Fallon
In June 1972, the same year that the study “Limits to Growth” was published, the first World Conference on the Environment was held in Sweden. Global environmental policy began with this UN conference – and the debate on how to cope with crossing planetary boundaries.
Even then, the countries of the north pointed south and explained that the problem was population growth in the Global South, recalled Doris Fuchs, Professor of International Relations and Sustainable Development at the University of Münster.
And even then the Global South answered: You in the Global North with your way of life and your consumption are the problem. Fuchs shares this view: “We can’t help but say: Our overconsumption in the Global North is the core problem.”
Over the decades, however, other narratives have dominated the debate, starting with the catchphrase of “qualitative” growth, which is to take the place of “quantitative” in the future. Later, this thought was relabeled as »sustainable«, »future-proof« or »green« growth, says Uwe Leprich, energy and economics expert at Saarland University, outlining the development of the term.
However, according to Leprich, the basic growth target was never seriously questioned: the increase in gross domestic product (GDP) as the sum of all newly produced goods and services within a year.
In the end, the idea of ”green” growth meant that GDP and consumption of nature no longer increased in parallel in some regions of the world, but instead a gap developed on the charts. “Europe, at least, has succeeded in decoupling economic growth from greenhouse gas emissions, for example,” says Michael Jakob from the Ecologic Institute in Berlin. However, this is happening far too slowly to meet the Paris 1.5 degree target.
Especially when it comes to climate protection, a debate about whether »green« growth is still the solution seems outdated. If you take the CO2 emissions since the beginning of industrialization as a fair yardstick, the Global North has long torn down all borders. The countries of the Global North only have an emissions budget because the people in the poorer countries have not used up the CO2 budgets they have been entitled to for a long time.
Like Doris Fuchs, Steffen Lange from the Institute for Ecological Economy Research regards overconsumption in the Global North as the real obstacle. The material footprint that not only millionaires, but a large part of the population in western and other countries that are considered rich, afford is so large that simply reducing it would solve the growth problem for everyone, says Lange.
For Fuchs and Lange, a look at the past also shows that the continued hope for technological breakthroughs does not offer a way out. Without real sufficiency and a different way of life, it doesn’t work. On the other hand, it is not necessary to knit a pure renunciation debate out of this knowledge.
“If we reduce climate change now through sufficiency, it will enable a better life in a few decades, because otherwise we will face great destruction,” says Steffen Lange in a motivating way.
For Doris Fuchs, sufficiency means finding answers to questions like: What do I really need to live? What are human needs that need to be satisfied? For the political scientist, we are entering a justice debate here. “Some people shouldn’t ruin the chance of a good life for others with their overconsumption,” she emphasizes.
Uwe Leprich chooses clearer words. For him it is high time to say goodbye to the “political lie” that one could “maintain today’s return-driven waste economy and still avoid the collapse of the system”.
According to Leprich, it would be important to realize that the industrial nations in particular will have to organize a far-reaching economic contraction in the coming decades. This means significantly lower production as a result of durable, repair-friendly and recyclable products, through the development of a sharing economy and shorter working hours.
However, in view of the dynamics of the climate and biodiversity crisis, it is questionable whether an absolute reduction in resource consumption and the transition to a climate-neutral world – i.e. “green” growth in the strict sense – will be sufficient.
According to Leprich, today’s “Limits to Growth Project” should show the conditions under which a collapse of the economic and social system can be prevented.
According to Leprich, such fundamental questions would also play a role: »Does humanity still have a chance of surviving if the earth warms by three to five degrees? To what extent does the extinction of thousands of animal and plant species per year affect the stability of the ecosystem? Does ocean pollution have a significant impact on the food chain?”
Perhaps the limits of growth had already been reached in 1972 – we’re just finding out now.