Green growth vs. degrowth: don't we need both?

 

by Harald Desing. 

There is a fundamental debate ongoing whether the needed transformation to a fossil-free and circular society can be achieved through green growth or degrowth (e.g. here). Both schools of thought want the same: accelerate action to maintain and restore a hospitable climate. Yet, they disagree on how this can be achieved: green growthers argue that only a growing economy can finance and support the transition; degrowthers see overconsumption as the main cause of the current crisis and thus shrinking consumption the main remedy. In my view, the debate has valid points on both sides and I would like to put forward a hypothesis:

We will need both: green growth for building renewable infrastructure and degrowth in consumption.

 Looking from a bio-physical perspective, the transition can be accelerated by investing additional fossil energy necessary for building renewable infrastructure. The fastest possible transition could be achieved within five years energetically, limiting cumulative emissions to an absolute minimum and thus increasing our chance to stay below 1.5°C to ~90%. This is good news, but it would require a very different approach than currently envisioned.

Renewable infrastructure—e.g. solar panels, batteries, electric vehicles—have to be built fast and at a massive scale. This will grow the relevant part of the economy tremendously. Ramped up fossil energy provides the necessary extra energy (i.e. "investing" fossil carbon in the transition) during this time and the fossil system is shut down as soon as the renewable system is big enough to take over. Involved material industries—such as aluminum or silicon—will have to grow alongside manufacturing industries, distributors and installers of renewable infrastructure components. After a massive growth this industry would need to stay dormant until the first replacement wave. During this time it may engage in the subsequent task of cleaning up the atmosphere from excess CO₂. Already today, atmospheric CO₂ concentration at 420ppm is massively above the safe long-term threshold of 350ppm. Consequently, this excess CO₂ has to be removed together with all emissions necessary for the transition with large-scale negative emissions below zero. Energetically, this can be achieved within decades, after which this industry will have to shrink again down to the level where it compensates for leaks back to the atmosphere. After clean-up is complete, there is ecological room for increasing energy demand up to the ecological limit. Planetary boundaries restrict the maximum appropriation of renewable energy at an approximate 2000 Watt of average power demand per capita (this, accidentally, coincides with the old proposal of a 2000 Watt society). These forms of green growth are massive during the transition and clean-up, but have definite ends.

At the same time, we (the rich) will have to degrow consumption, i.e. converge at a globally equitable level anywhere in between ecological limits and fulfilling basic needs. Following the idea of the doughnut economy, fulfilling basic needs can be seen as an ethically justifiable minimum, which requires about 300 Watt per person. Today, we are at around 900 Watt per person on global average, Switzerland has about 6000 Watt, Somalia around 200 Watt. Consequently, rich countries will need to reduce in order to generate an equitable society as raising energy demand for everyone to "western standards" is incompatible with Earth. Simultaneously, there is some growth necessary and possible for poor societies. The lower energy demand per capita during the transformation, the more energy is disposable for the transition and clean-up, resulting in lower cumulative emissions and higher chances to safe our climate. If we aim at e.g. a 600 Watt society during the transition (proposed for example in the low energy demand scenario included in IPCC), this would mean degrowing Swiss energy demand by a factor of 10 (!), while tripling Somalia's.

We are all experiencing now that the current economic and political system is unstable when not growing. The question thus is: how could we envision a socio-economic system that can deliver a fast transition? How can we realize dedicated but limited growth in renewable infrastructure and degrowth in consumption?

Energy Sovereignty: A Reachable Objective

Translated from "Effetto Seneca"

 

Fascism gave many things a bad name, but it is not necessarily the case that everything that was done during the 20 years of Fascism was wrong. Autarky - the idea that Italy should be economically independent, was not wrong per se, taking into account the fact that Italy at that time was under heavy economic sanctions and could not import the coal it needed. Unfortunately, there was no way to create coal out of nothing, and autarky turned out to be more of a political propaganda stunt than anything else. A flashy but unhelpful little game, equivalent to our "greenwashing" or "happy degrowth." Today, however, we have renewable technologies that are much more efficient than those of 100 years ago, and we can seriously think, if not of an "energy autarky" in Italy, at least of an "energy sovereignty" that would make it possible for us to avoid being blackmailed again and again by fossil fuel exporters.

By Ugo Bardi

In recent times, the energy situation, and in particular the natural gas situation, has gone somewhat under the radar in the big election noise. With Russia apparently struggling on the field, even the evil Putin seems to be less scary. Moreover, just these days, the price of natural gas on the Amsterdam exchange has dropped below 100 euros per megawatt-hour (MWh) after touching nearly 350 euros at the end of August.

Can we conclude that the worst is over? If so, it would mean we can celebrate with a dish of spaghetti with meat sauce cooked on the gas stove. Or even, miracle, a nice hot shower! But make no mistake about it. With the ongoing war in Ukraine, the situation remains very difficult. Prices remain high compared to the average in past years and, more importantly, they go up and down uncontrollably. In the next crisis, they may return to unsustainable levels in a very short time.

Unfortunately, for our economic, and even physical, survival, we not only remain dependent on imported fossil fuels but also have to pay for them at prices that may be higher than what we can afford to pay. Not to mention what might happen if gas supplies from Russia were to be cut off completely. Without energy, or with overpriced energy, we seriously risk the economic collapse of the entire country.

Given the way things are, I think it is time to talk about "energy sovereignty" in parallel with the concept of "food sovereignty," recently adopted by the new Italian government. Obviously, we are talking about goals that are not easy to achieve, but neither are they impossible, at least in the form of a substantial reduction in both our food and energy imports. This would be good for our balance of payments, produce jobs, and shelter us from blackmail by the various dictatorships on duty. We would also have less pollution and eat healthier foods.

But how to get to energy sovereignty? This topic has been discussed at length, and the conclusions are fairly well known. First, do not listen to politicians who enjoy bringing up phantom nuclear technologies of the umpteenth generation without having the slightest idea of what they are talking about. Not only is nuclear power too expensive for our resources, but neither would it bring us energy sovereignty: we would have to import uranium instead of oil. As for liquid natural gas, regasifiers can help us at an early stage. But they are not a good idea, both because liquid natural gas is expensive and because it is still imported energy from abroad.

In practice, it is becoming clear that energy sovereignty for Italy and Europe can only be based on a combination of efficiency, electrification, and renewable energy, mainly photovoltaics, with the help of wind, geothermal and hydropower. Improvements in renewable technologies, both for energy production and storage, have been impressive in recent years. Today, there is a real prospect of a widespread renewable energy system that produces abundant and low-cost energy.

Of course, this is not something that can be done in a few months, or even a few years. But in a decade or two we can substantially change our country's energy outlook and create a more peaceful and prosperous future for ourselves. All it takes is commitment, some sacrifice, and not expecting miracles in the short term. And stopping the war in Ukraine would also help a lot.