[Editor's Note: This is the third part in a series running Thursday through Saturday.  You can read part 2 here.]

Endless economic growth is clearly unsustainable as GDP can only increase through the continued production and consumption of the world's resources. This paradigm, despite its application to almost all aspects of international and domestic policies, is inherently flawed since we only have finite resources and a limited capacity to absorb emissions. As the oft-quoted UK Interdependence report by the New Economics Foundation estimated, if all countries consumed as much as the US per capita, we would require over five planets worth of resources to survive.[10]

The relentless process of economic expansion largely relies on inputs from nature, and consequently ravages the environment whilst releasing huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. A recent report by the Sustainable Development Commission in the UK summarised the conflict between growth and the environment, stating; "In the last quarter of a century the global economy has doubled, while an estimated 60% of the world's ecosystems have been degraded. Global carbon emissions have risen by 40% since 1990 (the Kyoto Protocol ‘base year'). Significant scarcity in key resources - such as oil - may be less than a decade away."[11]

Writing previously in the New Scientist, Tim Jackson, the report's main author, equated emissions rates to consumption rates and calculated that, if we factor in moderate economic growth, the necessary cuts in emissions will require an 11-fold reduction in the current European average consumption rate.[12] Yet any coherent plan, requisite technology or financing to achieve this universal decarbonisation of the world's economy is still far from being realised.

There are wider social issues that accompany an entirely growth-based approach to economic development. For example, numerous studies have demonstrated that economic growth is not an adequate measure of wellbeing or happiness. As a society, despite a phenomenal increase in material wealth, we are no happier now than we were in the 1970s.[13] If fairly distributed, the proceeds from growth can be important, particularly in the developing world where it can significantly enhance wellbeing by helping to secure basic human needs. But once these needs have been met, as is largely the case in rich countries, increases in wealth cease to contribute significantly to wellbeing.[14]

Even as a means of poverty reduction, economic growth is extremely inefficient and uneven in its benefits. The proceeds of growth are not distributed fairly enough to justify an adherence to the ‘trickle down' theory[15] and there is no coherent global welfare system to compensate the increasing numbers of ‘losers' in the global market system. Not only has inequality in wealthier countries increased in recent decades, but levels of inequality between countries also continue to rise.[16] The minimal quantities of aid redistributed by donor countries to compensate those who cannot afford to pay market prices for their essential goods and services is also fast dwindling, as donor countries have fewer resources to spare in the wake of the worsening global financial crisis.[17]

The poor in the developing world also suffer disproportionately from the ‘externalities of growth'. As demand for more goods continues to rise, and resources are extracted and then consumed as products - often many thousands of miles away - various hazardous by-products are created along the way.[18] These include toxic chemicals used by the extractive industries, chemical fertilisers used by agri-business and carbon emissions from machinery and transport.

Not only can poorer countries simply not afford to address many of the environmental consequences of this process, they will often be the first to be threatened by the consequences of climate change as it affects agricultural production. Up to 85 percent of the population in some of the poorest countries depend directly on crops, livestock, fisheries or forests for their daily income or sustenance,[19] and estimates suggest that crop yields could reduce by a third in many poorer countries by 2050 as a direct result of global warming.[20] Sub-Saharan Africa, the smallest contributor to CO2 emissions, will be the hardest hit.

There is a growing acknowledgement amongst scientists and campaigners that the only way out of the quagmire of growth is an immediate shift in policy to favour public and environmental interests over those of big business and the profit imperative. But it is also necessary to achieve a wider appreciation of how the pursuit of economic growth accelerates global warming and mitigates prevention - a basic fact that should play a key role in climate change campaigns. Without greater public awareness of the political and ideological obstructions to action, governments are likely to continue reinventing the same competitive, growth-centric policies that are the root cause of the climate crises.

Only public engagement can finally urge governments to act more decisively on climate change, although this involvement must go beyond individual efforts to recycle waste, buy responsibly or reduce carbon footprints. The media has already well documented the role of non-violent protests in reshaping public opinion and policy, and the recent heavy-handed approach by the UK government to squash the G20 protests signals a growing concern amongst policymakers of how informed citizens can quickly damage their political reputation. It is time to step up efforts to educate, engage and mobilise world opinion on the real causes and solutions to climate change, enabling the global public to take the lead in forcing governments to act.

This article appears courtesy of Rajesh Makwana, the director of Share The World's Resources, an NGO advocating for sustainable economics to end global poverty. He can be reached at rajesh@stwr.org.

Other related articles on Celsias:

The Politics of Climate Change
Geoengineering Ourselves a New Crisis

Follow us on Twitter: Celsiastweets

References: