Degrowth versus ecomodernism. Ecomodernism versus degrowth. What’s it all about? From where the passion? Why any anger? How about reaching for unity?
Economics acts on diverse inputs to produce desired outputs. Sometimes economics uses highly critical resources. Sometimes it produces severely damaging by-products. When a critical input is used up faster than it can be replaced or subbed for, or when a damaging output is produced faster than its harmful impact can be mitigated, the situation is alarming and sometimes even systemically suicidal. What to do?
Logic says that to deal with these problems, if your technical and social innovations can’t meet the challenge, you must use less of the critical input (or even none), and you must produce less of the damaging output (or even none). Degrowthers typically say we are already in that situation. They say our use of diverse critical inputs and our production of damaging outputs have to be dramatically reduced, and we lack ways to make up for all the subtractions. We need less economic activity, or what is the essentially the same thing, we need substantial degrowth. The most extreme degrowthers say, for example, that in the U.S. we now need a generalized 90% reduction of economic activity. They don’t think technical or social innovations can substitute for what needs to be cut. Less extreme degrowthers think that technical or social innovations can and will provide substitutes for many scarce inputs and reduce many harmful outputs so that we will need substantial but far less than 90 percent reduction of outputs.
Ecomodernism typically says to deal with such problems, technical and social innovation can and will very often entirely subdue the ill effects of desired growth. We can enjoy growth’s benefits without much interruption. The most extreme eco modernists say technical and social innovations will always be sufficient to substitute for non renewables and reduce harmful effects. We will need no interruptions, no degrowth, ever. Less extreme ecomodernists acknowledge that technical and social innovations may not always solve all problems. We may need some production interruptions when substitutes are insufficient and damage is great.
Notice that reasonable degrowthers will agree that the ills of growth can sometimes be offset. Similarly, reasonable ecomodernists will agree that sometimes available offsetting factors are insufficient to offset ill effects of some growth.
Suppose the degrowthers called themselves responsible producers. After all, that is what they want. To want no production would be ridiculous.
Suppose the ecomodernists also called themselves responsible producers. After all, that is also what they want. To want infinite production would be ridiculous.
Put differently, suppose degrowthers and eco modernists all openly agree that the core issue is overuse of needed non-replenishing resources without substitutes and over production of damaging outputs without effective mitigation.
In other words, it turns out degrowthers are not against growth per se. They say degrow energy production, for example, if there are insufficient substitutes for fossil fuels or insufficient means to reduce or remove pollutants. However, if we can substitute renewables for fossil fuels and we can sufficiently reduce pollution and we also reduce waste production, luxury production, and military production, then we can grow health care, schooling, housing, etc., even as we eliminate fossil fuels.
And similarly, it turns out eco modernists are not for growth per se. They are for growth to meet real needs, but not growth for its own sake, nor, in the case of left eco modernists, growth to enrich the rich. Eco modernists would agree to reduce economic activity when substitutes and mitigation are insufficient to overcome problems, though they wouldn’t expect to often or perhaps ever encounter such a situation.
Unless one or the other camp is idiotic, cruel, or capitalistically driven to amass profits, they are each for ecologically sustainable production for human fulfillment and development. They are for responsible production.
So what is their dispute about?
Answer: it is firstly about current assessments of likely near term circumstances. The eco modernist says the problems of current economic activity aren’t so big that we now have to cut growth per se. Our substitutes and mitigations can handle the situation. The degrowther says the problems of current economic activity are too big to permit. Our substitutes and mitigations can’t handle the situation. Only degrowth can. This particular dispute is, in short, about the facts of the current matter, not aims.
So why does it seem the two sides sometimes have some further deeper differences that divide them in ways that cause at least some advocates of each view to feel hostile toward the other view? One possible answer is that their difference involves potential human carnage.
If the eco modernists are right, a move to cut growth per se, to reduce overall output, would hurt and alienate the poor of the world by seeming to advocate immediate cuts and by seeming to rule out many gains that could improve peoples’ lives. The eco modernists say anyone who says we need to degrow will appear (and may even be) needlessly callous toward the poor. If anyone says we need to cut back 90 percent, the eco modernist may see that person as objectively genocidal. The degrowthers respond that less output doesn’t have to hurt the poor. It can come from the rich. And what idiot says we should cut 90 percent?
If, in contrast, the degrowthers are right, to continue growth as we know it would hurt everyone and most of all the poor due to escalating environmental crises. The degrowthers say anyone who says we don’t need to degrow is either pollyanish or favors profit seeking and is in any case objectively genocidal toward the planet, with the poor on the front lines.
While the above contrast could fuel some aggressive conflict, another difference may also raise the conflict’s temperature. The degrowthers, or at least a good many of them, think existing ecological needs are sufficiently dire that on environmental grounds we need major structural changes to escape calamity. They often reject capitalism and markets too, for the type and scale of growth that each propels. In contrast, the eco modernists, or at least a good many of them, say that existing ecological needs do not alone entail major structural change to escape disaster. Such eco modernists may reject capitalism and markets for other reasons, but not for solely ecological ones. This adds evolution/revolution tension.
Consider the future. Suppose we replace capitalism with an economy that properly accounts for ecological implications of production and consumption, for example, participatory economics. Ecomodernists would say that such an economy could potentially increase output indefinitely though it might choose not to, preferring to increase leisure instead. Degrowthers would say, either right off or before very long, that such an economy would have to stop increasing economic activity or even start to degrow.
Okay, we see the differences in long term expectation and outlook. But more immediately, what about present program? Assume that each approach acknowledges that current conditions of global warming and other evolving ecological crises are dire. They also agree that in theory we can either bet solely on technology and social reforms to prevent near-term calamities without calling for generalized degrowth/cutbacks—or we can call for at least some generalized degrowth/cutbacks to reduce our risk of immediate disaster and to leave less for sought after technology and social reforms to correct to prevent calamities.
Notice that even as they may disagree about which of these two immediate paths to support, and as they may in extreme cases each call the other genocidal, both favor growing renewables and pursuing programs to mitigate damage from pollutants. Both favor increasing collective goods consumption like, for example, free public transport to reduce private consumption of cars or increasing collective laundries to reduce producing unduly many washer/dryers. Similarly, both favor cutting and eliminating fossil fuels. And both favor cutting luxury and military production, and much more.
In other words, for the short term, both eco modernism and degrowth can consistently favor a very largely shared immediate program even as they try to further enrich our understanding of our current situation and future possibilities. To my eyes, deeming one side right, one side wrong doesn’t actually describe much less improve the situation. More likely, it is both sides right, both sides wrong depending on what unfolding facts reveal, and, meanwhile, both sides should acknowledge and agree on immediate steps to take.
And here is a peculiar irony that I think may quite often characterize debates/conflicts between contending camps. To my eyes, the gap between reasonable eco modernists and extreme eco modernists, and also the gap between reasonable degrowthers and extreme degrowthers is in each case a lot greater than the gap between reasonable eco modernists and reasonable degrowthers. Seeing and naming two stances without seeing the full range of views imposes identities that define “teams,” where the teams then not only unduly intensify but also wrongly structure disputes.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate