It's time to pour our creative energies into imagining a new global economy. Infinite growth is a dangerous illusion
 |
| 'That 30% chunk of greenhouse gases that comes from non-fossil fuel sources isn't static. It is adding more to the atmosphere each year.' Photograph: Ashley Cooper/Global Warming Images/Alamy |
With such extreme events becoming more commonplace, few deny climate change any longer. Finally, a consensus is crystallising around one all-important fact: fossil fuels are killing us. We need to switch to clean energy, and fast.
But while this growing awareness about the dangers of fossil fuels represents a crucial shift in our consciousness, I can't help but fear we've missed the point. As important as clean energy might be, the science is clear: it won't save us from climate change.
What would we do with 100% clean energy? Exactly what we're doing with fossil fuelsLet's imagine, just for argument's sake, that we are able to get off fossil fuels and switch to 100% clean energy. There is no question this would be a vital step in the right direction, but even this best-case scenario wouldn't be enough to avert climate catastrophe.Why? Well, first, the burning of fossil fuels only accounts for about 70% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The other 30% comes from a number of causes, including deforestation, and industrial livestock farming, which produces 90m tonnes of methane per year and most of the world's anthropogenic nitrous oxide. Both of these gases are vastly more potent than CO2 when it comes to global warming. Livestock farming alone contributes more to global warming than all the cars, trains, planes and ships in the world. There are also a number of industrial processes that contribute significantly, and then there are our landfills, which pump out huge amounts of methane – 16% of the world's total.
 |
| Jeffrey's Bay wind farm in South Africa. Photograph: Nic Bothma/EPA |
within just 60 years, releasing more still. Emissions from the cement industry are growing at more than 9% per year. And our landfills are multiplying at an eye-watering pace: the by 2100 we will be producing 11m tonnes of solid waste per day, three times more than we do now. Switching to clean energy will do nothing to slow this down.
If we keep growing at 3% a year, that means that every 20 years we need to double the size of the global economyThe climate movement made an enormous mistake. We focused all our attention on fossil fuels, when we should have been pointing to something much deeper: the basic logic of our economic operating system. After all, we're only using fossil fuels in the first place to fuel the broader imperative of GDP growth.
The root problem is the fact that our economic system demands ever-increasing levels of extraction, production and consumption. Our politicians tell us that we need to keep the global economy growing at more than 3% each year – the minimum necessary for large firms to make aggregate profits. That means every 20 years we need to double the size of the global economy – double the cars, double the fishing, double the mining, double the McFlurries and double the iPads. And then double them again over the next 20 years from their already doubled state.
 |
| Current projections show that by 2040 we will more than double the world's shipping miles, air miles, and trucking miles. Photograph: Feature China/Barcroft Images |
doesn't make us any happier, it doesn't reduce poverty, and its "externalities" produce all sorts of social ills: debt, overwork, inequality, and climate change. We need to abandon GDP growth as our primary measure of progress, and we need to do this immediately – as part and parcel of the climate agreement that will be ratified in Morocco later this year.
It's time to pour our creative power into imagining a new global economy – one that maximises human wellbeing while actively shrinking our ecological footprint. This is not an impossible task. A number of countries have already managed to achieve high levels of human development with very low levels of consumption. And Daniel O'Neill, an economist at the University of Leeds, has demonstrated that even material de-growth is not incompatible with high levels of human well-being.
Our focus on fossil fuels has lulled us into thinking we can continue with the status quo so long as we switch to clean energy, but this is a dangerously simplistic assumption. If we want to stave off disaster, we need to confront its underlying cause.
Links
- Forget 'developing' poor countries, it's time to 'de-develop' rich countries
- The pope v the UN: who will save the world first?
- Protesting to #Breakfree of fossil fuels – in pictures
- Experts discuss how to build a carbon-free energy industry
- Clean energy in refugee camps could save millions of dollars
- From Kansas to Copenhagen: clean energy beacons around the world
- World bank to focus future investment on clean energy
- UN climate chief calls for tripling of clean energy investment
- Abundant fossil fuels leave clean energy out in the cold
- Small island states in clean energy race
