Jobs and Income Within Planetary Boundaries

Jacob Nigma
Life Unlimited?
Flower
11/15/14
Growth, A-Growth, and Degrowth
Recently, scien sts and economists have been under heated debate regarding economic
growth under Rockstroms proposed planetary limits for a safe opera ng space for humanity. A
large por on of the debate is about the role and signicance of the US' Gross Domes c
Product. The Journal of Economic Issues published an ar cle by Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh
and Giorgos Kallis tled, "Growth, A-Growth or Degrowth, to Stay within Planetary Boundaries?
" In this ar cle, they discuss the three main recent poli cal views on GDP and it's importance in
environmental safety, "Growth," "A-Growth," and, "Degrowth."
Many economists believe that a growing GDP is a very accurate measurement of
sustainability and personal welfare. This philosophy quickly sums up the pro-growth group. Progrowth economists believe that a higher GDP directly correlates to a more thriving society,
greater happiness among the community, and an overall more pleasant place to live in. They
believe that we should put our economic growth in numbers above all else, since having more
money leads to advancements in technology and sustainability that may protect us from the
poten al natural disasters that we are crea ng. Essen ally, even if producing a larger prot
means using up more natural resources than is reasonable, is will be worth it in the end, as we

will have more money to put towards preserving the planet. S ll, whether there is a direct
correla on between GDP and environmental welfare is under much debate, which leads into
the "A-Growth" philosophy.
"'A-growth' is a perspec ve which proposes to ignore or even abolish GDP as a welfare
and progress indicator, and focusing, in this way, on sound environmental, social, and economic
policies independently of their eects on economic growth" (van den Bergh 2011). Those in
favor of A-growth believe that above all else, the GDP indicator itself is the problem and needs
to be recognized as a cost of all market-related ac vi es rather than the benets. A main issue
with using GDP as an indica on of environmental and social well-being is that it only measures
business-related ac vi es, and excludes all informal or non-market rela ons. "A-growthers"
argue that these factors need to be accounted for in order to accurately measure
environmental and social welfare, given that many nega ve environmental decisions don't
directly aect GDP. Addi onally, dirty areas or produc on, or produc on that causes
environmental harm seems to be more economically produc ve and raises GDP, whereas
clean areas dont produce as much. This philosophy is supported by Weitzman who in 1976
said, "...it has been shown that GDP is only a good approxima on of social welfare under very
strict, unrealis c condi ons." In fact, happiness and well-being studies conducted in
economically developed countries between the years of 1950 and 1980 actually showed a
decrease in well-being even as GDP rose. Given the evidence that GDP is not directly correlated
to environmental welfare, those in favor of A-growth choose to completely ignore GDP when
working towards a more sustainable planet. In other words, someone who is indierent to GDP

in rela on to environmental sustainability supports an "A-growth" posi on. However, being

indierent to GDP growth is not the same as being an -GDP growth.
In 2011, Kallis dened Degrowth as, "an equitable downscaling of economic produc on
and consump on to assure that societys throughput - resource use and waste - stays within
safe ecosystem boundaries." Put simply, Degrowth is the idea that we should inten onally
downscale our produc on and, in turn, our GDP in order to beGer focus on preserving the
environment. The reason for this belief is the idea that technological advancements and
eciency alone cannot prevent climate change, resource deple on, and other major
environmental catastrophes. As has been shown in the past 300 years of industrializa on,
higher produc on has a strong correla on with many forms of environmental damage. This is
especially apparent when looking at carbon dioxide emissions. "Countries that have reduced
their material ows and carbon dioxide emissions have done so either because of economic
decline or through reloca on to other countries..." (Peters, 2011.) It seems as though
developed na ons have a choice to make - is increased produc on and economic growth worth
the poten al risk of environmental destruc on? Can a "happy medium" be achieved, where
economic growth can be consistent with planetary preserva on?
Of course, those who are pro-growth don't support any policy that restricts the use of
resources, as it would lower GDP and produc on. Those who are a-growth tend to view GDP
rather agnos cally, so strict regula on is seen as unessesary. However, those in favor of
degrowth have proposed indroducing global caps on the natural resources that need to be
monitored carefully such as oil and corbon dioxide emissions. The threshold would be divided

fairly between na ons on a per capita basis to ensure equality between countries regardless on
level of development or economic status. This ideaology has been aptly named "cap and share"
because of this. Degrowth proponents have raised the idea of work-sharing, giving reduced
working hours to allow more people to be employed. Ideally, with this system, high produc vity
jobs would be less desirable to more socially equitable jobs with low produc vity such as
heathcare services and educa on. A strengthened social safety net to buer any nega ve
eects of remaining unemployment includes a scheme for basic income, guaranteed by the
state to all ci zens, and a job-providing system, with the state ac ng as the employer of last
resort in periods of crisis. (Lawn 2009) Degrowth economists understand that a huge
redistribu on of money is required, so a heMy tax for the wealthy is proposed. In addi on, as
stated by Korten in 2009, A shiM of taxa on from labor to energy, materials, and capital will be
needed.
A Reec on

Given these three idealogies, it is dicult to choose a side when the issue at hand is
literally on a global scale. Looking at GDP within safe planetary limits is a dicult concept to
grasp when all of the real work being done is purely hypothe cal, or upstream. What may
look good on paper could lead to catastrophe. From the research that I have conducted, I hold
the general belief that if environmental welfare is to become our top priority, then produc on,
at some level, must decrease. In a society that has generally accepted that industrializa on is
the cause of most environmental damage, It is unreasonable to believe that increased
produc on will eventually lead to a solu on. However, I dont believe that extreme

regula on of resources is a reasonable solu on either, and leads to my skep cism of the
degrowth philosophy.
In order for degrowth to exist on more than just paper, a strict limita on on resource
use and produc on would have to be set. Assuming that the general global popula on would
even support a policy limi ng resources, who could we trust to regulate the use of oil, carbon
dioxide, and other resources that are so easily accessible today? I am extremely doubNul that
even arguably one of the most eec ve authorita ve structures, the United States
government, could handle a task so massive. With all of the conict between na ons today,
(mostly due to the struggle for resources), how can we trust that a safe and fair system could be
implemented? A communist distribu on of resources is in no way an eec ve method for
environmental and social welfare. Though I do agree with Speth, ...it is me for major
ins tu onal and life-style changes rather than mere reforms,(2011), in order for us to reliably
sustain our ecosystem. To preserve our desire for growth and stay within safe planetary
boundaries, a happy medium must be achieved.
Between the extremism of growth and degrowth, a-growth seems to me the most
viable philosophy. It has been made ever more apparent during recent economic mes that
GDP may not be an accurate indicator for social and environmental welfare, and there may
actually be a nega ve correla on between the two.