1) Compare and contrast arguments for green growth and arguments for

de-growth to achieve environmental sustainability.

It is expected that the global economy will undergo one of the most profound
changes in its history over the next few decades. Globally, every country faces the
challenge of ensuring sustainable economic growth and prosperity while significantly
reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. To assess whether
economies are prepared for this challenge, as well as assess the responsibility of
nations and other players in the current climate crisis, we need to examine the dual
relationship between economic growth and climate change. For deep reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions in the future, we need to work harder at the national level
to overcome collective procrastination. According to Kristiana Dolge, to meet the
targets of the Paris Agreement, it is estimated that emissions must decrease by at
least 7.6% per year from 2020 to 2030 (United Nations Environment Programme,
2019). The IPCC has also published a Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C
which predicts that global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 must be reduced by at
least 50% of current levels to achieve net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by
2050 (IPCC, 2018; Mastini et al., 2021).

It is imperative to rethink and redesign the way the system works in order to ensure
environmental sustainability, which will require major changes in institutions, socio-
economic structures and infrastructures. As a result of technological change and
substitution, we will be able to fully decouple GDP growth from resource use and
greenhouse gas emissions, according to the green growth theory, which posits that
continued economic expansion (measured by Gross Domestic Product, or GDP) can
be environmentally sustainable (Hickel,2019). Conversely, Degrowth is based on the
premise that growth is unjust and uneconomic, as well as ecologically unsustainable
and insufficient. These two theories are based on opposing premises, so their basis
can be viewed as antagonistic.

Degrowth theory asserts that economic growth, in general, produces a wide range of
negative environmental effects and that a significant share of what is produced and
consumed in the current global capitalist economy is wasteful, especially much, if not
most, of what high-income people throughout the world consume, so the basic idea
is to reduce production, it’s a broad approach of many of the problems related to
economic growth, which include energy consumption, but does not provide a
stabilization framework. According to the IPCC, global CO2 emissions must fall from
32 billion tons to 20 billion tons within 20 years. In a degrowth scenario, suppose that
global GDP contracts by 10% over the next two decades. As a whole, this ten per
cent contraction in GDP would result in a net reduction in CO2 emissions of exactly
ten per cent, from 32 billion tons to 29 billion tons. The global economy would still not
be able to reduce emissions to 20 billion tons by 2040 (Pollin, 29019) Alternatively,
the Green Growth movement advocates developing alternative energy sources to
fossil fuels. The recommendations include massive increases in energy efficiency
and clean renewable energy investment (which will, for purposes of accounting,
result in an increase in GDP) as well as equally dramatic cuts in fossil-fuel
production and consumption (which will result in a reduction in GDP). Degrowth
theory does not take into account that any decline in global GDP would result in job
losses and decreases in living standards for the working class and the poor.
Degrowth proponents do not present a convincing case for how mass unemployment
could be avoided if GDP were as much as it did during 2007-2009, and the Covid
crises.

The Green New Deal, according to Pollin, aims to raise energy-efficiency standards
and expand clean, renewable energy supplies by investing 1.5-2% of global GDP
annually. By adopting this solution, CO2 emissions could be reduced by 40 per cent
relative to today's levels within 20 years, while living standards would rise, and job
opportunities would increase. CO2 emissions could be eliminated in 40-50 years if
the clean-energy investment is continued at a rate of 1.5-2 per cent of global GDP
per year. Therefore, accelerating economic growth will also result in faster
investments in clean energy.

Degrowth refers to the slowdown or a lack of growth, which contradicts the

fundamental element of capitalism, which holds that profit is constantly reinvested
back into the system for its improvement, in order to reap more profits. The growth of
the economy is a necessary step to finding a place for that investment. On the other
hand, the Green Growth approach does not contradict this fundamental premise. It
rather supports this trend and encourages the idea of a growing consumption
pattern. Regarding green growth financing, it should be remembered that finance
always orients itself towards a particular area. Thus, the directional nature of finance
should be given a high place when considering green growth (Mazzucato, 2018). It is
also important to consider the type of investor: not all sources of finance have the
same impact on renewable energy. Capital-intensive, high-risk, patient financing is
more likely to be provided by certain types of investors than others. In order to create
policies that encourage institutional investors to invest more in renewable energy,
and the creation of new actors, such as a state bank, government participation is
necessary. The loss caused by the slowdown in economic growth, and the
redistribution of losses, is hardly discussed in Degrowth.

Degrowth and green growth advocates readily acknowledge the need for radical
technological changes, including rapid decarbonisation and enhanced energy
efficiency. Despite this, their perspectives differ significantly regarding the likelihood
that ecological sustainability will also require a significant (and perhaps rapid)
slowdown in global GDP growth, if not its reversal, and their respective political
feasibility. The two approaches do not consider the needs of countries in the global
south whose economies are dependent on oil production, such as Venezuela. It is
beyond their means to implement these measures. None of these approaches
acknowledges that historically and economically, the peripheral countries have
played a significant role in contributing to the development of the core countries by
providing raw materials and energy sources. In turn, the global north has been the
primary responsible for the current environmental outcome and, as such responsible,
should assume financial compensation from the global south; however, it is
important to note that, as stated in the Cochabamba documents, "the focus should
not only be on financial compensation, but also on restorative justice, which is
understood as restoring integrity to our mother earth and all its beings.

1) The rise of China has underlined the importance of role of the state in
capitalist development.

During the course of the last half-century, China has gradually transformed its
economy into a market economy with strong government involvement. Chinese
state intervention differs from that of the global north in that the government is
much more directly involved in directing and overseeing the economy and the
country's trade and international relations. China's transition from a planned
economy to a market economy has been led by the government, not the private
sector. Conversely, in the global north, contrary to what neoliberal theory
preaches about the tangential role of the state as a facilitator of conditions for the
market to operate independently, the growing involvement of the state has been
to save the private capitals, as illustrated by quantitative easing, a monetary
policy implemented to facilitate the recovery of financial institutions. In the case of
China, even though the state performs the four roles described by Apeldom as
part of the capital accumulation process, it has moved far from the neoliberal
state, which offers greater freedom to the markets and private capital. In addition,
the government's strategy in foreign investment may appear ambiguous to some
since it represents the desire of China to be the most dominant nation in the
world but is also viewed as a nationalist strategy that seeks to ensure the welfare
of its citizens. Therefore, in my opinion, the rise of China even though has
underlined the importance of the role of the state for capitalist development, it
promotes more control over the market and private capitals.

As a result of its actions and inactions, the state has played two different roles in
the economic transformation of China. First and foremost, it involves creating
enabling conditions for industrialization (i.e., an enabling environment). The
second aspect is its direct involvement in industrialization. In the mid-1990s,
state-owned enterprises and state banks invested heavily in infrastructure and
industrial upgrading using public financing. Thus, capital-deepening, investment-
led industrialization emerged, mainly carried out by public SOEs in upstream
materials industries and multinational corporations (MNCs) in high-tech
industries. Profit-oriented businesses dominated what remained of state-owned
enterprises. In spite of their reluctance to lend to productive activities for some
time, commercialized state banks resumed lending to this industry because of
severe limitations on speculative activities and capital flight (Lo, 2014). A fact
such as this shows that the government exerts control over the financial system,
and speculative activities are not allowed, due to the fact that they pose a huge
risk for the stability of the financial system.

Meanwhile, the premise of neoliberalism is the free market, but reality has shown
that the state is always required to rescue private capital from collapse. The
concept of neoliberalism has never been about the decay of state power or the
separation of state and market power. It should be viewed as a political project
that originates in and is driven by the liberal West, particularly the United States
of America. Even though the global financial markets were on the verge of
collapse in 2008, public bailouts and even nationalizations prevented the end of
neoliberalism. Moreover, governments throughout the OECD responded to
growing public concerns about financial activities, including mortgage-backed
securities, credit default swaps, and other derivatives, by intervening to stabilize
the financial system. In Apeldoorn's theory, these measures of strict regulation
and nationalization could have led to a shift towards what has been identified as
the third role of capitalist states, namely, to manage and oversee capital
accumulation. Furthermore, after the Eurozone crisis of 2009, the core states
protected their capital and markets by imposing further austerity and reduction on
the periphery. Therefore, the state acts on behalf of capital rather than controlling
it, which is contrary to what the Chinese government does. Furthermore, the
massive amounts of public money pumped into the global economy in 2008-2009
with quantitative easing to sustain demand as the global credit market collapsed
have proven to be a temporary measure that is soon to be negotiated by a
renewed, and perhaps even harsher, neoliberal offensive of austerity and cuts.

As for the strategies states use for investing capital abroad, Babic describes
some of them as seeking opportunities to enhance returns on investment. Other
states move capital across borders in order to gain majority control of their
invested firms. The stronger 'statist' economies, such as China and Russia,
reinvest capital abroad aggressively. A control strategy allows these countries to
use state capital to move abroad to create ownership ties that allow them to
control their invested firms in majority. A majority or controlling stake of Chinese
state capital is internationalised, whereas Norway invests over 92% of its global
state capital portfolio. Babic found that states' underlying motives can be quite
different: some want to boost their population's future incomes and therefore seek
to reap the benefits of globalisation, whereas others seek to boost their economic
development model through access to globally leading technology and know-
how, which in my opinion is what the State of China is attempting to do.

There is no doubt that the rise of China has highlighted the crucial role that the
state plays in capitalist development; however, how the state has been involved
differs from how governments in the global north have played their part. A large
part of this result can be attributed to the fact that China has undergone a
transition from its planned economy, which excluded it from global trade. At the
same time, most of its population lived in poverty, was illiterate, and did not have
access to social services. This transition was handled by the government, which
led the process and controlled the private sector, as it has done with capital
controls to prevent a financial crisis from occurring. In contrast, the state in the
global north has grown in size but continues to serve as an instrument for
maintaining private capital's hegemony. Nevertheless, history has not yet
completed its course, and we will be able to see whether the Chinese economy
moves towards a greater degree of market freedom in the years to come. It is my
opinion that the motives behind the state go beyond the individualism premise of
neoliberalism and that the state's strategy is more nationalistic, which under the
leadership of a strong political party, will prevent this from happening.