More and more climate change experts, economists and thinkers are advocating degrowth as a solution to the climate crisis. Many of them even believe that it is the one and only solution. Why? We explain to you.
• Read also: Pollution prematurely kills 9 million people worldwide each year
According to the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), humanity has three years to cap greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions before decreasing them in the hope of avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
Everything we produce and consume is responsible for GHG emissions. Very simply, the solution would therefore be to stop producing and consuming.
We speak of decline when the gross domestic product (GDP) of a State decreases, so that less goods and services are produced there than the previous year. It can be involuntary, as during the confinement linked to COVID-19, or voluntary.
“When we talked about economic decline, we were called utopians. Utopia is to think that we will have infinite growth with limited resources,” says François Delorme, economist and lecturer at the University of Sherbrooke, who believes that degrowth measures must be ambitious, but gradually adopted.
“We can’t get out of a crisis by staying in the system that created it,” insists Sabaa Khan, executive director of the David Suzuki Foundation in Quebec and the Atlantic.
“We only have a very small window to allow our children to live with the same comfort that we were able to enjoy. All the reports say it, now we have to act,” she says.
• Read also: Capping gas prices at $1.60: “It won’t solve anything”
radical solutions
François Delorme has been teaching the concept of degrowth to his students for several years, at their request. “We kept telling them in all the other classes that degrowth was impossible and that only technological progress would get us out of the climate crisis. »
According to the economist, we are running out of time to wait for a miracle invention like an effective large-scale carbon sensor. We will inevitably have to change our way of life. “2025 is in less than 1000 days. At the moment, we are living with a gangrenous arm and instead of amputating it, we persist in putting bandages on it, ”he says.
But the measures needed to reduce production go far beyond simply asking people to consume less. “It is the responsibility of governments to implement policies so that people do not need to consume so much to meet their needs,” says Sabaa Khan.
The adoption of telework and the four-day week is, according to her, a good way to reduce the consumption of resources related to transport and work. Production caps should also be imposed on polluting industries, such as fossil fuels.
“You have to go to the source of overconsumption and have the courage to take unpopular actions, for the common good,” argues François Delorme.
He suggests banning advertising to curb the conspicuous consumption of goods, adopting anti-planned obsolescence laws and promoting the pooling of useful goods such as cars or tools.
He joins other economists in the idea of taxing certain goods and subsidizing others according to their ecological footprint. “If we tax plane tickets at 100%, we think twice before using this very polluting means of transport. If that’s not enough, we could impose restrictions on the tonnes of GHGs we are allowed to produce annually. »
Photo credit: David Suzuki Foundation
Sabaa Khan, Executive Director of the David Suzuki Foundation in Quebec and Atlantic
• Read also: Health problem? Nature can now be prescribed as a remedy in Quebec
solidarity and happiness
If production comes to decline, people must still be allowed to live with dignity, raises Sabaa Khan, who invokes the adoption of a guaranteed minimum income. The changes needed to address the climate crisis are unachievable without social solidarity, she says.
“Right now, the richest 10% produce 50% of the world’s emissions. It is unfair to ask the poorest people to do the work that should be done by the wealthiest. »
Producing less, working less and spending less can look like sacrifices, but these changes could be beneficial for well-being in addition to the climate, adds François Delorme. Having more free time that is not taken up by work would allow you to be in better health and to be more involved in your community.
“GDP cannot be our only measure of the well-being of the population. Imagine that the GDP rises because we built prisons across the country, we can’t really say that people are happier,” explains the economist.
Both Sabaa Khan and François Delorme believe that the downturn caused by COVID-19 proves that, when there is political will, it is possible to make big economic changes. “We redistributed the wealth for people who could not work during confinement. We saw that it was possible, said the latter, The climate crisis is not negotiable, the wall is getting closer and we will hit it head on in three years if we do nothing. »