This text is taken from the Courrier de la Planète. Click here to subscribe.
Is economic degrowth necessary to fight the climate crisis? This is a question whose answer certainly depends on who you ask it. In search of a wisely matured opinion, we called on Hugo Séguin. Ecologist, lecturer at the University of Montreal, director of a public relations firm specializing in the environment, Mr. Séguin came to the conclusion that infinite growth, even “green”, necessarily breaks the natural limits . His reflection, which is based on that of the intellectual pioneers of degrowth in Quebec, unfolds in Letter to impatient greens and those who find they are exaggeratingpublished in 2022 by Écosociété.
Let’s get straight to the point: is economic decline essential to fight against global warming?
What is essential is to challenge the idea that one can grow infinitely in a world of finite resources. It must serve as a spark plug for reflection. If we come to this conclusion — and it’s the conclusion that more and more people are coming to — how do we govern accordingly? And there are different ways to do it. Degrowth is one such school of thought, but it is not the only one. I don’t think you have to go up to the barricades to defend one way of doing things over another. I think we must first establish a consensus on the impossibility of infinite growth, which is still part of the genetic code of our current economic and political system.
What path have we traveled to try to make the balance between growth and environmentalism?
The reflection of the last 30 years has been articulated in three moments. At first, caring about the environment was considered to have a cost. It harms the competitiveness of companies, it reduces shareholders’ profits, it causes job losses. The second moment begins [en 2006] with the report by Nicholas Stern, in the United Kingdom, which says that the environment is not a cost, but rather “the” source of profits of the XXIe century. We will ensure the perpetuity of an economic growth model because we will have greened it. The third moment, in which we currently find ourselves, consists in saying: until now, we have not succeeded in decoupling growth from environmental impacts. This is theoretically possible, but empirically, it has not been demonstrated. We understand that we must fundamentally question this sacralization of growth, because that is what is leading us to our downfall.
When you say “we”, who are you talking about?
Reflection on ecosystem limits was born at the turn of the 1970s, then it was discretized for a long time. From the 1990s, we were in deregulation, collective enrichment, triumphant globalization. It’s as if there were no limits. We now come back to thinking about the limits, which is becoming more and more urgent because science shows us that we are in the process of overcoming several of the major geobiochemical systems that make life on Earth possible. To answer your question, the “we” is not yet consensual, but we are getting close. A few years ago, we could not talk about the limits of growth. Today, the question is admissible. We are slowly but surely moving towards a consensus on the problem; however, it will be more difficult to find a consensus on the solutions… To deploy the elements of the solution at our disposal, we will need strong support. Without that, in a democratic regime, it is very complicated to impose solutions that are not mature.
What is the most compelling evidence to suggest that decoupling of growth and ecological impacts may be possible?
In my opinion, those who think we can continue to grow infinitely in a finite resource mode are asking us to take a leap of faith. Trust us, it will be fine! Then, one of the ways to convince us of this is to talk about the ingenuity of human beings. Human beings have always come out of the slush. But this is not empirically demonstrated. We have never consumed so much energy in the world as today, we have never destroyed so many forests to feed ourselves, we have never produced so many cars. Decoupling is theorized, but it is not observed in practice. So we are being asked to collectively accept a leap into the unknown. This is not the most sensible or prudent approach.
In a paradigm of degrowth, what should we expect in terms of lifestyle habits, quality of life, inequalities?
First of all, I would like to emphasize that I prefer to speak of a “post-growth” model than to speak of degrowth. What this fundamentally changes is our relationship to consumption. Currently, we consider that having more stuff, having bigger, more efficient things, is completely natural. Do we really need all this? There is also the question of the “measure” that we use to say that we are advancing as a human community. For 60 years, we have given ourselves the GDP. More and more, we realize that this is not the right indicator. What is fundamental is not to produce more, it is to increase our well-being.
How to conceive the question of degrowth from the point of view of the political decision-maker?
The decrease is currently taken into consideration without our realizing it. In a post-growth world, some sectors must grow faster than others — especially those directly responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. Are we acting on the decline of the oil, gas and coal sector? Yes, yes and yes. When the Government of Quebec tightens its standards for electric vehicles, when the National Assembly of Quebec adopts a law prohibiting the exploitation of oil and natural gas, when the Canadian government prohibits coal-fired power plants from 2030, we are in there. But it can’t stop there, we must have a broader reflection on overconsumption. I do not expect the public authorities to be able to deliver a coherent and applicable vision tomorrow morning. It’s going to take time for us to appropriate all that, for us to determine the vectors that will take us where we want to go. But it’s not true that it’s binary: I think it’s already started.