Ecosocialism and degrowth folly

Ecosocialism has become all the rage among quite a few "left" sects. They believe that we need to degrow the economy to some much lower steady state if we are to reduce greenhouse emissions and save the biosphere, and that this cannot be achieved under capitalism with its drive to accumulate.

This "success" is remarkable given that the whole idea is so obviously and totally at odds with reality. Let's be clear. Capitalism is not going to be overthrown and replaced in any relevant timeframe. The only alternative - communism - will not happen without considerable growth. So if we really need degrowth to save the planet, then we are stuffed and there is nothing to be done.

Decoupling technofix is the way to go

The more fruitful option is to concentrate one's efforts on prodding the present system to do a far better job of decoupling our increasing economic activity from undesirable environmental impacts. In part this means working for a much quicker pace of technofix. The biggest present failing here is the far too low government funding of relevant research and development, and of the demonstration and initial deployment of new "clean" technologies. The shackles imposed on nuclear power are another problem. As for the conversion of rainforests and other natural areas to other land uses, this is not something that capitalism actually requires, so, there is scope for an evidence and results based environment movement to make a big difference.

Despite poor funding the amount of innovation in the last decade has been remarkable. So, better resourcing is bound to bring faster and better results. Renewable energy has made considerable progress. There have been some major breakthroughs in enhanced geothermal energy technology. Plant-based meat alternatives plus cultured meat promise to reduce land and water use with all its problems. Precision farming and genetic engineering can reduce emissions from crop growing. Progress is being made in developing "green" cement, steel and aluminum. And now that we started looking, we have discovered that hydrogen in its elemental state does indeed exist in vast quantities under our feet.

Degrowthers are not impressed. They have three objections. (1) Technofixes just create new and probably bigger problems. (2) Even if you reduce environmental impact to a satisfactory level at present output, growth will eventually increase that impact back up to a damaging level. (3) Decoupling is too slow given the urgency of achieving zero emissions and protecting the biosphere.

Does technofix just create new problems?

Bagging nuclear power and genetic engineering are always top of the list when talking about the dire effects of technofix. It is appalling how this stuff is quite mainstream, particularly in Europe.

There is nothing about the new technologies that would overall make them more dangerously extractive compared with those that have been with us for some time. Besides, we should expect cleaner methods and practices.

Reducing land use seems quite manageable. Land saving technologies in agriculture and human settlement are progressing quite nicely. Renewables are more land intensive than fossil fuel power. Nuclear and geothermal take up little land. Hydrogen distribution presumably would have a similar impact as fossil fuel distribution.

In the case of water use, we would expect to see considerable reductions as a result of the new technologies in agriculture, industry and domestic consumption.

With both land and water use, you then just have to ensure that the bulk of resources freed up go back to nature rather than some new human use.

Is decoupling temporary?

If products require materials in their production you will eventually hit limits. You might increase the yields of tree plantations and design wood products so that they do not need as much of that material. However, at some point these gains will be exhausted and you will have to increase the area devoted to trees. There is a similar story with the land required for increasing amounts of wind and solar energy.

Substitutions are no help in the long term. You can use aluminum or plastic instead of wood. But increasing their use is bound to require more extraction, land and water, either directly or indirectly. There is a similar problem with pollution if it increases at all with growing output.

We also have to take account of the fact that the more stuff we have the more space it takes up leaving less for nature.

This is all quite correct. They are expressing the truism that you cannot infinitely increase production of stuff on a finite planet. But how relevant is this?

The biggest reductions in land and water will be in agriculture and this is a sector where we can expect growth to greatly slow down once everyone is well fed and the population stabilizes or even starts falling. There will be a similar story to some extent with human settlement. We will become better at building up in the air and down into the ground and better at recycling water. There could well be considerable reductions even if we find new uses for water and floor space and they grow at a modest rate.

Wind and solar are not limited to land but could increasingly be offshore while nuclear and geothermal use little land.

Material consumption in poorer countries will increase dramatically as they develop over the next half century or so. However, most of this will be construction material which is not a major cause of environmental damage. Besides, this surge will eventually slow down as this basic development task is completed.

Decoupling looks even less temporary when we take into account the fact that the science and technology of future centuries will give our descendants vastly greater ability to both harness and care for the natural environment. These would no doubt seem to us like magic if someone were to come back and tell us about them, much like someone now traveling back to 1900 with a dozen copies of *Wired* magazine.

Are we too late?

Degrowthers are right that you could reduce greenhouse gases and other environmental impacts more quickly if you were degrowing the economy. And it is also true that the general inadequacy of our efforts so far have built in considerable delays. However, you are still left with the fact that ecosocialist degrowth is just non-operational silliness.

The revolution needs growth

For Marxists, growth and the elimination of economic backwardness is the primary prerequisite for successful revolution. Reaching a high level of development creates the prospect of sharing material prosperity, humanizing work and having ample free time. We have a long history showing how we are not prepared to share the opposite - poverty and toil. These two blights have been the very basis of class society. So, we need to achieve a level of material conditions where the benefits of living in a convivial classless society considerably outweigh the benefits of being a "winner" under capitalism.