News flash: economic growth causes global warming
May 3rd, 2012Quelle surprise: a new study finds that economic growth causes global warming.
The study, Climate change and the world economy: short-run determinants of atmospheric CO2, is published in the on-line journal Environmental Science & Policy. Unfortunately, it’s behind a paywall. The conclusion, excepted below, describes the study’s major finding:
The major conclusion of our study is that the annual growth of atmospheric CO2 levels is strongly dependent on the absolute growth of the world economy, so that the annual absolute increase of WGDP is a key variable to capture the annual increase in atmospheric CO2. * * * Our study provides substantive evidence that in the short run, world economic activity is a major determinant of rising CO2 concentrations (we also show that estimated CO2 emissions closely follow the oscillations of the world economy). For each trillion that WGDP deviates from trend, CO2 atmospheric levels deviate from trend, in the same direction, about half a part per million. These findings are important because they reduce the uncertainty in the links of the causal chain implied in climate changing, and allow for quantitative estimates of the required levels of “human activity” that would reduce CO2 concentrations if business-as-usual conditions are maintained.
Co-author Tapia Granados, researcher at the University of Michigan, says (with a scientist’s usual hedging) what nobody is willing to hear : economic contraction will be needed to reduce atmospheric levels of CO2. If we want to save Earth’s climate, we’ll have to disavow economic growth and instead embrace la décroissance économique.
Environmentalists made a fatal miscalculation from the get-go in failing to challenge the ideology of growth. Rachel Carson kicked off the environmental movement 50 years ago in 1962, with the publishing of Silent Spring. Carson intimated that the project of progress and growth was fatally infected with hubris. Carson showed that the consequences might be unknowable and awful – awful not only in the sense of “filling with terror and dread” but also of “inspiring awe, filling with profound reverence” as Nature took her revenge. Silent Spring touched deep emotional chords, evoking an archaic world where transgressing inviolable boundaries evoked implacable retribution from forces beyond the control of humans.
But in their minds, environmentalists as well as politicians and economists had left the ancient world and old gods behind. Environmentalists joined in believing that Nature could be negotiated with and appeased if not conquered and subjugated. Scientist and environmentalist David Suzuki points to the movement’s fundamental miscalculation:
Environmentalism has failed. Over the past 50 years, environmentalists have succeeded in raising awareness, changing logging practices, stopping mega-dams and offshore drilling, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But we were so focused on battling opponents and seeking public support that we failed to realize these battles reflect fundamentally different ways of seeing our place in the world. And it is our deep underlying worldview that determines the way we treat our surroundings.
The big mistake was in seeing the environment as separate from and even subordinate to the economy.
[E]nvironmental protection came to be seen as an impediment to economic growth. * * *
Now the human economy has become a force that is altering the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the planet on a geological scale, destroying the very ground of our being.
In creating dedicated departments, we made the environment another special interest, like education, health, and agriculture. The environment subsumes every aspect of our activities, but we failed to make the point that our lives, health, and livelihoods absolutely depend on the biosphere—air, water, soil, sunlight, and biodiversity. Without them, we sicken and die. This perspective is reflected in spiritual practices that understand that everything is interconnected, as well as traditional societies that revere “Mother Earth” as the source of all that matters in life.
It was a mistake from the beginning in failing to advocate for and defend the land and the environment as a spiritual practice. It was a mistake to buy into the growth paradigm, thinking environmentalism would be easier to sell if it could be portrayed as accommodating and even enhancing economic growth. By failing to stand up for the fundamental reality that we are part of and dependent on the web of life that keeps the planet habitable, the battle was lost without ever being engaged.
Similarly in Oregon, land use advocates committed a fatal error at the very beginning. Upon taking office in 1967, Republican Governor Tom McCall had the state’s quarterly economic development publication renamed from “Growth” to “Quality” (and later, to “Progress). In 1971, in an interview by Terry Drinkwater before a national audience on the CBS Evening News, McCall pleaded for people not to move to Oregon:
Come visit us again and again. This is a state of excitement. But, for Heaven’s sake, don’t come here to live.
In selling and defending new land use regulations, McCall railed against “grasping wastrels of the land” and and “local officials who cater to developers and exploiters”. But even McCall could not bring himself to reject the economic growth paradigm, attacking only “unlimited and unregulated” growth and calling for “healthy, imaginative, nonpolluting industry”. When Senate Bill 100 emerged from the sausage factory of the legislature, the most visionary piece – “areas of critical state concern” – had been dropped from the bill; environmentalists and a vision as the land as a value in itself just weren’t that important. The bill passed only because powerful economic interests – the agriculture industry and the timber industry – were bought off with a huge property tax break, farm and forest special assessment. Deals were made with other economic interests as well, including homebuilders and industry.
In the early 2000s, Oregon’s planning program faced a moral challenge as being unfair to property owners, depriving them of their economic rights. The program’s supporters early reliance on economics as its justification left them disarmed in the face of a moral challenge. Their response to the proponents’ “fairness” argument was a feeble, “it’s too expensive”. Their response, when Measure 37 passed, was to save the program by destroying it. Land use “advocates” promulgated and spend millions to pass Measure 49, which enshrined “property rights” as the heart and soul of land use in Oregon. “Fairness” supplanted the admittedly limited goal of “preservation of a maximum amount of the limited supply of agricultural land . . . necessary to the conservation of the state’s economic resources” – a goal that itself embodied the fatal flaw that would eventually lead to the planning program’s demise. Any regulation that hits a property owner in the pocketbook is now and forever anathema.
In saving its land use planning program, Oregon land use proponents betrayed and sacrificed the very land the program was supposed to nurture and protect, too timid to even engage in its defense. As with environmentalism generally, the battle was surrendered without being fought.


















