Latest news with #degrowth
CBC
3 hours ago
- Business
- CBC
What is degrowth? The throwdown over growing down
Hello, Earthlings! This is our weekly newsletter on all things environmental, where we highlight trends and solutions that are moving us to a more sustainable world. Keep up with the latest news on our Climate and Environment page. What is degrowth? The throwdown over growing down I started planning to write this story a year ago. Every time I tried to crack into the subject of degrowth, I would hit a wall of arguments and counter-arguments that are enough to make your head spin. But let's give it a go. Imagine a graph measuring the progress of nations. It's a given that none of us can control the X-axis of time moving to the right. But as that happens, most countries want the Y-axis of success to trend upward. But what can we even quantify as success? Gross domestic product — the value of goods and services over a period of time — is relatively easy to understand and, more importantly, a comparable way of measuring it. Chasing GDP growth is seen as favourable because it means your country is wealthy, moving that money around, competing with other nations and all this is generally associated with having better health care and education. To be clear, GDP is not and never was a measure for total societal well-being — especially when it comes to impacts on the environment. With global climate, pollution and biodiversity crises linked to humanity's over-consumption, an old argument against chasing GDP growth takes a new form: degrowth. It's one concept under the umbrella of what proponents call "post-growth" thinking. "What's common in all of them is just questioning the fundamental thesis of current economies: That we are only well off if we keep growing our consumption year by year," said Diàna Ürge-Vorsatz, professor at the Central European University in Vienna, who recently co-authored research looking at post-growth. The paper says degrowth, applying to high-income countries, means "a lower GDP as a probable outcome of efforts to substantially reduce resource use." That might look like a Canada where we drove less, bought fewer new clothes, grew more food locally (and, notably, worked fewer hours). "The point is that instead of measuring progress by increasing consumption, we could measure progress by increasing well-being," said Ürge-Vorsatz, who is also one of the vice-chairs for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. She points to metrics such as the OECD Better Life Index, which looks at factors such as health, the environment and work-life balance. Canada scores high on the first two, lower on the third. But this kind of metric is only available for some countries; it takes a lot more data and is harder to measure than GDP. The criticism against degrowth is plentiful and vocal. Here's a boiling down of just some of those positions: High-income countries' reduction in resource consumption would negatively affect the low-income countries that they trade with. Lower-income countries would pollute as they industrialize further, thereby not solving the climate crisis. Degrowth would stifle innovation, which has led to advancements in lower-carbon technology. And you bet there are rebuttals. Jeroen van den Bergh, a policy scientist and environmental economics expert at Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, finds current degrowth arguments "a bit naïve." He agrees that the future has to look different from the past and that means changing our relationship between growth and resource extraction. "There's too much pessimism that we cannot move away from that relationship that we've seen so far. And I'm not optimistic about it, but I think we can achieve a lot of change if we have very ambitious policies." He advocates, instead, for "agrowth" — with the 'a' standing for 'agnostic', meaning countries don't assess policies on their growth potential, but on their societal well-being and on environmental impact. "The only way to get away from the dominance of GDP is to have a replacement that looks very much like it," he said, arguing this approach would mean keeping GDP but also seeking policies that value other societal benefits. So while some degrowth advocates call for a reduction in what they see as less necessary consumption such as commercial air travel and fast fashion, agrowth instead pushes for being flexible, by seeing strength in policies that, for example, promote planetary health. All this might seem like arm-chair quarterbacking (on your last down with five seconds on the clock), but it's worth mentioning that this search for an alternative has both sides agreeing the world is already experiencing a stagnation in GDP growth. Unrelated to any degrowth policies, the world is seeing a decline in growth from around four per cent in the 1960s to around one per cent now in high-income countries. And climate change is forecast to hit GDP, whether we want it or not. Based on analyses by actuaries — that is, estimates by people who estimate for a living, the worst-case scenario shows climate-fuelled catastrophes causing a 50 per cent loss in GDP by the end of the century. In other words, a massive economic depression occurring alongside deaths, destruction of long-term assets and more geopolitical fragmentation. Faced with that future, it's perhaps more understandable why people are seeking a different way to measure success. In our newest episode: Corporate leaders say Canada's new greenwashing rules are causing companies to pull back on their climate ambitions. We hear from the executive chair of Maple Leaf Foods about what he says is a "greenhushing" effect of the legislation. Then, we hear from a lawyer and a climate advocate about the pros and cons of the federal government's new law. What On Earth drops new podcast episodes every Wednesday and Saturday. You can find them on your favourite podcast app or on demand at CBC Listen. The radio show airs Sundays at 11 a.m., 11:30 a.m. in Newfoundland and Labrador. How bad is the wildfire smoke where you live? Check the CBC News Climate Dashboard for live updates on wildfire smoke and active fires across the country. Set your location for information on air quality where you live. Tune into CBC this Sunday evening at 8 p.m. for the one-hour network special CBC in Antarctica. Experience stunning vistas, curious penguins and dramatic real-time navigation through ice-entombed channels with the Canadian Navy and a team of dedicated Canadian scientists. The special will also be available on CBC Gem and CBC YouTube this weekend. The Big Picture: How shoreline litter changed after plastic bans When Ocean Wise volunteers picked up litter on Canada's shorelines last year, they found the usual top items, including cigarette butts, plastic and styrofoam pieces. But they also found 32 per cent fewer straws and 25 per cent fewer plastic bags compared to the previous year. The results are promising, said Kaitlyn Harris, manager of Ocean Wise's shoreline cleanup. "This means that the federal plastic ban is working," she said. "This is having an actual impact on the environment, which ultimately means less [plastic] is ending up in our oceans, affecting habitats and ecosystems." The federal government labeled plastic manufactured items as toxic in 2021, paving the way for a national single-use plastic ban on some items in 2022, including plastic straws, bags and utensils. While the regulations are still in place today, it's been a confusing back and forth. Industry groups quickly challenged the "toxic" label that underpins the regulations, and the Supreme Court sided with them, deeming it unconstitutional. But it still upheld the regulations until a decision came from an appeal, which is still pending. Some provinces already had their own provincial bans on items such as plastic bags, and fewer of those items were found on their shores. The highest number of plastic bags, straws and utensils per capita were found in Ontario, which has no plastic bans. — Charlotte Lepage Alberta solar farm tests tech to raise chickens, sheep, pigs and bees The goal of 'farming under every panel' 7 days ago Duration 1:30 Solar Sheep's Janna Greir and Capital Power's Wade Heuscher explain why animals are used at the Strathmore Solar site in Alberta. This summer, a solar field in Alberta will not only be generating about 40 megawatts of electricity each sunny day but also producing eggs, honey, meat and wool. There are 110,000 solar panels on the 130 hectares of land, in addition to about 400 sheep, 40 pigs and 100 chickens. The bees are arriving soon. The solar project, which is owned by Edmonton-based Capital Power and located near the town of Strathmore, is beginning to resemble a hobby farm. But for those involved, it's an important opportunity to test new technology and farming techniques. As demand for electricity grows every year, this site provides a glimpse into the future of the solar industry in Canada. The chickens arrived this week and began laying eggs inside their new home, a mobile coop that slowly moves between the long rows of panels. The structure is a self-propelled pasture barn designed by UKKÖ Robotics, a Manitoba-based startup. The concept is to house animals in a building, while providing fresh grass to graze and spreading the manure evenly on the land. Multiple times a day, the coop slowly moves a small distance, usually half a metre at a time. The company has installed 50 of the roaming structures around the world, but this is the first time it will operate on a solar site. "If it does work, I think there's some great applications throughout North America because this is underutilized agricultural land," said Daniel Badiou, co-founder and CEO of UKKÖ Robotics. Solar industry vs. farming As the solar industry has expanded, especially in Alberta, rural landowners have raised concerns about the impact on farmland. Those critiques are in part why the Alberta and Ontario governments have introduced new rules that restrict solar panel development on prime agricultural land and require solar operators to include some type of agriculture, depending on the quality of the land. But sheep farmer Janna Greir said she thinks solar farming and regular farming can actually go hand in hand. She's the co-founder of Solar Sheep, and this is the fourth summer that she'll manage the vegetation at this solar field. "Our vision is essentially farming under every panel," said Greir, who began by using sheep and has expanded to test out on other animals. "We want to kind of prove the concept that we can raise more protein and more local food per acre," she said. "There's a ton of solar development going on throughout the province, and so we're just trying to keep that land in agriculture. But we're also trying to keep it and leave it in a better place than when we started." 'Rethinking how beekeeping is done' The bees will also be part of testing new technology, as they will be housed in a predator-proof, climate-controlled building that's similar in size to a garden shed. The mobile indoor apiary is designed and built by Bee Cube, a Calgary startup. Each building has sensors to monitor temperature, humidity, weight and the sound of the bees. "All that data goes to a database so that beekeepers will know what's going on inside their hives at any given time," said Herman Van Reekum, founder and CEO of Bee Cube. At the solar field, the bees will not only produce honey; they'll help pollinate the various types of flowering plants. The main objective of the Strathmore solar field, located about 40 kilometres east of Calgary, is to generate electricity, but the agricultural activities are nonetheless important, said Wade Heuscher, solar manager for Capital Power, the power generator that owns the project. The company is beginning a 10-year soil-testing program to better understand how the livestock, rotational grazing and vegetation management are impacting the soil conditions. "This is the way of the future, " Heuscher said. "I think this is a partnership that all solar providers should be looking at doing."
Times
07-05-2025
- Business
- Times
Is the new right embracing degrowth economics?
There was a time, not so long ago, when the concept of 'degrowth' belonged strictly to the eco-left. A luxury ideology for environmental activists and sandal-wearing dreamers, the basic idea was that pursuing economic growth was a destructive obsession. Rising GDP didn't improve ordinary people's lives, but fuelled economic inequality and ecological ruin. Degrowthers thus wanted policymakers to deprioritise growing GDP, with the public accepting a simpler, less abundant life. Remarkably, shades of this anti-growth creed are now creeping into the policies of the populist right. President Trump's Maga movement and Nigel Farage's Reform might loudly denounce green zealots and net-zero diktats. Yet listen closely, and you'll hear echoes of precisely the ideas they claim to despise: that restricting economic growth, or limiting people's consumption possibilities, is somehow beneficial for voters. Trump's pivot is the most striking. Here's a man who stormed the campaign trail raging against the worst inflation since 1981, vowing to restore low prices and booming growth. Yet Trump, the living embodiment of conspicuous consumption, the candidate who ranted about environmental rules ruining showers and rendering dishwashers feeble, now sings an anti-abundance tune. Defending his tariffs last week, Trump dismissed consumer choice and low prices as mere frivolous excess. 'I don't think that a beautiful baby girl needs — that's 11 years old — needs to have 30 dolls, I think they can have three dolls or four dolls … They don't need to have 250 pencils. They can have five,' he said. Never mind that some families can afford only one or two dolls, Trump's message was clear: Americans should meekly accept less consumption and higher prices for the greater good. This theme of virtuous private austerity keeps resurfacing. Scott Bessent, Trump's treasury secretary, has declared that 'access to cheap goods is not the essence of the American dream.' JD Vance, the vice-president, was more direct last year, saying 'a million cheap toasters aren't worth a single American manufacturing job.' Forget affordable comforts, then — nationalist industrial ambitions demand your sacrifice. A man propelled to victory by anger over inflation now cheerfully embraces lowering supply and raising prices. Advertisement A similar anti-growth impulse is taking root this side of the Atlantic, too. Reform UK isn't just ascendant because of governments' broken immigration promises, but because the public is fed up with the consequences of economic stagnation. Yet Reform's response, astonishingly, has been to double down on the obstructionist impulses that worsened Britain's growth problems. Basking in last week's electoral victories, Richard Tice, a Reform MP, didn't promise his party would push Labour to relax stifling net-zero policies. Instead, he boasted that his councillors would block renewable energy projects in Lincolnshire outright. 'If you are thinking of investing in solar farms, Battery storage systems, or trying to build pylons … Think again … We will fight you every step of the way,' he vowed. This goes beyond scepticism about green energy economics — it's outright Nimbyism to private investment. Reform's national policy reflects this agenda, too: new taxes on renewables, banning battery storage systems, and fighting above-ground electricity pylons. Each restricts supply further, raising bills for households stretched by net-zero targets. Farage, meanwhile, has attacked Labour's housing supply goals, characterising more development as threatening Britons' quality of life. Rather than liberalising planning, he wants to reduce immigration to curb housing demand. Yet years of under-building mean we already have a housing shortfall for those here. Farage's message is degrowth to a tee: he knows better than free markets what's best for you, and it's having fewer homes. Trump and Reform might resent the degrowth label, claiming these policies defend local jobs and communities, while they tout deregulation elsewhere. But intentions don't change outcomes. The reality is fewer goods, steeper prices, less infrastructure, and weaker growth — no matter how virtuous they spin it. One suspects that populists preaching that voters must settle for less won't stay popular for long.
