O Holy Growth

Text by Vincent J. Carbonneau, economic transition spokesperson. Published in Le Pigeon Dissident Inc.

The climate crisis is no longer on our doorstep, it has passed through the portico, already taken off its coat and boots and settled comfortably in front of the stove - in short, it's here to stay. It's no longer a question of stopping climate change, but of limiting the damage and preparing the population and future generations to live in a world turned upside down.

The year 2018 was marked by this spirit of urgency, with the arrival of a new Caquist government with weak, even dubious environmental positions, helping to kick-start this mobilization. The artisans of the Pacte pour la transition, like the troupes solidaires, were able to use these popular concerns, during and after the elections, to propose projects that, they claimed, could solve the climate crisis.

However, the Pacte and the ecologist movement missed the mark completely, even adopting a discourse that could complicate the battle ahead. One crucial element has been forgotten: growth. When the new darling of solidarity spoke of our dependence on the automobile, comparing it to "a line of coke", I totally agreed with her, not just for automobiles, but above all for a way of life that demands ever more, and fast. The global economic system needs this growth to function, and it's when it doesn't that the catastrophe of an economic crisis occurs. But on a planet where our numbers are growing, where our demands are increasing and where we are consuming more and more, but which is limited by its size and its capacity to renew its resources, collapse seems inevitable.

This growth has even become a real religion, an undeniable faith in an economic system which, since the fall of the Eastern bloc, appears untouchable, omnipotent, omnipresent and the only viable one. We all practice this cult, consciously or unconsciously. We all work day after day for this growth, we buy cars to go to work, to pay for our cars, to consume, to live, since this is now the supreme objective, the hope of having more. Communitarianism has given way to an individualism that has given perfect space to sacrosanct consumption: "I exist because I consume, I consume because I exist". The great economic gurus, from the heights of unimaginable and unattainable fortunes, repeat to us through their Wall Street and Silicon Valley clergy that in the face of the threat, we must consume, that the divine market will regulate itself thanks to our capitalist fervor, we must believe. Amen to that!

In this context of climate upheaval, this sacrosanct discourse has evolved and adopted a rhetoric that is now imposed on the population. A change in economic structure remains impossible, but we have to work around it, without really touching it, we have to introduce and exchange elements that will enable it to weather the storm. Fossil fuels, and oil in particular, have become the scapegoats for this change.

Historically, it's really oil that has enabled this growth: its energy potential, its abundance and the ease with which it can be transported, have enabled a powerful economic boom in the West, which has launched phenomenal prosperity, taking our societies to a level of comfort unimaginable for our ancestors. We've become dependent on it: plastics, cars, agriculture, transportation, our modern societies are all based on black gold. It's easy to understand why many politicians are reluctant, if not outright opposed, to any attack on this industry, the source of so much wealth. In their denial of our planet's limits, however, many have seen the imminent demise of oil and other fossil fuels. Green technologies, which had been known about for several decades, quickly became the messiahs of the model and now serve to reassure the population about its future.

Green energy, electric cars, bioplastics, artificial intelligence, recycling - our future seems to lie in the hands of technologies that claim to be miraculous. We're promised that by turning our backs on fossil fuels, changing the goods we consume and going green, we'll finally be able to slow or even halt our dangerous race towards the climate precipice, without having to change our lifestyles. Other far-fetched technologies are even becoming alternatives that are taken seriously, such as nuclear fission or gathering resources through space conquest, rather than considering any economic change at all. Yet all these inventions face several major problems. The resources needed to produce them (rare metals, lithium, etc.) are available in limited quantities, are often non-renewable and some are even downright problematic, due to the presence of radioactive elements or the immense volume of water required to extract them. The issue of resource scarcity remains problematic. So far, humanity has managed to avoid hitting the wall by exploiting more and more territories to find more resources and by increasing its production capacity, but we are now reaching the limits of our one and only planet.

This system is incompatible with the reduction and conservation measures contained in the Pact in particular, since a more efficient or less energy-intensive technology or habit will paradoxically lead to greater use of energy and resources. Reducing our consumption will only slow down the inevitable. All new technologies pose an energy problem, since they don't produce energy, but consume it. Responsible" growth will also require astronomical quantities of scarce resources. The recycling crisis in Quebec shows just how inefficient this process is, and even when it is perfected, requires energy and remains partially efficient, many elements remain lost forever, filling our landfills and those abroad.

So how can we achieve a green transition within an economic regime that demands infinite growth? You can't. Any green revolution in a growth-based economic system will be doomed to failure. Solutions must necessarily be accompanied by a profound change in the global economic system.

Degrowth must be an important part of any transition strategy, so that we are logical and consistent in our actions, but above all so that we are honest with the public. The ecological movement must stop promising citizens that their way of life won't change if they adopt the green lifestyle on offer. It must, in all honesty, prepare them for a reality where resources are running out and living standards are doomed to decline, but explain that conditions will become much worse if these measures are not taken. It's time to prioritize a reduction in workloads, the local economy and production, the community, the family, living to live and not to consume.

Are the environmental movement and political parties ready to move in this direction? To remain coherent and make a success of the transition they are proposing, they have no other alternative.

Vincent J.Carbonneau - Economic Transition Spokesperson

(Text published in Le Pigeon Dissident Inc.)

[simple-author-box]