Hussh | Is economic growth and sustainability really compatible?

Is economic growth and sustainability really compatible?

Climate
// Hidden Stories Series

Is economic growth and sustainability really compatible?

June 28, 2023
Protect nature or accelerate economic growth?

It’s a question that’s becoming increasingly more timely. In order to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, it’s now widely accepted that humanity must safeguard and restore extensive land areas; yet policymakers face the challenge of balancing environmental conservation with the desire to improve quality of life — often leading to unsustainable agricultural practices that pose a threat to fragile ecosystems.

As they tout ambitious goals and figurative dates in the name of addressing the climate crisis, there remains a political drive to create a world that is at least economically on par — if not better — than the one we live in today.

Subscribe to the hussh newsletter

So far, it had seemed like equilibrium was but a theory. However a new report has just dropped that suggests there is a way.

Researchers at the World Bank in collaboration with the Natural Capital Project, a partnership of groups focused on quantifying the value of ecosystems, has drawn a new road map for countries to harness efficiencies and better utilise land.

For example, according to the report, countries have the potential to sequester a significant amount of carbon dioxide (equivalent to two years’ worth of global emissions) without impeding economic growth. Additionally, by adopting sustainable practices, they could increase annual income from forestry and agriculture by $329 billion, effectively meeting global food requirements until 2050 without harming the environment.

Further, by implementing appropriate measures such as investments, incentives, and regulations, farmers can be transitioned to smaller plots of land while optimising efficiency through improved and, dare I say, more intensive farming techniques.

Sure: be more efficient and farm smarter, not necessarily more. It’s not the most illogical suggestion. But how can this happen, and importantly, who will fund it?

Thankfully, there already exists a significant potential funding pool in place: the $1.25 trillion in annual direct subsidies allocated by governments for agriculture, marine industries, and fossil fuel extraction, as highlighted in a recent independent report.

These subsidies and tax benefits today contribute to deforestation, overfishing, and excessive resource consumption — such as the harmful overuse of fertilisers. Repurposing such financial resources would provide a dual advantage for countries striving to enhance efficiency, although it would no doubt also present substantial political hurdles.

I can’t help but think we’re missing something here, however. We seem obsessed with the idea of growth as a metric of human — and, by implication, planetary — welfare. Last September, I wrote a piece for hussh magazine about Kate Raworth’s Doughnut Economics — a visual framework for sustainable development — and her new humanist economic model which has since been adopted by multiple countries. Among other things, it highlighted the issues surrounding GDP, or Gross Domestic Product, which was invented in the 1930s to calculate the total amount of services and goods sold in a given year. Since its origination, the term has become a key economic benchmark used to determine, shape, and create policies. However, it assumes that the solution to economic problems lies in more growth.

And ultimately, this new report seems to come to the same conclusions. Take increasing the intensity of agriculture for example — this can have plenty of environmental downsides. The Netherlands for example, has achieved incredible productivity but contaminated many of its waterways with nitrogen runoff from livestock operations. Likewise, increasing crop yields may artificially incentivise a push into protected areas where higher quality soil becomes even more lucrative.

The reality is, we need something to work if we’re to lift ourselves out of both the climate and welfare crisis. It’s evident that there’s no way of feeding a global population of nearly 10 billion people by 2050 without efficiency gains. Whether the results of this report can achieve that — or even if they will successfully be implemented — remains to be seen.

Hussh | Logo

Telling the stories of tomorrow that shape our world today.