One of the most exciting outcomes from the recent climate strikes is that we are being prompted to re-evaluate the way we measure human progress.  

We need to move beyond the assumption that there’s a positive relationship between economic growth and wellbeing – otherwise, we will be blind to the tipping point where wellbeing starts to nosedive.

You can explore this question and much more at this year’s Timber Festival, which runs from 5 to 7 July 2019 in the heart of the National Forest. 

Ultimate measure

This thinking isn’t new. As long ago as 1968, a young Robert Kennedy challenged the concept of economic growth as a measure of America’s progress in the world:

“Our Gross National Product counts air pollution … the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder … it counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armored cars. 

“Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. 

“It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”

And yet, just over fifty years later it seems we really haven’t moved on in our thinking.  Economic growth is still held up as the ultimate measure of success for governments, regardless of the impact on the available resources, the environment or society.  

It feels as though we have learned nothing from the simple ecological principle that every population has to live within limits.  

Happiness index

Fortunately, there are other measures out there.  Take the World Happiness Index produced by the United Nations.  

This is unashamedly human-centric, and uses measures that impact on wellbeing as its benchmark, on the basis that it is not growth per se, but the outcome of our investment on wellbeing that should be the real test of progress.

It is heartening to see in the 2019 Happiness Index that the UK has risen up the charts, now standing at fifteenth in the world.  Such measures of wellbeing are now springing up across the UK, from the Office of National Statistics to the Royal Mail. But even these measures can be misleading.  

How can we be getting happier when 16 percent of adults in the UK take antidepressants each year (that’s one in six of us) and 40 percent of GP appointments are said to involve mental health?

Moreover, some of these indicators still seem to relate back to economics, measuring factors that mean our most affluent areas come out on top. 

Timber festival 

We have been grappling with these issues in the National Forest, exploring a more rounded measure of quality of life that takes into account the green economy, community wellbeing and the state of the natural environment.  

The National Forest Festival ‘Timber’ was set up last year in recognition of these issues.

Timber is a statement of intent. A showcase for the view that our natural environment can not only make us happier, but much healthier too, as well as giving rise to more sustainable livelihoods.  

The festival is a microcosm for what we are trying to do across the whole National Forest, to promote sustainable living in the face of a changing climate.

The festival is designed so that each element – the location, programming and activities – demonstrates how the natural environment enhances our quality of life.  Wildlife watching, environmental arts, pole lathing, wild play, charcoal making, outdoor exercise, local food – all interspersed with music, dance, comedy and debate inspired by our trees and forests.

Political progress

Festival goers should leave not just having had a great time, but having experienced something new and wanting to continue and deepen their connection with the natural world.

In this context, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) feels a very blunt instrument.  So why don’t we do away with GDP and adopt a more progressive measure of success?  

I wonder what would happen if we challenged governments, local authorities, schools and workplaces to report on happiness or sustainable living?  It would seriously shift the way we think about investment if we asked the question ‘will it make us happier and more sustainable?’ rather than ‘will it increase GDP?’  

There are other metrics already starting to do this, like the Thriving Places index or the various measures recording carbon or natural capital.  Changing our focus on GDP could be a huge political step, and stop us simply marching headlong into ever more growth, on the pretence that it is a mark of progress.  

It would be a breakthrough for this climate generation, and perhaps even make Kennedy proud to think that after all these years we are finally measuring something that makes ‘life worthwhile’.

This Author 

John Everitt is chief executive of The National Forest Company. 

The Ecologist will be hosting talks and discussions at this year’s Timber festival, 5 – 7 July. 

Recent trends in our understanding of cultural evolution can help to apprehend the interconnected events that have given rise to young people’s radical responses to climate breakdown. 

Taking an evolutionary perspective can help to explore entrenched personal and political behaviours that have tended to cause a policy-making stalemate. 

We have learned to change our environment to ‘construct our niche’, to make our lives more efficient and comfortable. During this most recent evolutionary phase, many civilisations have grown and declined, and we have learned from this to develop a more successful global economy. 

Social learning 

Taking the very long term view, human evolution – separate from other primates – started about six million years ago, during which time we have evolved through four identifiable species types, and through phases of physical, social and then cultural  adaptation. 

In the last two decades our understanding of how this evolutionary trajectory has unfolded has also progressed greatly. ‘Darwinian’ and genetic explanations have become augmented with increasing research into many epigenetic factors: adaptations for high sociality in densely populated land for instance.

Particularly since the evolution of our species as homo sapiens, we have become the most social of mammal species, developing  language, tool-use, social emotions (pride, guilt shame etc) and social learning as adaptations that have enabled us to live in highly dense levels of population and succeed in surviving in virtually every part of the world.

As evolutionary psychology has shown over decades, much of our current behaviour is still driven by these adaptations – for instance our deep sense of identity with important ‘in’ groups, which is often fuelled and enhanced by defining ourselves as different to other ‘out’ groups, in terms of values, morals etc.

Our innate preference for social learning from others similar to us, has led to us to tend to polarise our political views in ways that influence our behaviour in ways that often seem to contradict common sense, eg: around climate change. 

Niche construction 

Humans have also developed a deep instinct for ‘niche construction’, a relatively new term in evolutionary studies which is key to understanding our present predicament.

In its most basic form, even simple organisms change their environment to better ensure their survival in face of threats: Rhodedendrons change the acidity of the local soil to deter other young plants competing for their space; beavers build complex dams and floating shelters.

For hundreds of thousands of years, humans have done this in increasingly sophisticated and complex ways, to the point where we now almost instinctively look to change our environment to suit our selves, and are individually dependent on doing so for our general well being.

Through this we have overcome most of the pressures that natural selection operates through: diseases and parasites through medicines and sanitation, food and resource scarcity through agriculture, industry and trade, climate and weather through robust housing, shelter and transport infrastructure.

At an individual level we see nice construction in ‘nesting instinct’ that we have towards our home environments. 

Neoliberalism and financialization 

Looking now at this more recent phase of cultural evolution in the West, we accelerated our niche construction into rapid economic development through metallurgic technologies (engineering) and harnessing fossil fuel energy to increase work efficiency during the industrial revolution.

This has led us to living in highly dense urban population centres, which has also had several deep and lasting effects: we have steadily developed increasingly high expectations of problem solving through more technology, and this has, over time, usually worked and we are increasingly motivated to conform to social norms of behaviour that allow us to live in very close proximity to each other, including lessened aggression and greater influence by prestigious individuals (leaders, celebrities etc). 

In addition to this, western societies have become more fragmented as they have moved more towards a nuclear family system and away from extended families and collectivist community living values.

Even more recently those in the west have evolved a different trajectory again.

Neoliberal ideology  and financialization gained traction as the main economic models, as those in the West began to perceive that their leadership and hegemony in industrial production was being overtaken by the Asian economies. 

Shifting expectations

In parallel to this, western societies also developed  more postmodern cultural values, based more on individualism and personal enhancement than previous more collectivist values.

The neoliberal economic argument for free unfettered trade in both goods and capital movement, and the postmodern ideology of freeing people from a sense of place and territorial inheritance, are far more detached and abstract ideologies than earlier value systems.

Over the last 40 years or so, neoliberalism has produced an expectation that certain members of global society can go wherever they like and buy whatever they want, a sort of detached mentality that rejects the previously perceived need for regulation and control in the national or community interest.

Thus the value of many items and services in the West have become detached from their actual value in terms of production costs.

Detaching economic behaviour from long-held values of exchange based on local resources and specialisms practiced over hundreds of thousands of years, has brought about a huge surge of global economic activity.

This has lifted billions of people out of absolute poverty, and increasingly brought them into the mainstream economy, most noticeably India and China.

Uncontrolled escalation

Neoliberalism has, however, also produced several deleterious effects: soaring economic and health inequalities and spiralling mental health issues, property prices that reflect these huge inequalities, and lack of career progression opportunities for young people.

It has also bolstered an escalating reaction to regulation and control by those who have most profited from these changes of values, eg: tax avoidance on an industrial scale, complete freedom being taken by the internet giants to use our data as they please and increase advertising to maintain and drive up sales.

This increased economic activity over the last 40 years has also produced an uncontrolled escalation of emissions of greenhouse gasses from the burning of oil, gas and coal that have fuelled it, stepping up the rate of climate change exponentially.

It is not surprising that young people feel like rebelling against a system that feels to them both fatalistic and unreasonably unfair – having been faced with the triple impacts of rising property values making mortgages and rents increasingly onerous, a lack of reliable and progressive employment prospects, and an outlook of a world with diminishing wildlife, natural resources and stable climate. 

They could also be seen as reacting against the older adults around them who act as if ‘business as usual’ is the best way forward, based on the short sighted assumption that the current version of trading is the only way capitalism can run.

Communal control 

Taking the longer-term evolutionary perspective, it is more reasonable to assume that the recent large scale experiment of neoliberal ideology in economics is coming to an end, and some more sustainable and equitable way of trading will need to evolve.

This would suggest greater emphasis being placed on decisions for the common good of all, including  more regulation of fossil fuels and plastics. 

Many young people feel deeply that there  needs to be a move towards more democratic structures in society, such as Citizens’ assemblies, with  greater emphasis being placed on decisions for the common good of all sections of the population of each nation, including them.

Such an intervention could also bring about more communal control and regulation of fossil fuel use, plastics, waste systems and food production, as attempts to get people to voluntarily live more frugally has not succeeded in mitigating climate change. 

This Author 

Steve Heigham is an evolutionary psychologist, lecturer in counselling and practicing psychotherapist. He is also an activist in Extinction Rebellion.

Image: Terry Matthews. 

It’s dispiriting to hear such negative reactions to the school climate strikes coming from the adult world. In particular, the patronising and dismissive responses from those politicians who have failed to develop appropriate policies to address climate change.

Equally concerning are reports of obstructive responses from some schools, teachers and parents: tales of teachers in an Exeter secondary school barricading doors to prevent pupils leaving to attend a recent climate action – and an eye witness account of an irate parent dragging a brave youngster from the podium as he was addressing the climate gathering.

In comparison, the measured but dissuasive announcements from the head teacher of my children’s rural secondary school seemed considerably more moderate – or so I thought. 

Cognitive dissonance 

My 15-year-old daughter has recently been appointed deputy head girl for the forthcoming academic year and wished to attend the next climate action. She experienced a tension between firmly held beliefs and her perception of her leadership role.

I advised her that adhering to one’s values was probably a more important expression of leadership than toeing the line. I felt I should pass on the advice I had offered in order to inform the head-teacher that my daughter’s choice had not been made lightly.

I further attempted to convey that participating in the climate action might help to counter some of the sense of hopelessness and low self- esteem which sadly burdens many youngsters. This I explained in the following terms:   

“I have become very interested in recent discussions about young people’s anxieties over environmental issues and their sense of well- being.

“I have a couple of friends involved in clinical psychiatry who talk a lot about “cognitive dissonance” in this context – a concept which I believe refers to the anxieties which arise when strongly held values and attitudes conflict with actions and decisions. I guess something we all experience to a degree!”

Collective participation 

My letter continued: “For many children, I think it may be difficult to influence decisions at home which have ecological impacts. They see government mired in Brexit and effectively paralysed in relation to more far reaching matters, resulting in a sense of despondency and personal disempowerment.

“I have a sense that collective participation with friends in public demonstrations is not just fun but has real ability to dispel their sense of hopelessness while strengthening their feeling of self-worth.”

In terms of wider educational objectives, I do feel that an appreciation that peaceful demonstration is an important element in our democratic process is important.

I fear that presenting a negative perception of such actions can further alienate young people from the democratic model and may divert some into more extremist pathways.

His response was polite and considered but either my arguments had been unconvincing or were outweighed by his priority of not rocking the boat.

Imaginative placards

As a bystander at a previous school climate action in Exeter it became evident to me that a great deal of important learning was taking place.

There had seemed to be an over-simplistic myth among some younger children that climate change in itself will directly bring about human extinction within their lifetimes – a deeply unsettling idea for any child.

Speeches, placards and conversations would have gone some way to presenting a more likely if more complex scenario to those present at the action – a scenario in which the combined interaction of climate change, habitat destruction, resource depletion and pollution would create uninhabitable regions displacing populations on a large scale with chaotic and destructive outcomes.

One cleverly designed placard conveyed pictorially how the scale of climate-generated refugee populations might dwarf the current displacements fuelled largely by war.

The extinction of polar species, a highly likely prospect resulting from arctic melting, was a widespread theme on the imaginatively designed and colourful placards, too. 

Educational experience 

I learned a lot, particularly concerning sea level evidence emerging from research into the Pliocene environment. From a conversation with a  palaeoclimatologist,  I discovered that at that time – some 4 million years ago – CO2 concentration reached 400 ppm, similar to the present elevated levels resulting from fossil fuel burning.

The sea level appears to have progressively risen to plus 15 metres, a devastating finding if viewed in the context of the modern world and present population distributions.

Implicit in the collective enthusiasm of the throngs of youngsters was a sense of the joy and empowerment to be found in solidarity.

In the broadest sense this was a powerful educational experience. In a moment of nostalgic euphoria, I was reminded of the visions and critique presented in Ivan Illich’s “Deschooling Society” which envisaged  radical and ecologically oriented forms of education outside the confines of institutionally bound schooling.

On the train home Pink Floyd’s insistent chorus line was ringing in my ears: “Hey teacher, leave those kids alone…”

This Author 

David Job is a former teacher with the Field Studies Council and lecturer in Geography Education at Institute of Education, University of London. He retired to develop a green tourism project in North Devon, and is now a smallholder and environmental campaigner.

Image: Roaming-the-Earth, Flickr. 

Hundreds of climate change experts have urged Theresa May to confront Donald Trump over his approach to the issue during his state visit this week.

A letter signed by 250 academics from universities and research bodies across the UK states the US president’s “refusal” to tackle global warming is “increasing risks for lives and livelihoods” around the world.

The experts praise the UK’s international role in tackling climate change but say Mr Trump’s visit is “incompatible” with it while he is “undermining” US domestic and international efforts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

Risk

It reads: “The president’s refusal to tackle climate change, and particularly his initiation of the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement, is increasing risks for lives and livelihoods in the United States, the United Kingdom and around the world.”

They urge the Prime Minister to tell Mr Trump to accept the scientific evidence of the threat of man-made climate change; support policies in the US to reduce greenhouse gases to zero by 2050, and collaborate with international efforts to combat climate change.

The president has previously called climate change a “Chinese hoax” and “bullshit”.

Bob Ward, director of policy for the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, coordinated the letter.

He said: “President Trump’s refusal to accept and address global climate change is putting at risk lives and livelihoods of current and future generations in the UK.

Hope

“The state visit is an opportunity for the Prime Minister to challenge the president’s reckless approach and advance the UK’s reputation as an international leader on climate change before she steps down as Prime Minister.

“The special relationship between the UK and USA is meaningless if the Government does not use it to confront the actions of a president that are a threat to UK citizens.”

A Government spokeswoman said: “The Prime Minister has raised climate change with the president before and will do so again during his visit.

“Tackling climate change is a priority for the UK. We are driving forward international action through our work at the UN and with our Commonwealth partners, and we’re proud to have offered to host COP26 in 2020.

“As the Prime Minister has said previously, we were disappointed by the US decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement in 2017 and continue to hope they will return.”

Blimp

A giant inflatable Donald Trump baby blimp is expected to fly over London during the US president’s state visit after its owners reached their fundraising target.

Organisers plan to fly the 20ft blimp above Parliament Square for two hours from 10am on Tuesday, the second day of Mr Trump’s UK visit. The blimp, which can be flown up to 100ft in the air, depicts the US president wearing a nappy and clutching a mobile phone.

A spokesman for the team behind the blimp said they had received permission to deploy the inflatable from the Greater London Authority, headed by London Mayor Sadiq Khan, and the Civil Aviation Authority.

This year, the Trump Baby team, which is part of the Stop Trump coalition, said the blimp would only be flown if a crowdfunding target of £30,000 was met to support groups focused on tackling social issues.

Organisers announced the target was reached on Sunday and raised it to £50,000 to give the groups an “even bigger boost”.

Loud and clear

The Trump Baby team said the money will go to groups in the US and UK “fighting Trump’s policies and their impact on communities”, including in relation to climate change and women’s reproductive rights.

Ajuub Faraji, a Trump blimp “babysitter”, said: “Trump is a dangerous, divisive demagogue and we’re thrilled that the public have put their hands in their pockets to support groups fighting the impacts of his policies.

“Trump will try his best to avoid the public on his trip, but with Trump Baby flying we’re sending a very clear message of solidarity to those affected by his despicable politics – and saying loud and clear that the US president doesn’t deserve the red carpet treatment being given to him by the Government.”

This Author

Harriet Line is a Press Association political correspondent. Tom Pilgrim and Lewis Pennock are reporters for the Press Association. 

Extinction Rebellion (XR) has admitted that it made mistakes in its legal observation processes during its protests. The clarification follows an announcement by the Green and Black Cross (GBC) that it would no longer work with XR.

GBC accused XR of providing inadequate and inconsistent training to legal observers, whose role includes collecting an independent set of evidence to be used by those arrested during direct action.

GBC claimed that XR’s legal observers were not independent, and that the way XR stored personal data using Google Docs and WhatsApp was inadequately secure, and could be accessed by police.

Civil disobedience

According to XR, GBC actually withdrew support two weeks before its protests in April, which saw ten days of marches, arrests and widespread disruption in London and other parts of the country.

XR carried out training itself, knowing that thousands of people were about to engage in civil disobedience, the group has now said in a statement. Their training was based on materials provided by GBC and delivered by trainers who had previously worked with the GBC. 

XR has said that it used Google forms and WhatsApp because it was the best way of quickly organising hundreds of legal observers to stay in touch with them, and no contact details were shared outside XR’s legal support group.

Young movement 

The XR statement said: “As a young movement made up of many individuals who have worked with and respect the work of GBC, as well as a range of people who are completely new to protest.

“There are vast differences in understanding of the essential role and nature of legal observing, rights to protest, or the issue with passing on information from the police to other rebels.”

It stressed that it was “immensely grateful” for all the help and support provided by the GBC, and added its finance team was looking into ways it could help obtain funding for frontline environmental and social justice support organisations. The statement from XR can be read in full here.

This Author

Catherine Early is a freelance environmental journalist and chief reporter for the Ecologist. She can be found tweeting at @Cat_Early76.

Image: STML, Flickr. 

Cardiff Friends of the Earth have reiterated their call for the Cardiff and Vale Local Authority Pension Fund to divest its holdings in fossil fuel companies.

The group have recently conducted online polls on social media which found that 97 percent of people on Twitter who took the poll wanted Cardiff Council to make divestment from fossil fuel companies a priority following the Council’s own declaration of a climate emergency.

A Facebook poll was even more overwhelming with 99 percent of respondents wanting divestment now to be a priority.

Climate emergency

All this comes in the week that the Cardiff and Vale Pension Committee have discussed a report on divestment.

Cardiff Friends of the Earth spokesperson, Bryony Haynes, said: “It is heartening to see the Cardiff and Vale Pension Fund is finally discussing divesting from fossil fuel companies.

“In the face of impending climate and ecological emergencies, words now need to turn into action.

“The pension fund has tens of millions of pounds invested in climate wrecking fossil fuel companies.

“Cardiff Council must divest from these fossil fuel companies now. You can’t declare a climate emergency and carry on investing in the very companies that are responsible for the climate crisis.  

“We look forward to hearing that this pension fund is now actually going to divest and has an actual timeline to do so.”

This Author

Marianne Brooker is The Ecologist’s content editor. This article is based on a press release from Friends of the Earth. 

Image: Elliot Brown, Flickr. 

Glyphosate is a weed-killing chemical that was developed by corporate giant Monsanto in the early 1970s. It’s an active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup and helps to eliminate unwanted plants and grasses from farms, public parks, school campuses, and other large green spaces.

Roundup is the most popular herbicide in the United States. Roundup products are used in more than 160 countries, with an estimated 1.4 billion pounds of the herbicide used every year. 

Despite its widespread use, the brand has raised concerns among consumers. Allegations against the herbicide include its potential to damage the environment and human health. Recent court cases have even found that glyphosate is the cause of several cancers, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, B-cell lymphoma, and leukemia. 

Consumer health 

Glyphosate has been the center of debate since it was deemed a “probable human carcinogen” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2015.

Following this statement, thousands of consumers came forward claiming that their cancer diagnoses were caused by years of Roundup use. Many of these lawsuits claim that Monsanto, which was acquired by Bayer AG in 2018, failed to properly warn Roundup customers of the potential dangers of its effect on human health. 

Dwayne Johnson, a groundskeeper for a California county school district, was initially awarded $289 million in damages by a San Francisco jury in August 2018 after arguing that his cancer was caused by several years of exposure to Roundup. Though the award was later reduced to $78.5 million, Johnson’s case was a substantial win against Monsanto. 

Johnson’s case initiated a snowball effect of consumer lawsuits against the agrochemical corporation. Edwin Hardeman, who used Roundup since the 1980s, was awarded $80 million after a unanimous jury found that the herbicide contributed to his cancer. Alva and Alberta Pilliod, who also used Roundup for years to treat their yard and other owned properties, were granted $2 billion in damages after they went to trial in March 2019.

More than 13,400 cancer patients have filed lawsuits against Monsanto because of the growing concerns that there is a potential correlation between the use of glyphosate and different forms of cancer. 

Environmental impact 

Though Roundup is commonly used to maintain lawns, gardens, and other public spaces, the herbicide is widely used in the agricultural space due to its ability to kill weeds that harm crops. 

In 1996, Monsanto introduced Roundup Ready crops, or seeds for genetically modified organisms (GMO) that are resistant to glyphosate. This new capability allowed farmers to spray Roundup everywhere without worrying about damaging their crops.

Though agricultural spraying may help control weed growth, it also has the potential to affect workers, livestock, and nearby ecosystems. Glyphosate, in addition to the other chemicals in Roundup, can become airborne during agricultural spraying. This may lead to inhalation by nearby humans and animals and even ingestion by livestock who eat chemically-treated feed.

A German study found that glyphosate residue has the potential to reach animals through feed, and that the presence of glyphosate within the animal tissue was, “alarming at even low concentrations.”

Glyphosate has also been seen to impact surrounding ecosystems, particularly waterways. Runoff from glyphosate-treated farmland can contaminate nearby streams, ponds, rivers, lakes, and wetlands, destroying food supplies and natural habitats that fish and animals require to survive.

In aquatic environments, researchers have also discovered links between glyphosate exposure and changes in the metabolism, growth, behavior, and reproduction of certain wildlife creatures. 

Reducing risks

There are many ways consumers are exposed to Roundup on a daily basis, from ingesting food treated with glyphosate, to visiting a local park where glyphosate was sprayed, to handling the product itself.

However, there are still ways for consumers to protect themselves and the environment from the risks of exposure. One method is to create organic, all-natural pesticides to get rid of pesky bugs around the house or weeds in the garden. Though this method does offer an alternative to store-bought herbicides for at-home use, citizens are still at risk of glyphosate exposure virtually everywhere they go.

In wake of the recent Roundup lawsuits, community legislators from around the world have come forward to mitigate and even prohibit Roundup use in parks, fields, and other public places, attesting that the herbicide is a danger to community members as well as the environment.

New York City council members recently introduced legislation that would restrict Roundup and other glyphosate-based products from public parks and other properties. These weed killers would also not be allowed to be used within 75 feet of any body of water.

University of California President Janet Napolitano has also taken a stand to suspend glyphosate-based herbicides from use at the UC campuses, leading up to a permanent glyphosate ban.

Across the globe

Glyphosate and Roundup restrictions are not uncommon. Countries that have restricted or completely banned include Vietnam, the Czech Republic, and Italy. 

Though there are measures consumers can take to protect themselves and the environment from Roundup exposure, the herbicide will continue to be sprayed worldwide.

Until Roundup is removed from store shelves completely, consumers and ecosystems will continue to experience the effects of its use. 

This Article 

This article is based on copy provided by Consumer Safety. 

Green growth has emerged as the dominant narrative for tackling contemporary environmental problems. Its supporters include the likes of the UN, OECD, national governments, businesses and even NGOs.

These groups believe that sustainability can be achieved through efficiency, technology and market-led environmental action. Green growth suggests we really can have our cake and eat it – both growing the economy and protecting the planet. 

But when it comes to tackling the most pressing environmental problems such as climate breakdown, species extinction or resource depletion, green growth might weaken rather than strengthen progress. Here’s why. 

Rebound effects

In theory, advances in environmental efficiency can help to “decouple” economic growth from resource use and pollution. But such outcomes remain elusive in the real world.

While sectors such as construction, agriculture and transport have managed to create less pollution and use less resources per unit of output, these improvements have struggled to fully offset the scale and speed of economic growth.

By outpacing production improvements, economic growth has led to an unhampered rise in resource use, pollution, and waste. 

In fact, efficiency may even be fuelling further consumption and pollution. This is a paradox first observed in 1865 by the economist William Stanley Jevons, who noticed the introduction of a more efficient steam engine actually coincided with more coal consumption, not less, as new profits were reinvested in extra production, causing prices to fall, demand to rise, and so on.

Such “rebound effects” exist across the whole economy, so the only real solution is to consume less. At best, efficiency is a half-baked solution, at worst, it stokes the very problem it tries to address.

Overstated technology

Proponents of green growth want us to believe that ever better technology is the solution. However, we are not so sure.

International environmental agreements and scenarios confidently assume large scale technologies will be deployed to capture and store carbon emissions, but we have yet to witness their potential even on a small scale.

Mechanised agriculture is being promoted on the basis of increased efficiency and yield while overlooking the fact that low-tech farming is a more productive means of meeting global food demand at lower environmental cost. 

Could carbon emissions eventually be captured and stored deep underground? 

Clearly, technology is crucial in lowering the environmental burden of production and consumption, but green growth overstates its role.

Turning a profit 

Perhaps the most compelling argument put forward for green growth is that protecting the environment can go hand-in-hand with making profits. However, in reality there is often a tension between these goals.

Many firms are risk averse, for instance, and don’t want to be first-movers, whether on charging for plastic bags, banning plastic cups or introducing carbon labelling. 

Then you have the fact that some sustainable interventions are simply not attractive investments for the private sector: there is little profit to be made in conserving ecosystems or financing public infrastructure for electric vehicles.

Meanwhile, environmental risks like natural resource depletion or extreme weather might become increasingly attractive to part of the private sector. 

If we’re serious about living within environmental limits we need to say adios to certain sectors: fossil fuels, livestock and fertilisers. If we leave that to the market, we’re going to be waiting a long, long time.

Green consumption 

Buying “green” offers a seemingly common sense solution to the environmental ills of over-consumption, but we’re sceptical. The push for greener consumption has devolved responsibility from governments and business to ordinary people.

As one commentator put it, we have been conned into fighting environmental issues as individuals, while the real culprits get off scot-free. Eco-friendly stuff is still made of stuff. 

Indeed, the very act of green consumption still fuels the extraction and use of natural resources, pollution and environmental degradation. Stuff requires more stuff to produce – this is often overlooked when we buy re-useable cups, eco-appliances and “sustainable” clothing.

Any positive impacts of green consumption can also easily be undone through people feeling they have a moral license to indulge elsewhere. Green consumption is a zero sum game if we decide to go vegan then fly long haul.

While it’s misguided to think consumers can’t make a difference, we shouldn’t be fooled into thinking humanity can consume its way out of environmental problems.

Elephant in the room

A central principle of green growth is that markets are both part of the problem and solution.

Proponents of green growth argue that as long as we get the numbers right – a tax on carbon, a clean energy subsidy, or a price tag on nature – markets can foster sustainability. But tackling environmental problems through the market involves a lot of guesswork with no guaranteed outcome. 

Unlike carbon, ecosystems and biodiversity are not amenable to economic valuation and substitution within markets. Pricing environmental damage in markets is like selling permits to pollute and trash our natural world.

Although market mechanisms can guide business towards sustainable behaviour, only stringent laws and regulation can help bring their growth in line with environmental limits. 

Efficiency alone is a blunt tool and techno-fixes will also not get us where we need to be. We need to address the elephant in the room: consumption. As the business case for reducing consumption is poor, so governments and communities need to take charge. 

Social change

There are promising signs. The next major Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report will finally include a chapter on tackling consumption.

In the UK, the Committee on Climate Change’s report on net zero by 2050 highlights the critical need for societal change.

Questioning our appetite for growth is the first step towards a more inclusive and effective model for sustainability.

These Authors 

Oliver Taherzadeh is a PhD researcher in the Department of Geography, University of Cambridge. Benedict Probst is a PhD researcher at the Cambridge Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance, University of Cambridge.

Extinction Rebellion (XR) has threatened to shut down Heathrow Airport for 10 days using drones if the Government does not cancel a planned expansion.

The environmental group, which brought London to a standstill for two weeks in April, said it will first stage a one-day protest on June 18.

It said if plans to expand Heathrow are not immediately scrapped the 10-day demonstration will begin on July 1. Holidaymakers were being given advance notice to “change travel plans”, the group added.

Flights

It is understood the plans to use drones are contained in a document shared between members of the group. Heathrow said the plan was “reckless” and could “endanger lives”.

A statement on the XR website said: “Extinction Rebellion demands the Government begins to act on its declaration of a Climate and Environment Emergency by cancelling all Heathrow expansion.

“On June 18, we plan to carry out nonviolent direct action to ensure Heathrow Authorities close the airport for the day, to create a ‘pause’ in recognition of the genocidal impact of high carbon activities, such as flying, upon the natural world.

“If the Government does not cancel all Heathrow expansion, Extinction Rebellion will act to shut the airport down for up to 10 days from July 1. Extinction Rebellion is in the consultancy stage with its members on the proposed action.”

Demonstrators also protested at Heathrow during the last round of protests in April but did not cause disruption to flights. A small group of mostly teenage activists briefly unfurled a banner near a tunnel which leads to Terminals 2 and 3 as several police officers watched on.

But protesters who plan to disrupt Heathrow Airport with drones could face life behind bars, the Government has now warned.

Aviation minister Baroness Vere said: “Flying drones near an airport is a serious criminal offence and using drones to deliberately put people’s safety at risk carries a maximum life sentence.”

Family

The statement, published on Friday, added: “This is not about targeting the public, but holding the Government to their duty to take leadership on the climate and ecological emergency.

“The addition of the planned third runway would make Heathrow the single biggest carbon emitter in the UK – to expand the airport at this critical point in history would be madness.

“We understand the action will cause disruption to a great number of holidaymakers, however we believe that it is necessary given the prospect of far greater disruption caused by ecological and societal collapse, if we don’t act now.”

A Heathrow spokesman said: “This is reckless action that if carried out could endanger the lives of the travelling public and our colleagues.

“We agree with the need to act on climate change, but that requires us to work together constructively – not commit serious criminal offences just as hard-working people prepare to spend a well-earned holiday with their family and friends.”

Drones

Airport security chiefs facing a drone protest by climate activists at Heathrow could struggle against a sustained attack, an expert has said.

Professor David Dunn, who recently spoke at Parliament about drone threats, said detaining suspects before a demonstration is able to take place could be the most effective measure.

Heathrow has military grade anti-drone technology, but that would be seriously tested if the airport is bombarded with a stream of devices in “waves”, he said.

Prof Dunn, a professor in international politics at the University of Birmingham, likened the threat by Extinction Rebellion to the drone incident at Gatwick Airport in December which affected roughly 140,000 passengers and 1,000 flights.

“Gatwick was probably two drones. But the underlying question is: What do you do if you have multiple drones, multiple directions, multiple wave incursions? They have not really got an answer for that,” he said.

“It depends how many there were, how coordinated they were and it would require a major police operation.”

The academic, who addressed an All Party Parliamentary Group on Armed Drones event in May, said any policing operation would be “very expensive and require a lot of manpower”.

This Author

Lewis Pennock is a reporter for the Press Association.

Extinction Rebellion (XR) has threatened to shut down Heathrow Airport for 10 days using drones if the Government does not cancel a planned expansion.

The environmental group, which brought London to a standstill for two weeks in April, said it will first stage a one-day protest on June 18.

It said if plans to expand Heathrow are not immediately scrapped the 10-day demonstration will begin on July 1. Holidaymakers were being given advance notice to “change travel plans”, the group added.

Flights

It is understood the plans to use drones are contained in a document shared between members of the group. Heathrow said the plan was “reckless” and could “endanger lives”.

A statement on the XR website said: “Extinction Rebellion demands the Government begins to act on its declaration of a Climate and Environment Emergency by cancelling all Heathrow expansion.

“On June 18, we plan to carry out nonviolent direct action to ensure Heathrow Authorities close the airport for the day, to create a ‘pause’ in recognition of the genocidal impact of high carbon activities, such as flying, upon the natural world.

“If the Government does not cancel all Heathrow expansion, Extinction Rebellion will act to shut the airport down for up to 10 days from July 1. Extinction Rebellion is in the consultancy stage with its members on the proposed action.”

Demonstrators also protested at Heathrow during the last round of protests in April but did not cause disruption to flights. A small group of mostly teenage activists briefly unfurled a banner near a tunnel which leads to Terminals 2 and 3 as several police officers watched on.

But protesters who plan to disrupt Heathrow Airport with drones could face life behind bars, the Government has now warned.

Aviation minister Baroness Vere said: “Flying drones near an airport is a serious criminal offence and using drones to deliberately put people’s safety at risk carries a maximum life sentence.”

Family

The statement, published on Friday, added: “This is not about targeting the public, but holding the Government to their duty to take leadership on the climate and ecological emergency.

“The addition of the planned third runway would make Heathrow the single biggest carbon emitter in the UK – to expand the airport at this critical point in history would be madness.

“We understand the action will cause disruption to a great number of holidaymakers, however we believe that it is necessary given the prospect of far greater disruption caused by ecological and societal collapse, if we don’t act now.”

A Heathrow spokesman said: “This is reckless action that if carried out could endanger the lives of the travelling public and our colleagues.

“We agree with the need to act on climate change, but that requires us to work together constructively – not commit serious criminal offences just as hard-working people prepare to spend a well-earned holiday with their family and friends.”

Drones

Airport security chiefs facing a drone protest by climate activists at Heathrow could struggle against a sustained attack, an expert has said.

Professor David Dunn, who recently spoke at Parliament about drone threats, said detaining suspects before a demonstration is able to take place could be the most effective measure.

Heathrow has military grade anti-drone technology, but that would be seriously tested if the airport is bombarded with a stream of devices in “waves”, he said.

Prof Dunn, a professor in international politics at the University of Birmingham, likened the threat by Extinction Rebellion to the drone incident at Gatwick Airport in December which affected roughly 140,000 passengers and 1,000 flights.

“Gatwick was probably two drones. But the underlying question is: What do you do if you have multiple drones, multiple directions, multiple wave incursions? They have not really got an answer for that,” he said.

“It depends how many there were, how coordinated they were and it would require a major police operation.”

The academic, who addressed an All Party Parliamentary Group on Armed Drones event in May, said any policing operation would be “very expensive and require a lot of manpower”.

This Author

Lewis Pennock is a reporter for the Press Association.