The catastrophic impacts of climate change are increasing in their frequency; extreme weather disasters have increased by a factor of five over the past 50 years whilst the gap between rich and poor grows ever wider. The mounting social and ecological crises we are facing have led to calls for a different kind of economic system, one that goes beyond green consumerism and challenges the logic of growth itself. Could the degrowth economy be the answer? 

—

In 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) declared that the global community had 12 years to significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or face an inevitable two degrees of global warming. It warned that global emissions must be halved by 2030 and to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, targets that remain stubbornly out of reach. We are currently on track for three degrees of warming by the end of the century as GHG emissions have increased by 57% since 1992, despite the signing of multiple climate conventions. Scientists estimate that if we are to have even a 50-50 chance of meeting our targets, wealthy industrialised countries will need to cut GHGs by 8-10% per year, a level that is virtually unprecedented. The pledges set out in the 2015 Paris Agreement and at climate negotiations since, are voluntary: governments are under no legal obligation to reduce emissions and hit their targets, making our achievement of them all the more unlikely.  

The solutions promoted by governments of industrialised nations during negotiations tend to focus on technological fixes and carbon markets which will, supposedly, allow for economic expansion whilst also rescuing the planet from ecological destruction. Economic growth has become the benchmark of a country’s success, with Gross Domestic Product (GDP) taking precedence over all other indicators, including happiness and well-being. Yet economic growth is inextricably tied to increased energy demand as well as increased material consumption and waste; ​​research shows that up to three-quarters of the annual resource inputs to industrial economies ends up as environmental waste within just one year. IPCC scientists have argued that the only feasible way to reduce our GHG emissions and halt catastrophic global warming is to actively scale down the material throughput of the economy. This approach is what is known as degrowth, and in recent years it has been gaining traction as an alternative economic and social system that could help to achieve the essential emission reductions whilst also improving standards of living.

What Is Degrowth?

At the core of degrowth is the fact that economic growth cannot be decoupled from material throughput at the scale needed to reduce resource use and keep us in line with planetary boundaries. Degrowth is a Euro-centric field of study, and as such aims to scale down the resource use of high income nations’ economies by shrinking sectors that are ecologically damaging and offer little social benefit, such as the fossil fuel and fast fashion industries. It does not work to shrink our existing capitalist economy which is designed only to grow – doing so would likely lead to recessions and the dire social consequences they entail. Rather, degrowth seeks a move to a different kind of economy altogether, one that does not pursue growth nor measure success only in terms of economic expansion, but one that creates an ecologically and socially just society for all. 

Degrowth challenges the notion that economic growth should be a social objective, and promotes other measures of progress such as the Genuine Progress Indicator which separates the notion of societal progress from economic growth. Throughout societies across the globe, there is a pervasive assumption that lives can only be improved through economic growth; our pursuit of it has taken over our way of thinking about the world and an increase in income has become the very object of modern society. However, a growing body of research suggests that economic growth beyond a level that satisfies basic needs does not improve well-being. It shows, in fact, that happiness is found in areas beyond the scope of wealth, such as increased time for family and leisure, and that greater investments in public services are more beneficial to welfare than increases in income. Such investments can also improve resilience to climate shocks and extreme weather as well as helping to lower emissions, e.g. through investments in public transport. 

Degrowth Economy: How Does It Work?

Degrowth depends on a number of progressive policies, at the centre of which is the equitable redistribution of existing income. This is key to ensuring that welfare can be improved for everyone without relying on economic growth and the material and energy throughput that inevitably comes with it. In OECD countries, income inequalities are at a 30-year high and, whilst the top 1% gets ever richer, the bottom 40% are facing economic decline and increasing poverty, a statistic that clearly points to the failures of our current economic system. As well as the redistribution of income, the degrowth movement also advocates for other progressive policies including carbon taxes, fossil fuel divestment, and the transfer of inheritances to the state. A shorter working week and job sharing is another key element that seeks to both reduce environmental burdens and improve welfare by freeing up leisure time. To mitigate the loss of wages due to shortened work hours, a basic income and job guarantee would be implemented, as would access to high-quality public services, funded by progressive taxation schemes. 

Rather than operating as a rigid political or economic mandate, the degrowth movement sees itself as an umbrella concept under which a range of social issues and ideas can come together with the ultimate goal of enhancing quality of life whilst living within planetary boundaries. Some academics argue that it should be used to express a general idea or direction, one that moves us away from the excessive production and consumption of our current capitalist economy and unites all those disenfranchised by economic growth. 

Although, in terms of politics and policies, degrowth remains a fringe concept, there are certain elements that are beginning to be seen around the world. A number of countries have adopted a four day working week in an effort to improve citizen well-being and redress work-life balance. Six countries, amongst them Scotland, Wales and New Zealand, have recently adopted a ‘well-being economy’, which aims to prioritise public and planetary health over economic growth. Though well-being economies share several of degrowth’s basic principles, they don’t explicitly call for certain sectors of the economy to be shrunk, which, according to degrowth scholars, is essential if we are to stay within planetary boundaries. Some have suggested, however, that well-being economies offer a pathway to post-growth concepts such as degrowth and can operate as a starting point in restructuring our economy around sufficiency instead of efficiency and excess.

You might also like: How Psychology, Environmental Economics and Policy Can Help Save the Planet

The post Degrowth: A Socially and Ecologically Just Economic Alternative? appeared first on Earth.Org.

Our global food system faces an existential threat: as temperatures rise and weather becomes more unpredictable, many of the crops we are reliant on are unable to adapt and survive. Diversifying the food system is essential in order to safeguard global food security.

—

Many of the dangers of our current global food system are well documented: the ongoing pandemics of obesity and malnutrition, the greenhouse gases produced by livestock farming, and the deforestation and land degradation caused by agriculture. But what is less well documented is the emerging crisis of our crops: how susceptible they have become to extreme weather events, the uniformity of our diets, and the looming extinction of thousands of plant species. The global population is expected to reach up to 10 billion by 2050 and scientists have called for a 70% increase in global harvests in order to feed it. Crop yields, however, are expected to decline as temperatures rise, threatening global food security and potentially triggering political unrest, economic shocks and climate migration.

Over four billion people, more than half the world’s population, rely on just three major crops for their nutritional needs: maize, wheat and rice; whilst 90% of global energy intake comes from just 15 plant species. The modern, industrialised food industry is geared towards uniformity and despite it appearing as if we have more choice than ever when it comes to our food, most of our energy comes from an extremely narrow and oversimplified food system. 

How Did We Reach This Point?

In a bid to prevent starvation following the second world war, crop scientists have found ways to mass produce certain grains in what has become known as the ‘green revolution’. Whilst grain production tripled, and the human population doubled between 1970 and 2020, diversity in our crops declined significantly, with thousands of locally adapted, traditional varieties being replaced with a limited range of highly productive ones. This was the beginning of monoculture farming, a method that remains the dominant mode of agricultural production today.  Although increasing crop yields has been vital to feed a fast-growing population, monoculture agriculture, in which just one crop is cultivated in order to maximise yields and profits, has wreaked havoc on our ecosystems and biodiversity. The heavy use of synthetic fertilisers and the vast amounts of water needed for crop irrigation have led to degraded soil, polluted waterways, and the draining and destruction of many lakes and rivers. The knock-on-effect on surrounding ecosystems is huge and monoculture farming as a means of agricultural production is highly unsustainable. 

Another problem with mass producing and relying heavily on a small number of uniform crops is that they are vulnerable to catastrophes. Crops are selectively bred to produce certain traits, e.g. consistent plant height to allow for mechanised harvesting, and in retaining particular genes, others are inevitably lost, including those that allow them to better adapt to varying climate conditions. This loss of adaptability makes them susceptible to extreme weather events, exacerbated by climate change, as well as to pests and diseases. Loss of crop diversity has also negatively impacted dietary nutrition; many of the crops that were important sources of micronutrients for poorer communities have been lost. 

Our current food system is at a dead end; basing global food supply around a limited range of species has led to the rise of monoculture farming and produced crops that are unable to withstand environmental changes brought about by rising temperatures. As the world warms, crop yields around the globe are predicted to decrease, leading us to the question: what can be done to make our global food system more resilient? 

You might also like: Food Systems Drive a Third of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Study Estimates

The Path Forward 

To protect our food system from catastrophes, it is crucial that we diversify the spectrum of species grown and eaten. There are over 7,000 edible plant species but fewer than 200 have been extensively domesticated, meaning we are reliant on an extremely narrow range of genetically diverse crops. A report from researchers at Kew Gardens suggests numerous ways in which we can begin to make our food systems more resilient. Neglected and under-utilised species (NUS) will play a significant role in stabilising our food production systems; many wild and genetically unaltered crops are intrinsically more resilient and better equipped at dealing with unpredictable weather than the crops we currently rely on. Identifying and conserving these species is essential, particularly as many of them are being driven to extinction due to deforestation and habitat destruction. Neglected and under-utilised species can also be used in breeding programs with common, mass produced species to create crops that are more resilient to weather extremes. Such breeding programs have already produced squash that is better able to withstand cold weather and drought resistant potatoes. 

Bringing neglected and under-utilised species into mainstream agriculture would also provide benefits to surrounding ecosystems; crop rotation aids soil recovery and provides food sources for pollinators and birds which in turn helps in controlling pests and diseases. Cultivating local species would not only strengthen the resilience and sustainability of food production systems and the surrounding environments, but also help to support the livelihoods of local farmers. Currently, there are many subsidies and financial incentives that tie countries into the production of unsustainable crops and NUS crops are not able to compete with these commodity crops in the mainstream agricultural market. Low levels of funding for the promotion of NUS represents a major challenge for their entry into the existing market place and a major overhaul of subsidies and incentives is required in order to make NUS a central feature of our food system. 

As Dr Remi Nono-Womdim at United Nations’ FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization), noted, “the widest diversity of crops is intrinsically linked to sustainable agriculture and food systems” and it is essential we harness the potential of NUS to safeguard global food security. Promoting NUS’ role in global food security will require a coordinated effort involving both local stakeholders, such as farmers, and international agencies. Calls have been made for the establishment of an international NUS fund dedicated to promoting their inclusion in mainstream agriculture, as well as certification schemes that would recognise biodiversity rich products. NUS can provide a lifeline to millions of people suffering from the effects of climate change and food insecurity and offer us a path into a more resilient, bio-diverse and sustainable global food system.  

The post The Importance of Diversity Within the Global Food System appeared first on Earth.Org.

As city populations grow, so does the scale of urban risk, and cities are becoming increasingly vulnerable to human, social, and economic losses. Climate investments are crucial in the coming decades to combat against the effects caused by climate change, especially as climate impacts continue to worsen and occur more frequently.

—

Why are Climate Investments Important?

Urbanisation is one of the 21st century’s most transformative trends; by 2050, cities are predicted to house 70% of the global population despite occupying only 3% of Earth’s land. Rapid urban growth has led to sprawling developments that exert pressure on ecosystems, infrastructure and public health, with over 800 million people currently living in slums, many without access to clean water and basic services. Unplanned urban sprawl is also a major factor in rising rates of pollution, with the United Nations (UN) estimating that over four billion people in cities across the world are breathing air that does not meet the World Health Organisation’s air quality guidelines. Whilst cities are significant contributors to climate change, they are also especially vulnerable to its impacts: particularly flooding and urban heating.

As cities are centres of both production and consumption, how they develop over the coming decade is of crucial importance to countries everywhere. The importance of cities has long been recognised; goal 11 of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals is to achieve “Sustainable Cities and Communities” but fewer than two in five countries have an explicit national strategy for cities. The Coalition for Urban Transitions has, among other organisations and climate leaders, called for cities to be front and centre of a country’s sustainability plans; an aim which brings up the question: what type of climate investments should cities be making? 

Globally, trillions of dollars will be invested in urban infrastructure by 2030 but investments into carbon free initiatives, e.g. electric vehicles, are, alone, not enough. As climate change disproportionately affects low income communities and communities of colour, our responses must therein prioritise equity and inclusion. Research by the World Research Institute suggests that without inclusive climate strategies, climate change could force 100 million people into extreme poverty by 2030. The climate investments cities make must be designed and delivered in a way to serve all communities and enhance a city’s resilience. Resilience, as defined by the City Resilience Framework, “describes the capacity of cities to function so that all residents, particularly the poor and vulnerable, can survive and thrive no matter the shocks and stresses” and should be considered as important in the fight against climate change as decarbonisation. 

How To Foster Low-Carbon, Resilient And Inclusive Cities

Some cities around the world are already making significant steps to foster inclusivity and build resilience in response to climate change. Below are three examples of inclusive initiatives that, through empowering low income and marginalised communities, as well as addressing environmental threats, are cultivating resilience in their respective cities. 

You might also like: How Can Cities Be Greener in a Global Warming World?

Urban Agriculture for Climate Resilience
Rosario, Argentina 

This prize winning initiative takes abandoned and under-utilised private and public land throughout the city of Rosario and gives access to low income residents so they can grow food. Originally conceived as a way to reduce food scarcity after the economic collapse of 2001 when most food was imported from over 400km away, the scheme is now responsible for the production of around 2,500 tons of fruit and vegetables each year. Such production means that far less food needs to be imported, increasing the city’s self-reliance and resilience as well as significantly reducing the greenhouse gases associated with importing food. Urban farming has also created jobs, both in producing and selling, throughout Rosario, particularly for low income women who now make up 65% of urban farmers. In reserving areas of land for farming, inner parts of the cities are prevented from becoming overly dense and the agro-ecological approach – farming without chemicals – creates absorbent soil that can help limit the damage of heavy rains and flooding. Since the scheme’s inception in 2002, it has become a cornerstone of the city’s climate action planning and highlights how inclusive climate investments and strategies can strengthen a city’s economic, social, and environmental resilience. 

Kounkuey Design Initiative
Nairobi, Kenya 

Kiberia, in Nairobi, Kenya, is one of the world’s largest informal settlements and, due to poor drainage infrastructure combined with its location on the Ngong river, it’s extremely vulnerable to flooding. The ‘Kounkuey Design Initiative’ (KDI) is an organisation that aims to reduce flood risk throughout the settlement alongside providing basic services to its residents. The spaces created by KDI are designed using a highly participatory approach; local residents’ voices are central to the process, particularly those of women and children who statistically spend more time at home in the settlement, meaning that the spaces are created to meet the specific needs of the residents. KDI provides assistance in a technical and financial capacity, determining what sort of climate-mitigation infrastructure is needed, but community based local organisations, made up of residents, hold responsibility for the construction and management of each space. So far, over 5000 residents have been involved in the design of 11 new climate resilient spaces and over 800 metres of drainage infrastructure has been installed. 

Waste Concern
Dhaka, Bangladesh 

The city of Dhaka has experienced rapid population growth over the last few decades, outpacing the capabilities of much of its infrastructure, particularly waste management. Cities across Bangladesh generate up to 30,000 tons of waste per day, with almost all of it ending up, unseparated, in landfills.  Landfills represent a great risk to the health of the environment – producing harmful gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. Waste Concern, a local NGO, was set up in response to the waste crisis in Dhaka, founded on the principles of a circular economy. Its founders, seeing waste as a resource, wanted to turn waste management into something that could benefit both the environment and the lives of the urban poor. After realising that 80% of the waste going to landfill was organic, they devised a system in which waste, after being separated by residents, was collected from homes, processed into compost in decentralised centres across the city and then sold to farmers for use as fertiliser. So far, the model has reduced 19,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions every year and created over 1000 jobs for low income residents.

These initiatives offer a taste of the kind of climate investments cities should be making in order to strengthen their resilience for the future. Designing and delivering climate actions that serve all communities is a challenge that requires equity and inclusivity to be embedded into all policy decisions alongside committed engagement with a diverse range of stakeholders, particularly those currently suffering the impacts of climate change. With such an approach, cities across the globe will have a realistic chance of meeting the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and building resilient cities that work for all their residents.

The post What Sort Of Climate Investments Should Cities Be Making? appeared first on Earth.Org.