(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
In almost all countries where the eco-crisis has become part of the political agenda of the parties, one is faced with two choices: Either one downplays the 'climate hysteria' in order to prioritize infrastructure, property, health and national security, or one focuses on economic growth while promoting 'sustainable development' and social equality. This choice largely mirrors today's Norwegian right-left axis from a Ecologyperspective.
The truth, according to Kohei Saito, is in Slow Down – How Degrowth Communism Can Save the Earth that even the seemingly sustainable the alternative is an illusion. While the right is trivializing the climate crisis to divert attention, the left is also trapped in a lie that economic growth can be reconciled with class and climate struggle. Efficiency, technological innovation and the green shift are, according to Saito, just traps that paradoxically worsen the situation, not improve it. As Kohei Saito states: “Sustainable development is opium for the people.” The thesis is provocative.
Saito believes the Sustainable Development Goals are opium for the people.
This stands as a stumbling block against everything I was taught growing up: From elementary school to high school, we were crammed full of the belief that the world needed sustainable development. The UN Sustainable Development Goals adorned classroom walls as a supreme good. Here, it was claimed that “eradicating all poverty” would one day coexist with “sustainable economic growth” and that it would “promote the sustainable use of the Earth’s ecosystems.” But it is precisely these SDGs that Saito believes are opium for the people – the very crowning myth that capitalism should be able to coexist with ecology and class struggle. Contrary to everything we were taught. What about the largest economic players and companies that, at least on paper, invest in green energy, ecological products and – yes – sustainable development?
So how dare Saito call these targets big lies and challenge all the marketers and politicians who work day and night to persuade investors that green money exists? How does he argue for this bold view? What alternatives does he present? And – perhaps most importantly – are there valid objections to such a powerful claim? Because if Saito is right, it means that we and virtually every country in the world have no serious partisan ecological alternatives.
"Jevons' paradox" and the "Netherlands error"
Saito presents numerous arguments that sustainable growth is a myth that only makes things worse. For the sake of brevity, I will address two points from the book.
"Jevons' paradox" illustrates a brutal irony: Increased streamlining in energy production may actually worsen, not avert, our ecological situation. Why? Because when we use, for example, less coal or gas to produce the same amount of energy, the price of the raw materials falls. Cheaper energy invites more people to use more, and total consumption skyrockets – contrary to the intention to slow it down. The reason lies in the logic of the market itself: Efficiency makes raw material consumptionIt decreases and therefore becomes cheaper, which means that more people have access to energy and fewer are afraid of their electricity bills. Thus, efficiency alone cannot save us from the climate crisis – it can actually add fuel to the fire by increasing consumption and thus emissions.
Efficiency alone cannot save us from the climate crisis.
Secondly, Saito points to the “Netherlands fallacy” – the belief that intensive industrialization is the solution to the climate crisis. Industrialized countries in the global north, i.e. economically developed states with a high degree of industrialization, are presented here as models for non-industrialized countries in the global south, often called developing countries. The argument rests on the fact that the global north has efficient infrastructure, better planning and strong states that ensure stability, while the south is characterized by inefficiency. In this context, inefficiency can refer to the global south consuming raw materials such as coal, wood and oil to a greater extent for energy production, instead of using more sustainable solutions.
But this notion overlooks a fundamental fallacy: that climate footprints stop at national borders. Although industrialized countries can reduce their own emissions by improving infrastructure and technology, consumption in the global north remains very high. The real environmental impact is hidden because polluting production and industry are exported to poorer countries in the south, which try to profit from this industry. In practice, the global north reduces its own emissions by outsourced pollution and production. The result is that the richest countries can point to seemingly good climate accounts, while the poorest bear an increasingly heavy burden of environmental destruction and economic dependence. Therefore, the "Netherlands error" does not hold up, since the efficiency improvement described here in the global north, conceals the economic and environmental exploitation of the global south.
But the truly shocking thing about Saito's thesis is that it is not new. Already Marx – while he was struggling to finish the last two volumes of capital – so that the internal contradictions of capitalism not only led to intensified conflicts between owners and workers, but also to an increasingly destructive handling of nature. The abolition of capitalism is not only a question of class struggle, but an existential and ecological struggle. Society's exploitation of workers is inextricably linked to a corresponding exploitation of nature.
From exchange value to use value
At the same time, there is an important objection to Saito's communist society. He envisions a society in which a commodity's "actual use value" defines its value, and points to capitalism's ability to manipulate this real value – something Yevon's paradox illustrates. But even though Saito treats use value as something concrete and generally available, it is far from obvious what an object is actually worth, or what uses it might have. More importantly, he seems to ignore the importance of imagination, emotion, and ideas – such as sentimental value – in how we perceive and use goods. This makes it unclear whether the problem of capitalism can be reduced to overvalued exchange values rather than 'actual' use value, when so much of our consumption is driven by the very intangible and emotional aspects of our possessions.
While this objection may make Saito's use-value alternative harder to swallow, the book's main claim – that capitalism, economic inequality and eco-crisis go hand in hand – stands firm. Thus, it is not just about looking for new 'green' solutions, but about fighting for a fundamental upheaval of our economic system. Climate & Environment, solidarity with the global south and democracy should be intertwined with the fight against capitalism.
