(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
Economic growth, often measured by increased gross domestic product (GDP), is the holy cow of politicians. It is a stated goal for most politicians and states to create increased production and consumption of goods and services per person.
Globally, the economy as a whole is comprised of different sectors. Agriculture, commodity extraction, production and service to a different extent confiscate natural resources, pollute and create waste.
There is no doubt that growth has increased material wealth for many. The connection between economic growth and aspects such as wage increases, better education and health, higher life expectancy, development of technology and better infrastructure is clear.
At the same time, we know that global warming and other ecological crises threaten our long-term welfare. Our economic activity impacts nature and the environment. Today we have plenty of knowledge about how growth in consumption and production has a negative impact on the diversity of life and living conditions on the planet. Losses of biodiversity, resource scarcity and global warming are some examples.
Technology is not enough. Organic footprint is a measure of human consumption of renewable resources (such as timber, fish and fresh water), and is expressed as a number of land and water area needed to produce what we consume from food and fiber, as well as absorb our emissions and make room for infrastructure. Today, there is a clear link between the size of a country's economy measured in GDP per capita, and the country's ecological footprint. Rich countries occupy more of the globe per capita than poor countries do.
Many hope that it will be possible to disconnect economic growth from environmental impact, increased emissions and more global warming through technological innovations. Although we at Green Youth share the enthusiasm for smart technology that reduces environmental damage, we will not pursue a policy that rests on technology alone to save us.
If we are to have a reasonable chance of – justly – limiting global warming to well below two degrees compared to pre-industrial times, rich countries must cut their emissions by more than ten percent a year – from now access. The 1,5-degree ambition from Paris calls for even deeper cuts.
Rich countries must cut their emissions by more than ten per cent a year – as of now access.
Luck, effort and politics. It is a common assumption among economists and climate researchers that absolute reductions in greenhouse gas emissions of more than three to four percent annually over time are not compatible with a growing economy. If economic growth is two per cent annually, the carbon intensity of the economy must then be reduced by approximately six per cent annually to compensate for the growth. This can happen because technological advances and energy efficiency mean that there are fewer emissions per krone of value creation. But so far we have not managed to reduce the carbon intensity by more than 1,5 percent a year on average globally. The environmental benefits of technical innovations are often nullified by the fact that consumption itself increases.
If Norway is to maintain a GDP growth of 2,5 per cent at the same time as greenhouse gas emissions are reduced by 10 per cent a year, carbon intensity must be improved by about 12 per cent a year. The improvement in 2014 was only a 3 percent reduction in carbon intensity compared with the previous year.
Thus, no absolute decoupling of economic growth from emissions has taken place yet. The can happen, but in that case requires a completely different effort and policy, as well as a good dose of luck. An economic policy that is unilaterally geared to growth is therefore not justifiable with regard to climate.
In any case, GDP is a poor measure of how well we are doing. Even The Economist recently wrote in a leadership position that we must update the way we measure wealth. We must ensure that nature and the environment are included in the calculation, and take into account things that cannot be measured in money, but which nevertheless increase the quality of life – such as the care we show for our friends and family members, and all the voluntary work we do.
Fundamental transformation. Norway and other industrialized countries have a major historical responsibility for the climate crisis. To give poor countries better room for economic development – while the world reaches its goal of limiting global warming to well below two degrees – industrialized countries must immediately introduce measures that reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions by at least 10 percent a year.
If it turns out to be possible to radically improve the carbon intensity of the economy, so that this cut target can be combined with GDP growth, then it is positive. But we must take into account that this may not be possible. In that case, the consideration of necessary and fair emission reductions must be given heavier weight than the consideration of economic growth in the short term.
During this century, Norway's economy must in any case be fundamentally restructured. The ecological footprint caused by our economic activity must be stabilized at a level that does not exceed Norway's fair share of the globe's total biocapacity. Political targets for GDP growth can never trump this consideration.
Anna Kvam and Lage Nøst are spokespersons for Green Youth. anna.kvam@gronnungdom.no and lage.nost@gronnungdom.no
