Everyone needs a foil, and for many who are focused on climate and sustainability, economic growth — capitalism — is a convenient target. This is understandable. Economic expansion is the quintessential capitalist imperative, but infinite material growth on a finite planet is physically impossible. Hence the rise of “degrowth,” “agrowth,” “post-growth” and other concepts that have emerged to underpin seemingly sophisticated criticisms of the “standard” economic model.
Look beneath the surface and you will find that this clash of worldviews is more about rhetoric than actual policy. It is also a distraction.
The focus instead must be on cutting carbon and other forms of pollution. While high-carbon, low-efficiency economic activities — and some entire sectors — must shrink, low-carbon, high-efficiency activities and sectors must grow. Harnessing this natural process of “creative destruction” does not mean embracing laissez-faire, with policymakers sitting on the sidelines watching passively.
Illustration: Mountain People
Consider the massive negative societal costs associated with burning oil, coal and gas. According to the best estimates we have, the social cost of carbon in the US has nearly quadrupled in the past decade, from about US$45 per tonne of emitted carbon dioxide to almost US$180 — and even that is only a partial estimate of the true costs.
All told, each barrel of oil and each tonne of coal burned cause more in external damage than they add to GDP — and we have not even yet accounted for other important environmental factors such as land use and biodiversity. Given these high and mounting costs, the policy prescription has long been clear: put a price on carbon. Or better yet, price any and all negative externalities, and subsidize the positive ones.
Last year’s US Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) nods in both of these directions, but while it includes a little-known direct price for methane emissions from oil and gas operations, its main focus is on subsidies and tax credits. By harnessing the potential of markets and incentivizing economic growth in specific areas, it represents “green industrial policy” in action.
Such active government involvement in the economy raises a host of questions. What is not in doubt is that hundreds of billions of US dollars of government subsidies would drive the deployment of renewable energy, battery storage, clean transportation and other important technologies in underdeveloped sectors. Moreover, all that development would generate economic growth, as measured in the narrowest of ways through traditional GDP, economic value-added and employment statistics.
Does this mean growth at any cost is good?
Clearly not. Nor is “green growth” alone necessarily desirable when viewed through any number of other lenses. The rapid deployment of low-carbon energy and other climate technologies does not guarantee inclusive growth, decent work, better health, less poverty or any number of other important global policy priorities.
“Affordable and clean energy” represents only one of 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals for good reason.
Nor is deploying more clean energy sufficient even as a climate solution. Energy-efficiency measures also have an important role to play, which is why the IRA, for example, includes a “High-Efficiency Electric Home Rebate Program.” Better-insulated buildings and more efficient modes of transportation would contribute to reducing carbon emissions long before energy and electricity are fully decarbonized. That is to say, efficiency cuts carbon pollution.
Better insulation also improves quality of life, by adding protection against wildfire smoke and other outdoor air pollution. Preventing toxic seepage into one’s home through poorly insulated windows, doors and walls improves human health, electricity bills and the value of real estate all at the same time.
True, this juxtaposition of clean energy growth on the one hand and efficiency measures on the other appears to mirror the “green growth” versus “degrowth” camps, but this is an illusion. Efficiency means doing more with less, which makes it effectively synonymous with economic productivity, one of the key ingredients in standard macroeconomic growth models.
This semantic point cuts both ways. There are developing nations in the Global South and specific regions in advanced economies that remain heavily dependent on extracting and exporting fossil fuels. These sectors and economies would necessarily shrink, as the rest of the world makes the transition to cleaner sources of energy and they might well end up poorer and more destabilized, but this is not what most advocates of degrowth have in mind.
Yes, some companies and individuals have profited massively from exploiting the planet’s resources, lobbying policymakers and covering up the damage they have done. That, in many ways, is where the motivation behind much “degrowth” thinking arises. We can all point to specific activities that we would rather see less of, but the question then is about framing and strategy.
I believe the productive path forward is to focus on the trillion-dollar business opportunity that rapid decarbonization presents and the many positive stories of transformation that go with it.
In the end, there is a fine balance to strike between unleashing the entrepreneurial “can-do” spirit and channeling it in the right direction — between Silicon Valley’s mantra of “move fast and break things,” and the physician’s oath of “first, do no harm.”
The latter, of course, goes hand in hand with paying for one’s own pollution. That pollution ought to be the true foil, rather than the economic growth that results from entrepreneurs, businesses and governments attempting to rein it in.
Gernot Wagner is a climate economist at Columbia Business School.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
US president-elect Donald Trump is to return to the White House in January, but his second term would surely be different from the first. His Cabinet would not include former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo and former US national security adviser John Bolton, both outspoken supporters of Taiwan. Trump is expected to implement a transactionalist approach to Taiwan, including measures such as demanding that Taiwan pay a high “protection fee” or requiring that Taiwan’s military spending amount to at least 10 percent of its GDP. However, if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) invades Taiwan, it is doubtful that Trump would dispatch
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) has been dubbed Taiwan’s “sacred mountain.” In the past few years, it has invested in the construction of fabs in the US, Japan and Europe, and has long been a world-leading super enterprise — a source of pride for Taiwanese. However, many erroneous news reports, some part of cognitive warfare campaigns, have appeared online, intentionally spreading the false idea that TSMC is not really a Taiwanese company. It is true that TSMC depositary receipts can be purchased on the US securities market, and the proportion of foreign investment in the company is high. However, this reflects the
RSS