Recently we have been able to read articles with different positions regarding some data on GDP growth in Asian countries. For some this data is encouraging, as it could mean better levels of employment and income in neglected sectors. For others it is not good news because in a planet on the verge of collapse, the paradigm of growth as synonymous with wellbeing collides with the urgent need to curb ecological disaster. In reality, both points of view are understandable and have a part of reason, but the situation is too complex to state categorically that GDP growth is good or bad per se. We addressed this issue a little over five years ago in one of the chapters of the book “Crossroads and the Future of the Human Being”, from which I quote a few paragraphs below:
“In this globalised world under the sign of capitalist predation, not only do we have to endure the military intervention of the powers outside their borders; that the multinationals and financial groups of the powers dominate the course of the international economy, but we also have to endure that the environmental impact of their predatory voracity has an impact on every corner of the planet. But that’s not all, we also have to put up with voices accusing emerging countries of accelerating the greenhouse effect through their growth over the last decade.
And some are already asking themselves what will happen if the BRICS continue to grow until all their inhabitants reach the same level of average consumption as a citizen of the USA or Europe; because in that case it would take five more planets to supply them.
What do you want the world to stop now, so that the citizens of the so-called first world can maintain their status forever, and the rest of the world’s population remains in poverty so as not to affect the environment even more? Such a claim will not succeed, firstly because people aspire to a fairer and more equitable world and will not accept such an international order, and secondly because a large part of the production of emerging countries is not for their own consumption but to supply the first world. Factories in China and other parts of Asia and America supply the whole world with cheap products, and to do so they suck up natural resources from all over the planet.
The continuous expansion of the agricultural frontier in Brazil and Argentina does not respond to their food needs, but mainly to the production of soya and biodiesel for export. Mining extractivism in Africa and throughout the Latin American Andean region is obviously not explained by local consumption either.
In short, we live in a globalised world, in which a small percentage of the population, basically made up of the inhabitants of the so-called first world, and the 10% with the highest incomes in the rest of the nations, suffer from an insatiable thirst for consumerism, and to satisfy this thirst they have set up factories distributed in some parts of the world, and to supply them they depredate the natural resources of the entire planet. And there is a large percentage of the population that is involved in this process, and therefore has an income with which it also consumes, and having as a model the consumerism of the elite at the top, they bid to earn more. And so, an enormous pyramid of income and consumption is formed, which sucks in more and more resources, without the limit of consumerism being seen at the top, and without the minimum for subsistence being reached at the bottom. In this pyramid lies most of the explanation for the current environmental disaster”.
Since we have dealt with this issue to date, global warming has continued to wreak havoc and slowing it down has become increasingly urgent, and it is logical that voices should be raised against anything that means increasing extractivism and pollution. But we must set priorities in this regard; rather than being alarmed by the growth in Vietnam, or India, or even China, where there are still millions of people below the poverty line, we should be preoccupied by the fact that the United States, with only 4% of the world’s population, produces a quarter of the carbon dioxide; that its electricity consumption is equivalent to that of the sum of 160 countries; and that the city of Las Vegas alone consumes more energy than several African countries.
We must change the paradigm of growth, directing development towards sectors that are less aggressive towards our planet, but we must also ensure that resources are distributed differently around the world. And to achieve both objectives we will have to work on a cultural change, since the culture of consumerism is the main cause of the depredation of the planet, and not the logical search for progress in the poorest countries. Of course, a productive reconversion based on this change of paradigm must be carried out in stages.
In another paragraph of the book, we said the following:
“The current sources of work, those that generate workers’ income, are organised according to the current consumption structure, and any abrupt modification in the levels of consumption, which is not accompanied by a productive re-engineering, will have a strong impact on employment levels. This is why it will be necessary to go step by step. We will come back to this when we look at the steps to be taken at the national level, but it should be taken into account when thinking about possible global campaigns that could be carried out on these issues. In recent times some people have been talking about Degrowth, and the idea is not a bad one, especially when talking about consumption sobriety for the planet’s elite. But considering that a large part of humanity lives in under-consumption, perhaps it would be better to talk about a redistribution of current resources, and simultaneously work on human development, to improve people’s quality of life by reducing extractivism, increasing and improving services. For example, it is not the same for a country’s GDP to grow because mineral extraction has increased, or because the number of cars has doubled, as it is for it to grow because health and education services have increased, since there is no environmental impact on the latter.
What we were trying to explain in this last paragraph is that if we cannot measure the wellbeing of the population in terms of GDP growth, neither can we affirm that all growth is negative for the planet; but above all, we cannot address the issue of sustainability without understanding that the pyramid of inequality must be dismantled, and that this will be achieved with projects that take on the complexity of the problem and not with slogans. Of course, for each isolated individual, distressed by the depredation of the planet, it is very difficult to consider large-scale solutions, and perhaps it is easier for them to alleviate their burden of consciousness by consuming a little less, and they will feel that this is their grain of sand for the cause of sustainability; However, if those grains of sand are few, they will be washed away, and if they become many, possibly some of the workers in the factories that multinationals have planted around the world will be left without work, and therefore without the possibility of supporting themselves, without affecting at all those who accumulate wealth, and without substantially improving the environmental situation.
In no way should we minimise or underestimate individual actions, be it the reduction of personal consumption, or recycling, or the rational use of inputs; but such actions cannot become a placebo for our guilty consciousness of belonging to a species that is destroying the planet, but should become the starting point for articulating social movements that put increasing pressure on governments to make the structural changes that are needed in the world. Of course, this is the most difficult path, and it may even sound utopian, but the resignation of individualism is a path that leads us nowhere; while everyone does what they can for the planet, we must not lose sight of the joint objectives, which should not be discarded because they are difficult, if we really want to stop planetary suicide.
Dismantle the arms industry and convert it into an industry that develops infrastructure in emerging countries.
Tax non-renewable energies heavily and use the proceeds to finance a rapid promotion of renewable energies.
Limit advertising that encourages consumerism, and in particular the advertising of products whose inputs contribute to environmental degradation and the plundering of natural resources.
Conduct public campaigns in all media alerting people about the consumption of such products.
Rationalise and ration the use of non-renewable or scarce resources, so that it is not the market that allocates them but the needs of the people.
Of course, to achieve these structural reforms, and others that need to be made, we need to confront the economic powers, replace complicit governments, and achieve global governance in which people can change the course of their lives and the lives of the planet. All of this may of course constitute utopia, but the urgency of the historical moment renders the middle ground useless, either we begin to climb the costly slope of utopia, or we will descend rapidly into the abyss of self-destruction.