Severe environmental crisis is no longer foreign to us-not some future to be feared and avoided so much as a present in which we are living. It has become a structural reality of modern life and accepted as such, even normalized. Awareness of the environmental crisis has grown partly as a result of the prominence given to major so-called environmental disasters. A major assessment of the global environment published in 1999 the UNEP Global environmental outlook report drew attention to two critical recurring themes. The first of which being that the global human ecosystem I threatened by imbalances in productivity and in the distribution of goods and services. Secondly that accelerating changes are happening at a global scale, with rates of economic and social development outstripping progress in achieving internationally co-ordinated environmental stewardship (Pink, R.M. 2018). This paper will evaluate two potential economic models which could alleviate the damage on the environment and the effects caused around the world. The advantages and disadvantages will be covered then leading on to a comparison between the green growth and degrowth model.
The debate of green growth has recently gained ground in environmental governance deliberations and policy proposals. It is presented as a fresh and innovative model centred on the deployment of engineering sophistication, managerial acumen and market mechanisms to redress the environmental and social problems of the existing development model. The main goal of green growth is ‘making growth processes resource efficient, cleaner and more resilient without necessarily showing them’ (Leal Filho, W., Pociovalisteanu, D. & Al-Amin, A.Q. 2017). One of the main benefits of adopting a green economy is its potential to reduce the environmental impact caused by pollution. On a global scale, it can contribute to the fight against global warming, desertification, and the loss of biodiversity. On a local and regional level, adjusting to a green economy could lead to significant improvements in air, water and soil quality (Barbier, E.B. 2016). Besides the environmental aspects, a green growth model also has a great potential to lead to economic growth. Cosbey asserts that, with the shifting of an economy, new markets are created in areas such as biofuels and renewable energy sources. And such new markets would bring international advantages having the potential to be funded entirely through exports, or an increase in domestic sales supplied by increasingly tighter environmental regulations (Cosbey, A. & Beaton, C. 2013). Emerging countries in particular can gain from a shift to a green growth economy as it can provide an opportunity to create more economic and social advantages. For example, by investing in alternative energy sources, access to energy services can be improved and infrastructure can become more energy efficient. This can also lead to the decrease of energy importation and potentially save money. It can also improve resource efficiency as agricultural production will become cleaner and, due to these sustainable agricultural techniques, food security could be improved (Ocampo, J.A. 2002). However, the transition to a green growth model will not be an easy process, since many countries lack technology and need to guarantee the well-being of their citizens during any transition. There are also difficult decisions to be made by governments, especially those of emerging countries with millions of people who do not have regular access to energy, in choosing between immediately alleviating their energy issues or investing in expensive renewable energy sources that require infrastructure and time to implement. The trade-offs must be examined carefully. It is also questioned if the transition to green growth is even affordable, as many of its solutions are seen as being costly. Developing countries also feel that they lack know-how regarding green technology and that this will be a disadvantage when it comes to guaranteeing future markets (Chao, C., Ma, H. & Heijungs, R. 2013).
Schneider et al. define sustainable de-growth as “an equitable downscaling of production and consumption that increases human well-being and enhances ecological conditions at the local and global level, in the short and long term” (Schneider, F., Kallis, G. & Martinez-Alier, J. 2010). The ecological limits, exhaustion of investment outlets in mature economies, the burden of debt and geo-economic shifts point to a structural (Kallis, G., Kerschner, C. & Martinez-Alier, J. 2012). For the environment this is not bad news less growth means less material consumption, less CO2 emissions and less habitat destruction which could be the last chance to stay within the safe limits of global ecosystems. But socially this can be a catastrophe. Growth economies do not know how to degrow. They collapse. (O’Neill, D.W. 2012). Lack of growth on the other hand leads to a spiral of debt, unemployment and deterioration of social welfare. Economic degrowth can be unstable. It can lead to unemployment, therefore to a lack of effective demand, resulting in more state expenditures for unemployment benefits and a fiscal crisis of the state. Degrowth can slow down the carbon efficiency of the economy by reducing investment in renewables (Weiss, M. & Cattaneo, C. 2017). Bilancini et al. have addressed the first concern with a neo-classical dynamic model. They found that the sustainability window of the economy becomes wider by low GDP growth rates, if enough investment is redistributed to alternative energy sources, and if consumption growth is controlled (Bilancini, E. & D’Alessandro, S. 2012). Policies such as zero interest rates, global climate trusts, a shorter work-week, a basic income, or a maximum wage look extremely hard to implement. Often the reason is that they clash with the profits and interests of those who hold more political and economic power.
Both degrowth and green growth pursuers, agree on the fundamental observation that the current growth model, based on an ever-increasing consumption of natural resources and environmental degradation, must be overhauled. Proponents of degrowth and those of green growth often overlap on public policy prescriptions for environmental protection and, specifically energy savings and the development of renewables. However, on one issue they are diametrically different: the impact the ecological transition would have on economic growth. According to degrowthists, economic growth and environmental protection are incompatible, at least in industrialised countries. Green growthists believe that the two objectives are compatible and that environmental protection measures can even work to stimulate economic growth both in the short and long term. The green growth method is a step ahead. Political leaders give priority to growth over environmental and social developmental issues and therefore are responsive to the idea that environmental protection is compatible with or even boosts GDP growth. By pointing out how difficult it is to decouple growth from pollution, the degrowth method of thought, nonetheless forces us to question our priorities. Not all environmental protection measures are win-win. Protecting the Northern Crested Newt does not necessarily add to GDP growth, no more than setting the objective of no more than a 2° C increase in world temperatures does. The challenge that political leaders face is therefore to accept contradictions and to propose, given the uncertainty surrounding future economic growth, “a positive scenario” for our society and set a new standard for progress that is not built on disproportionate hopes for growth.
To summarise the Green growth model largely represents the green economy, which holds economic success as contingent upon the ecological restructuring of industrial production. The degrowth approach more fundamentally raises questions concerning the relationship between material prosperity and individual and social well-being. The principles of the solidarity economy involve the immediate implementation of the principles of self-determination and cooperation (Pink, R.M. 2018). The two models have trade offs including economic production and environmental degradation which cause continual tensions between people which are affected by the costs of growth and those who benefit from economic growth (Worldwatch Institute 2013). One thing is for sure decisions will have to be made soon on the global environmental future for the benefit of mankind.