Since the 1970s there has emerged a vast
literature exploring the relationship between economic growth and the
environment. Fifty years of research has yielded anything but consensus: One
major school in the debate claims that humanity long ago overshot Earth’s
natural carrying capacity; it thus argues we need to dramatically scale
back material consumption (particularly in the West). Another major school argues
that growth can be made to be green, as long as environmental damage is accurately
priced within the market. There is also a range of radical contributions to
this debate, with calls for everything from eco-socialist
revolution to venture-capital backed geoengineering
schemes.
Enter the Trudeau Liberals, who placed
themselves within this debate by repeatedly assuring Canadians that what’s good
for the environment is good for the economy, and vice versa. The economy and
the environment “go together like paddles and canoes,” Trudeau once said:
“unless you have both you won’t get to where you are going.” This rather vague
mantra – that protecting the environment and growing the economy go hand in
hand – has not only served to juxtapose their environmental policy from the
Harper Conservatives (who seemed to imply that environmental protection
hampered economic growth), but it has also worked at justifying a wide range of
government policies, from the recent overhaul
of the environmental assessment rules; to its support for oil
sands pipelines; to its investment
of hundreds of millions of dollars into Canadian innovation; and its plan
to put
a price on carbon.
Don’t get me wrong – some of these policies
are great ideas (particularly the latter two) – but allow me to ask a rather
heretical question; what if what’s good for the economy isn’t necessarily good for the environment all the time? What if doing what’s truly
good for the environment in a particular case would knowingly inflict pain on
our economy? If we can assume that there are indeed instances
where growth and environment are incompatible, then is not the Liberal
mantra a dangerous tautology destined to make us believe we can have it all
without changing our way of life?
To suppose that we Canadians (who, by one measure,
produce
more garbage per person than any other nationality on the planet) can
consume our way into a green economy strikes many as a bit of a
fairy tale. Canada’s economy is relatively strong. Meanwhile, the
environment is ensnared in deep crisis – not just relating to climate, but also
to biodiversity
and the viability of precious
resources. Policy is often a way of mediating tradeoffs between gains and
concessions. A guiding policy which claims no compromise is necessary in
achieving sustainable growth in perpetuity is deaf to the material realities of
our biosphere.
To return to the growth and environment
debate, it seems rather obvious that the lack of consensus about their
relationship arises from the abstract nature and complexity of both growth and
environmental sustainability. How could there possibly be such a clear-cut
relationship between these two societal goals? Hiring someone to cut down a
tree generates economic activity; but so does hiring someone to replant it! Some
economic activities that generate growth in Canada’s domestic product will
evidently yield some forms of environmental damage; and others may help us in
tackling certain environmental
indicators. So why the oversimplification from our political leadership?
A more honest path forward is one that
specifies what we truly need from our economy and the environment. Canadians
arguably need fulfilling and lasting employment, to provide us not only with income,
but meaning; yet we also need access to uncontaminated natural resources and
ecosystem services, which provide us with sustenance and good health. If those
needs can be achieved while the economy grows, great; but the priority should
be on the ends, not the means. The point, as we work towards a truly green
economy, is to focus our objectives on the specific social and ecological
outcomes we require for our national and global society to thrive.
No comments:
Post a Comment