When the Club of Rome published Limits to Growth in 1972, the economist Kenneth Boulding remarked to the US Congress that \u2018anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist\u2019. At first, it seems like a disparaging reflection on his own profession. But beneath Boulding\u2019s irony lies an important insight into what Greta Thunberg more recently called the \u2018fairytales of eternal economic growth\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As global leaders meet in Glasgow to work out how to meet the commitments of the 2015 Paris Agreement, the underlying growth-based economic model has come under renewed scrutiny. Many will push back on this, but the raw numbers of climate change show why we need engagement at the highest level on post-growth economics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
First off, it\u2019s worth noting that when economists contend that growth can go on forever, it\u2019s because their preferred measure of growth \u2013 gross domestic product or GDP \u2013 is often measured in monetary rather than in material terms. Carbon emissions and economic growth are separable, on this view. By \u2018decoupling\u2019 one from the other, we ought to be able to escape the finite limits that nature seems to impose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is vital to distinguish here between relative and absolute decoupling. The former refers to a decline in the carbon intensity of economic output. The latter to an absolute fall in carbon emissions that continues even when output rises. Put simply, relative decoupling is about doing things more efficiently. And since efficiency is one of the things that capitalism is supposed to be good at, decoupling has a familiar logic and a clear appeal to those hoping growth can continue indefinitely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is easy to find evidence for relative decoupling, even at the global level. For instance, the carbon intensity of the global economy fell from about 800 grams of carbon dioxide per dollar (gCO2\/$) in 1960 to a little more than 400 gCO2\/$ today, a decline of almost 50% in little over half a century.<\/p>\n\n\n\n