We have been invited to ask a question to the August public meeting of the Climate Change Advisory Group, which was set up by Sir David King and colleagues to (in their words) ‘help inform the public, governments and financial institutions providing them with the most comprehensive science, and more crucially, guiding them towards action for climate repair.’ It is a promising initiative.
Obviously questions need to be short and to the point (nobody likes a long-winded sermon disguised as a question at an event like this!) But, climate change is complicated and the questions that need to be asked aren’t simple, so here is a fully referenced long version of the question we are going to ask, with the short version (that will actually be asked) below.
Long version of question:
Increasing numbers of political leaders are starting to question the logic of orientating their societies around the pursuit of endless GDP growth. They are doing this in recognition of evidence that shows how poor a proxy GDP growth is as a measure of societal wellbeing, and because they see that how the pursuit of GDP growth (for its own sake) is accelerating the climate and ecological emergency. The IPCC, however, continues to only use integrated assessment models (IAM) mitigation scenarios that have a built-in assumption that Governments will continue to prioritise GDP growth as a core policy objective. Every one of these scenarios relies, ever more heavily, on controversial amounts of carbon dioxide removal and unprecedented levels technological development and roll out. A reason why the IPCC’s recent conclusions were so bleak is arguably because it is trapped in an economic growth paradigm that places limits on how it imagines the future. Panel, it is obvious now that limiting global heating to 1.5C while also infinitely pursuing GDP growth is mission (very nearly) impossible.
A leak of the second draft of the IPCC Group III report, focused on mitigation strategies (due to be published in March 2022), is reported to include these words: “the character of economic development produced by the nature of capitalist society … [is] ultimately unsustainable”. In short, this new leak acknowledges that if we want to keep global heating below 1.5C of warming, there is little or no room for further economic growth. So, our question: Is this an indication that the IPCC is preparing to present mitigation scenarios that highlight what might be possible if Governments in the global North abandon GDP growth as core economic objective, in favour of post-growth, or degrowth, objectives that would make the mitigation task that much easier? And, panel, should it?
Short version of question:
The IPCC continues to only assess mitigation scenarios that have a built-in assumption that governments will always prioritise GDP growth. And yet, Government’s such as New Zealand are looking at whether they should prioritise wellbeing instead. So, why doesn’t the IPCC present mitigation scenarios that highlight what might be possible if global North governments abandon GDP growth as their core economic objective and, instead, adopt post-growth economic policies that would make the mitigation challenge that bit easier?
Please tune in here from 12pm (UK time) to hear how the panel responds.
P.S. We have a book coming out ‘Great Adaptations - In the shadow of a climate crisis’. You can pre-order it now from all major retailers, and our website.
