Measuring Ecological Limits: The United States and the World

The science is clear: Our rate of economic activity is having disastrous impacts on the environment, starting with the climate so crucial to our survival. Economic activities require the use of natural resources and systematically entail pollution. Resources eventually get used up, as does the capacity of the planet to assimilate waste. We are reminded of Herman Daly’s long-running emphasis that the economy is a subsystem of the environment, not the other way around.

Expanding on this, steady-state economists and other post-growth advocates argue that economic growth cannot be decoupled from material throughput. This can be explained with the trophic theory of money, which follows from the trophic structure of the economy of nature. Agriculture and extraction comprise the trophic foundation of the economy, and all other sectors rely on that trophic base. Therefore, we cannot rely on “dematerialized” sectors to grow the economy while decreasing its disastrous impacts on the environment.

Therefore, consumption must be reduced, particularly in high-income countries that consume more natural resources and release more waste. But just how much do high-income countries need to reduce their economic activity to be sustainable? Two metrics help us understand sustainable limits by quantifying the relationship between the environment and the economy: ecological footprint and biocapacity.

The Conceptual Framing of Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity

The ecological footprint is a measure of the area needed to support the demands of economic activity. Biocapacity is a measure of the area available to supply natural resources and absorb waste at a sustainable rate. When the ecological footprint exceeds biocapacity, that indicates ecological overshoot. The Ecological Footprint Initiative has been measuring global ecological footprint and biocapacity since 1961. We have been in overshoot since 1971.

The ecological footprint and biocapacity are made up of comparable components, including cropland, grazing land, forest land, fishing grounds, and built-up land. In addition, ecological footprint includes a carbon component.

Scientists measure ecological footprint and biocapacity with a unit called the global hectare. They convert the productivity of different ecosystems to global hectares based on the world average productivity of a hectare. This enables comparisons between different land types, places, and years.

Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity of the United States

The United States has a high ecological footprint that is larger than its biocapacity. In 2022, there were roughly one billion hectares across the United States. When categorized into the biocapacity components and compared to global average productivity, this equates to 1.25 billion global hectares (gha) of biocapacity.

In other words, U.S. land, most notably cropland and forest land, was more productive than the global average. The average biocapacity of one hectare of U.S. cropland was 3.7 gha. One hectare of forest land provided an average of 1.6 gha of forest land biocapacity. However, this above-average biocapacity of cropland and forest land does not indicate sustainability. The country’s total ecological footprint is far higher than its total biocapacity.

In 2022, the U.S. ecological footprint of production was over 2.5 billion gha. This was similar to the ecological footprint of consumption, because the footprints of imports and exports were nearly equal. However, there were differences among the footprint components of imports and exports. The carbon component was more prominent in the ecological footprint of imports, whereas the cropland component was more prominent in exports. This means the United States imported more carbon-intensive goods and services than it exported, and exported more cropland-intensive harvests than it imported.

U.S. Trends: Better or Worse?

One good sign is that total U.S. biocapacity has been increasing over time. In 1961, total biocapacity was just over 1 billion gha, and by 2024, biocapacity had grown to 1.3 billion gha (2023 and 2024 data were forecasted).1 This is because of increases in agricultural productivity. Biocapacity is a measure of what the environment can provide for human use, not of biodiversity or ecosystem health. In fact, it has a negative correlation with biodiversity indicators. Cropland illustrates this tension well, as using fertilizers and chemicals can increase agricultural productivity at the expense of ecosystem health.

The U.S. population has also been increasing over time, which has decreased biocapacity per person. In 1961 biocapacity was 5.7 gha/person, and in 2022 was 3.8 gha/person.

Meanwhile, the U.S. ecological footprint of consumption has been increasing. In 1961 it was 1.6 billion gha, and by 2024 it reached 2.5 billion gha. Counteracting that increase to some degree is the per-person ecological footprint of consumption, which has decreased in recent years. In 1961, it was 8.9 gha/person, and in 2022, it was 7.9 gha/person. Although this is not a huge reduction, it provides a glimmer of hope that the country can reduce its footprint per person to offset population growth. However, it would need a very sizeable reduction to retreat to the safe operating space of its biocapacity.

In summary, the best available ecological footprint and biocapacity science reveals that the United States is exceeding a sustainable level of resource use for the production and consumption of goods and services. In 2022, the ecological footprint of consumption was 7.9 gha/person, and biocapacity was 3.8 gha/person. Ecological footprint is more than double biocapacity, meaning that economic activity is (over) two times the amount the United States can sustain. And with its outsized carbon footprint, the American economy is impacting the biocapacity of ecosystems on Earth.

Diving Into the Footprint Details

The carbon component makes up 64 percent of the ecological footprint embodied in the consumption of goods and services in the United States. Almost all of this carbon component (95 percent) comes from fossil fuel emissions. The largest share of these emissions (37 percent) comes from transport, of which road transport constitutes the majority. The next-largest share of U.S. carbon emissions (34 percent) comes from public and private utility companies producing electricity and heat for sale to third parties.

For many people, these details highlight the importance of decarbonizing electricity and heat generation and shifting transportation to less emissions-intensive modalities, such as rail. However, the emissions reductions needed to bring the United States back within its biocapacity are so immense that “green” alternatives aren’t sufficient. Americans must also reduce consumption of electricity and heat, as well as the distance they travel, because “green growth” is not possible.

In 2022, cropland made up 18 percent of the U.S. ecological footprint of consumption. Of the cropland ecological footprint, 84 percent was used for crops consumed by people and pets, 15 percent was used to feed livestock, and less than 0.5 percent was used to feed fish. Almost 700 million metric tons of crops were harvested, and just over half was maize. The second most harvested crop was soybeans at 17 percent of total harvests.

Yet the proportion of ecological impact does not equal the proportion of total harvests. For instance, maize made up 52 percent of crop harvests (metric tons) and 43 percent of the cropland ecological footprint of production (gha) in 2022. On the other hand, soybeans accounted for 17 percent of harvests (metric tons) and 32 percent of cropland ecological footprint of production (gha). Therefore, soybeans had almost double the ecological impact per metric ton of harvest in the United States.

The United States in the Global Context

The United States consumes far more than its share of the Earth’s natural resources. The global average ecological footprint of consumption was 2.7 gha/person in 2022. The United States crushed that benchmark at 7.9 gha/person. The average U.S. citizen consumed resources at almost three times the rate of the average global citizen.

Here’s another way of thinking about this: The United States is responsible for twelve percent of the world’s ecological footprint of consumption. Yet the U.S. population only amounts to four percent of the world population. This represents a highly disproportionate environmental impact.

The U.S. ecological footprint per person is even higher than that of most other high-income countries. The average ecological footprint of consumption in high-income countries is 6.1 gha/person.

There are important debates about best practices for presenting ecological footprint and biocapacity data. Often, the ecological footprint of a territory is compared to the biocapacity of that territory. For example, U.S. ecological footprint is compared to U.S. biocapacity. This implies that a country achieves sustainability if its ecological footprint is lower than its biocapacity.

Many criticize this approach as an unfair representation of sustainability, because some countries are blessed with exceptionally high biocapacity. For instance, in 2022, the ecological footprint in Canada was 8.4 gha/person, and the biocapacity was 14.4 gha/person. Canada’s biocapacity was clearly higher than its ecological footprint. However, its ecological footprint per person was in the top ten highest in the world. Therefore, perhaps it is also important to compare a country’s ecological footprint to world average biocapacity (global ecological balance) in addition to the country’s biocapacity (local ecological balance).

In 2022, global biocapacity was 1.5 gha/person, significantly lower than the U.S. ecological footprint of 7.9 gha/person. In other words, U.S. citizens consume resources and emit carbon at five times the global average sustainable rate.

Ecological footprint and biocapacity data illustrate that we are using natural resources and releasing waste at unsustainable rates, in the United States and around the world. It shows that this has been happening for decades. The United States and other high-income countries are disproportionately responsible for this state of overshoot. They must pump the brakes on resource consumption and waste emissions if we are to exist within local and global sustainable limits. They must pump the brakes, in other words, on the economy.

Fonte

Saber mais: 

Vídeomensagem de Brian Czech explicando o conceito Trophic Theory of Money

A Convergência e Divergência entre Bioeconomia e Economia Ecológica

A transição global para um modelo de desenvolvimento sustentável exige uma reavaliação fundamental da forma como produzimos, consumimos e interagimos com o meio ambiente. Neste cenário, emergem duas abordagens distintas, embora interligadas, que procuram reformular a relação entre a economia e a natureza: a Bioeconomia e a Economia Ecológica. Embora partilhem o objetivo comum de reduzir o impacto ambiental, as suas premissas filosóficas, focos de intervenção e visões sobre o crescimento divergem significativamente, oferecendo caminhos que podem ser complementares, mas também conflituosos.

A Visão da Bioeconomia: Substituição e Eficiência Tecnológica

A Bioeconomia centra-se na substituição de recursos de origem fóssil e de processos industriais intensivos em carbono por alternativas de base biológica. O conceito evoluiu de um foco inicial na biotecnologia para uma visão mais abrangente, que inclui a produção sustentável de biomassa e a sua conversão em produtos de valor acrescentado (alimentos, bioprodutos e bioenergia).

A premissa fundamental da Bioeconomia é que a inovação tecnológica pode promover o "desacoplamento" (decoupling) entre o crescimento económico e a degradação ambiental. Procura-se a eficiência através da utilização da biomassa em cascata, onde cada componente do recurso é aproveitado, aproximando-se dos princípios da economia circular. Nesta ótica, a natureza é frequentemente vista como uma fornecedora de serviços e matérias-primas, enfatizando-se a criação de novos mercados.

A Perspetiva da Economia Ecológica: Limites e Escala Biofísica

Por outro lado, a Economia Ecológica parte do princípio de que a economia é um subsistema de uma biosfera finita e ecologicamente restrita. Esta disciplina não se foca apenas na eficiência, mas sobretudo na escala da atividade económica e na justiça distributiva. Fundamentada nas leis da termodinâmica, a Economia Ecológica argumenta que o crescimento económico perpétuo é impossível num planeta com recursos finitos e capacidade limitada de absorção de resíduos.

O foco não reside apenas em substituir o petróleo, mas em reduzir o "metabolismo social" — o fluxo total de energia e materiais que atravessa a economia. Esta abordagem reconhece o valor intrínseco da natureza e a necessidade de manter a resiliência dos ecossistemas. Para os economistas ecológicos, a sustentabilidade exige limitar o consumo e garantir que as atividades humanas não ultrapassam as fronteiras planetárias.

Pontos de Tensão e Síntese Necessária

As tensões surgem principalmente em torno do crescimento económico. Enquanto a Bioeconomia se alinha com o "Crescimento Verde", a Economia Ecológica é mais cética, defendendo frequentemente o "Decréscimo" (degrowth) ou uma "Economia de Estado Estacionário". Outro ponto de atrito é a visão da natureza: a Bioeconomia pode tender a instrumentalizá-la, enquanto a Economia Ecológica defende a sua preservação para além da utilidade económica.

Concluindo, estas duas correntes não devem ser vistas como mutuamente exclusivas. A Bioeconomia oferece as ferramentas tecnológicas para uma produção mais limpa, enquanto a Economia Ecológica fornece a estrutura macroeconómica e ética necessária para garantir que tais tecnologias sejam aplicadas dentro de limites seguros. A convergência para uma "Bioeconomia Ecologicamente Orientada" poderá ser o caminho mais robusto para uma verdadeira sustentabilidade.

Característica	Bioeconomia	Economia Ecológica
Foco Principal	Substituição de recursos fósseis por biológicos (biomassa).	Sustentabilidade biofísica e justiça social.
Visão da Natureza	Fonte de matéria-prima e motor de inovação tecnológica.	Ecossistema complexo que limita e sustenta a economia.
Solução Proposta	Biotecnologia, biorrefinarias e novos mercados verdes.	Redução da escala económica e respeito pelos limites planetários.
Relação com o PIB	Procura o "Crescimento Verde".	Defende frequentemente o "Decréscimo" ou o "Pós-crescimento".
Métrica de Sucesso	Eficiência na conversão de recursos e lucro sustentável.	Manutenção do capital natural e equidade distributiva.

Referências Bibliográficas 

1. Bugge, M. M., Hansen, T., & Klitkou, A. (2016). What is the bioeconomy? A review of the literature. Sustainability, 8(7), 691.
2. Daly, H. E., & Farley, J. (2011). Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications. Island Press.
3. Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1971). The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Harvard University Press.
4. Kenneth Boulding (1966) - The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth
5. Martinez-Alier, J. (2002). The Environmentalism of the Poor: A Study of Ecological Conflicts and Valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing.
6. OECD (2009). The Bioeconomy to 2030: Designing a Policy Agenda. OECD Publishing.
7. Vivien, F. D., Nieddu, M., Befort, N., Debref, R., & Giampietro, M. (2019). The hijacking of the bioeconomy predictions by the biotechnology narrative. Ecological Economics, 159, 189-197.

O Earthism e a Transição para uma Civilização Ecológica

A crise civilizacional que enfrentamos no século XXI — marcada pelas alterações climáticas, pela perda acelerada de biodiversidade e pela erosão dos tecidos sociais — não é apenas um problema técnico que se resolve com melhores painéis solares ou carros elétricos. Trata-se, fundamentalmente, de uma crise de identidade e de metafísica. No centro da resposta a este desafio surge o Earthism (ou Terrismo), uma filosofia e um movimento ético que propõe uma reorientação radical: a transição de uma visão antropocêntrica para uma visão ecocêntrica da existência.

A Génese do Terrismo: De Whitehead a Cobb Jr.

Para compreender o Earthism, é obrigatório passar pela figura de John B. Cobb Jr., filósofo e teólogo norte-americano que dedicou a sua vida a construir as bases de uma Civilização Ecológica. Cobb fundamentou o seu pensamento na Filosofia do Processo de Alfred North Whitehead. Segundo esta perspetiva, o universo não é uma coleção de objetos inertes e independentes, mas sim um fluxo contínuo de eventos e relações.

Nesta visão, a Terra não é um "armazém de recursos" à espera de ser explorado, mas um organismo vivo e dinâmico onde cada parte — do microrganismo ao ser humano — possui valor intrínseco. Ao contrário da visão mecânica da modernidade, o Earthism defende que a natureza é "experienciadora". Quando destruímos um ecossistema, não estamos apenas a perder matéria-prima; estamos a ferir a própria trama da vida da qual fazemos parte.

Earthism vs. Ecologia Profunda: Uma Distinção Necessária

É comum confundir o Terrismo com a Ecologia Profunda (Deep Ecology), popularizada por Arne Naess. Embora partilhem a crítica ao consumo desenfreado, as nuances são vitais. A Ecologia Profunda é, muitas vezes, uma filosofia secular e puramente biocêntrica que pode tender para uma visão misantrópica, vendo o ser humano como um intruso ou uma ameaça à "pureza" da natureza.

Já o Earthism de Cobb Jr. é profundamente humanista e integrador. Cobb não nega a singularidade humana; pelo contrário, ele afirma que, por sermos a parte da biosfera que atingiu a autoconsciência e a capacidade tecnológica, temos a responsabilidade ética de agir como "guardiões" da Terra. O Terrismo não pede o fim da civilização, mas a sua transformação total numa civilização que floresça em harmonia com os limites planetários.

A Economia como Subsidiária da Ecologia

Uma das maiores contribuições de Cobb para o movimento foi a sua colaboração com o economista Herman Daly. No seu livro seminal For the Common Good, ambos desmontaram o mito do crescimento económico infinito num planeta finito. Para um "Earthista", a economia atual é uma forma de loucura matemática: tratamos o capital natural (solo, água, ar) como se fosse inesgotável.

A proposta de Cobb e Daly é a substituição do PIB (Produto Interno Bruto) por indicadores que meçam o bem-estar real e a integridade ecológica. Defendem uma Economia para a Comunidade, onde a produção é local, circular e regenerativa. Aqui, o sucesso não é medido pela acumulação de riqueza abstrata, mas pela capacidade de uma comunidade sustentar a vida de forma digna e sustentável.

A Convergência com Outros Pensadores

O Earthism não é uma ilha intelectual. Ele converge com o pensamento de Thomas Berry, que nos instigou a realizar o "Grande Trabalho" de transição da era Cenozoica para uma era Ecozoica. Bebe também da Democracia da Terra de Vandana Shiva, que luta contra a privatização da vida e pela proteção das sementes e da biodiversidade no Sul Global.

Conclusão: O Regresso à Terra

Em última análise, ser um adepto do Earthism significa reconhecer que não somos "donos" de nada, mas sim "terrestres". É a compreensão de que a espiritualidade, a política e a economia devem estar ao serviço da comunidade da vida. Como John B. Cobb Jr. frequentemente afirmou, o nosso destino e o destino da Terra são um só. Se a Terra falhar, a humanidade falha; mas se aprendermos a viver como parte integrante deste superorganismo, poderemos finalmente construir uma civilização que seja digna desse nome.

Referências Bibliográficas

1. Berry, T. (1999). The Great Work: Our Way into the Future. Nova Iorque: Bell Tower.
2. Cobb, J. B., Jr. (2010). Spiritual Bankruptcy: A Prophetic Call to Action. Nashville: Abingdon Press.
3. Daly, H. E., & Cobb, J. B., Jr. (1994). For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future. Boston: Beacon Press.
4. Naess, A. (1989). Ecology, Community and Lifestyle: Outline of an Ecosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Shiva, V. (2005). Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability, and Peace. Londres: Zed Books.
6. Whitehead, A. N. (1929/1978). Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. Nova Iorque: Free Press.

A filosofia de John Cobbe

O pensamento de John B. Cobb Jr. (nascido em 1925, Japão) representa uma das sínteses mais ambiciosas dos séculos XX e XXI entre a espiritualidade, a ciência e a economia. Como principal expoente da Teologia do Processo, Cobb baseou a sua visão de mundo na filosofia de Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947), rejeitando a ideia de um universo estático composto por objetos isolados. Para ele, a realidade é um fluxo contínuo de eventos interconectados, onde cada ser é constituído pelas suas relações com os outros. Esta perspetiva alterou radicalmente a compreensão de Deus: em vez de um monarca onipotente e imóvel, o Deus de Cobb é uma presença sensível que sofre e se alegra com a criação, influenciando o mundo não pela coerção, mas pela persuasão em direção ao bem, à beleza e à vida.

Essa fundamentação filosófica levou Cobb a tornar-se um pioneiro da teologia ecológica. Ao compreender que o bem-estar humano é indissociável da saúde da biosfera, passou a criticar severamente o modelo de desenvolvimento industrial. A sua colaboração mais famosa neste campo ocorreu com o economista Herman Daly (1938–2022), com quem escreveu a obra seminal For the Common Good (1989). Juntos, desafiaram o uso do PIB como única métrica de progresso, argumentando que o crescimento económico cego ignora a degradação ambiental e a erosão das comunidades. Propuseram o Índice de Bem-Estar Económico Sustentável (ISEW), uma ferramenta prática para medir a economia sob uma ótica de preservação e justiça social.

Além de Daly, outros colaboradores foram fundamentais para a expansão deste sistema. Charles Hartshorne (1897–2000) forneceu o rigor lógico necessário para definir a natureza dipolar de Deus no processo, enquanto David Ray Griffin (1939–2022) trabalhou ao lado de Cobb na fundação do Center for Process Studies em 1973, consolidando a teologia do processo como uma alternativa viável à modernidade materialista. Cobb também se destacou no diálogo inter-religioso, especialmente com o Budismo, publicando Beyond Dialogue: Toward a Mutual Transformation of Christianity and Buddhism em 1982. Atualmente, o seu legado vive no movimento pela Civilização Ecológica, uma proposta de reorganização total da sociedade que busca garantir a sobrevivência e o florescimento de todas as formas de vida na Terra, conceito que ganhou forte tração em fóruns internacionais e políticas de sustentabilidade na China a partir de 2007.

E o que é a Civilização Ecológica?

Cobb foi um dos primeiros a usar o termo "Civilização Ecológica". Ele acreditava que o modelo atual de civilização industrial está em colapso e que o Terrismo é a base para a próxima fase da humanidade:

1. Localismo: comunidades mais pequenas e autossuficientes.
2. Respeito biocêntrico: leis que protegem o ecossistema acima do lucro corporativo.
3. Educação integrada: ensinar as crianças que a sua identidade é, antes de mais, "terrestre".

"O destino da humanidade e o destino da Terra são um só." — Esta frase resume a dedicação de Cobb ao longo de décadas.

É fascinante notar como Cobb influenciou até políticas públicas na China, onde o conceito de "Civilização Ecológica" foi adotado oficialmente.[em março de 2018]

Biografia
Mais info aqui

Ted Trainer - A (Friendly) Critique of the Degrowth Movement

Over many years I have put forward a vision of The Simpler Way, and introduced visiting groups to it at Pigface Point.

The above video includes models of a typical suburb before and after such changes have been made.

The explosion of interest in degrowth since 2000 has seen the development of a large literature, international conferences, and many active groups spread around the world.

This is astounding, given that pioneers such as Georgescu-Roegen, Paul Ehrlich, Serge Latouche, and Herman Daly worked for decades to draw attention to the possibility that the pursuit of limitless growth and affluence might be problematic — and they were largely ignored. In the early 1970s, The Limits to Growth made quite an impact, but did not go into possible alternative social goals or forms. My book, Abandon Affluence and Growth (1985), summarized the case and argued that the only solution has to be transition to a Simpler Way. For the following 20 years these few works had almost no impact on mainstream thinking about the commitment to growth.

The recent spread of degrowth is encouraging — however, the movement is founded on a number of confusions and mistaken initiatives. This is understandable given its early stage, and can be regarded as a healthy exploring of possibilities. The literature welcomes ‘pluralism’, but we should be trying to find unifying directions.

The current focus of the degrowth movement

The focus within the degrowth movement has (understandably) been on why the pursuit of growth is a huge mistake, and little attention has been given to two crucial themes. One is strategy: this lack is recognised within the movement, and I discuss it at length in the current edition of Environmental Values. The other, which has received almost no attention, is the concept of simplicity. The defining principle of a society that has undergone degrowth to a sustainable and just state must be transition to far simpler lifestyles and systems.

First, the issue of definition; what is degrowth about, and what should it be about? The term is not a good descriptor for the movement that has emerged. The movement is asserting a wild variety of criticisms of and alternatives to the present globalized, industrialized, urbanized, financialized, neo-liberal, sexist, grotesquely unequal, extractivist, imperialist etc. world order. The expressed goals include all manner of social criticisms, ideals, and policies, ranging from mildly reformist to ultra radical. Many of these — such as monetary reform, making trade more equitable, housing justice, patriarchy, curbing advertising, fairer taxes, reducing debt, indigenous rights, and decolonization — actually have nothing to do with the reduction of economic growth, or could easily be implemented within an economy that continues to be about growth.

Degrowth should, instead, be seen in terms of a concern to reduce resource consumption and environmental impact, which means it is essentially about one thing, which is reducing GDP. It is in order for many sub-goals and domains to be seen as existing under this umbrella, as fields of endeavor relevant to the general quest or for which it has implications.

Thus the term degrowth has become ‘… a rag-bag of utopian dreams’. A more accurate title might be the ‘Finally Fed Up With Capitalism’ movement. All manner of ideals, dreams, alternate policies in a wide variety of fields have been put forward as degrowth proposals. This is highly desirable because it shows that discontent with consumer-capitalist society is finally boiling over. For 70 years its legitimacy and desirability have been largely unquestionable. But now the dominant paradigm is crumbling, evident in the weakening capacity of the rich countries to control the global geo-physical imperial system, the emergence of intractable resource scarcities and environmental problems, accelerating rates of inequality generating hardship and ‘cost of living’ difficulties, rising levels of debt etc. There is increasing realization that the system is causing the big global problems, notably climate change, that it can’t solve them and that it needs to be replaced.

Probably even more serious is the social situation, the loss of cohesion being caused by the inevitable march of capitalism, the deprivation and discontent accompanying rising inequality, and the decreasing capacity of governments to meet demands or provide for people. Large numbers in even the richest countries are poor or homeless. Thirty percent of Australians are reported to be going without sufficient food. The number one health problem in rich countries now is likely to be depression. The UK government recently established a ministry for loneliness. Large proportions of people are losing respect for ‘democracy’ and turning towards authoritarian and fascist options.

These many and varied discontents can be welcomed as undermining the complacency that characterized previous decades. But the scene is quite confused and chaotic, especially with respect to causes and solutions, and this is reflected within the degrowth movement. Even among degrowth advocates there is little realization that the multifactored global predicament cannot be resolved unless there is an extremely big and difficult revolution whereby most of the elements within our present economic, political, and cultural systems are scrapped and replaced by radically different systems. The crucial point here is that the new lifestyles and systems must be materially very simple. Little of the degrowth literature recognizes this, let alone focuses on it. Most of it proceeds as if we can all go on living more or less as we do now, with more or less the same kinds of ways and institutions that we have now, via reformed institutions and better policies. The degrowth movement does not recognize that the magnitude of the overshoot, the degree of unsustainability, of present society, totally prohibits that. To recognize this would decisively focus thinking about goals and strategies, and rule out many currently popular options.

The global situation

Most people do not grasp the extent to which this society has become unsustainable. We have far exceeded the limits to growth. There is no possibility that the per capita levels of resource consumption in rich countries can be kept up for long. Only a few of the world’s people have these ‘living standards’ and the rest can never rise to anything like them. This is the basic cause of the big global problems, including resource depletion, environmental damage, the deprivation of billions in the poor countries, and resource struggles.

There is a strong case that if we are to live in sustainable ways that all could share then rich world per capita rates of consumption must be reduced by 90 percent. The common response is the ‘tech-fix’ claim that technical advance will enable GDP growth to be ‘decoupled’ from resource and environmental impact. But there is now overwhelming evidence that apart from in some limited areas this is not happening and is not going to happen. (Haberle’s review examined over 800 studies.) If GDP is increased, impacts increase. It is not possible to solve the big problems if we are determined to maintain present levels of consumption and production — the solution can only be found on the demand side; that is, by greatly reducing production and consumption.

A major cause of our predicament is the fact that we have an economic system which must have growth and which allows the market and profit to determine what happens. As a result, what is produced, who gets it and what is developed, is determined by what is most profitable to the few who own most of the capital. The outcome is not determined by what is most needed. That is why the one percent now own about half the world’s wealth, and the poor countries have been ‘developed’ into a form which ships their resources out to enrich the corporations and rich world shoppers, while most people in even the richest countries struggle to get by.

The crucial point is that we have to try to shift to values and ways that enable all to live well on a very small fraction of the per capita resource and environmental impacts we in rich countries have now. We cannot achieve a sustainable way of life which all could share unless there is an enormous degrowth transition to far simpler lifestyles and systems. The magnitude of the required Degrowth is not sufficiently recognised within the movement. Nor are the implications for social change; because the over-shoot is so big that only change to extremely different lifestyles and systems can solve the big global problems.