Investor Alert

Project Syndicate Archives | Email alerts

May 25, 2022, 8:55 a.m. EDT

If the Earth is truly approaching its finite limits (and it is), can humans learn to live within our means?

Watchlist Relevance

Want to see how this story relates to your watchlist?

Just add items to create a watchlist now:

or Cancel Already have a watchlist? Log In

By Michael Jacobs and Xhulia Likaj

BERLIN—Fifty years ago this spring, one of the most influential books of the 20th century was published. Written for the Club of Rome by Donella Meadows and colleagues at MIT, “ used new computer models to forecast an uncontrollable collapse in the global population and economy if prevailing patterns of environmental resource use and pollution continued. Exponential economic growth could not go on forever; at some point in the next 100 years, it would inevitably run up against Earth’s finite environmental limits.

A half-century later, with a climate and environmental crisis upon us, the debate triggered by “ The Limits to Growth“ has returned with a vengeance .

In 1972, the book came under immediate fire from economists who claimed that its authors failed to understand basic economics. If a resource becomes scarce, its price will rise, they pointed out. Other resources will then be substituted for it, and it will be used more efficiently. Technological innovation will lead to new, cleaner methods of production.

Far from leading to social collapse, economic growth was thus self-correcting—not to mention the only way for countries to develop out of poverty.

Lost the bet, but won the argument

So confident were mainstream economists that “ The Limits to Growth” was wrong that one of them, Julian Simon, made a bet with the environmentalist Paul R. Ehrlich about the price of five metals over the following decade. Ehrlich bet that their prices would rise as they became scarcer, Simon predicted that they would become cheaper as other materials were substituted for them. Simon won the bet on all five.

But the scarcity of metals—or even fossil fuels—was never really what “ The Limits to Growth” was about.

As ecological economists Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and Herman Daly pointed out, the reason physical limits to growth exist is that the planet’s biosphere cannot grow exponentially. Cut down trees faster than they can grow, and deforestation will result. Take more land for agriculture, and species will disappear. Pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere faster than it can be absorbed, and the planet will heat up.

Simon may have won his 10-year bet, but over the past half-century the predictions in “ The Limits to Growth” have proven remarkably robust . More recent scientific research has shown that, for a range of core life-support systems—including the climate—we are fast approaching, or in some cases may now have exceeded, the “ planetary boundaries ” within which humanity can safely prosper.

The allure of ‘green’ growth

Mainstream economists recognize this, of course. But they note that economic growth is measured in terms of national income and output (gross domestic product), and there is not a simple relationship between these indicators and environmental degradation. Using renewable energy, recycling waste, and shifting consumption from goods to services can make economic growth much less environmentally damaging.

We can therefore have “ green growth ”: higher living standards and a healthier environment, too. Over the past decade, green growth has become the official objective of all the major multilateral economic institutions, including the World Bank and the OECD .

Rich countries’ CO emissions have indeed fallen in recent years , even as their economies have grown. But much of this apparent decoupling of GDP growth from environmental damage has been achieved by transferring emissions to China and other emerging economies that now produce most manufactured goods.

And in other areas—including deforestation, fish stocks, and soil depletion—there has been little or no absolute decoupling . As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the United Nations Environment Program have been warning with ever-growing urgency, the world is still headed for environmental disaster.

1 2
This Story has 0 Comments
Be the first to comment
More News In
Economy & Politics

Story Conversation

Commenting FAQs »

Partner Center

Link to MarketWatch's Slice.