Why Greta Thunberg made a mistake by not going to the climate conference

It could be the introduction of a Monthy Python sketch: dozens to hundreds of private jets have flown to Egypt’s Sharm el-Sheikh in recent days to negotiate measures to curb global warming.

The interim results of the climate conference: sobering. Like every year. The headlines: pessimistic. Like every year. “Switzerland only partially satisfied with the way the climate conference went,” writes the SDA. “Slow progress fuels concerns about a final deal,” headlines Reuters. One might legitimately ask: what do these conferences actually do?

Some figureheads of the climate strike movement have already lost faith in the jet-flying heads of state. Greta Thunberg stated at the end of October that she would not be traveling to Egypt. The reason: the climate conference is a “colossal fraud”. It is merely “an opportunity for politicians and those in power to attract attention”.

The 19-year-old climate activist called for a systemic change as the world’s current normalcy caused the climate crisis in the first place. Thunberg said, “What we call normal is an extreme system based on the exploitation of people and the planet.”

The German climate activist Lisa Maria Neubauer follows the same line. “System Change not Climate Change” is the movement’s new motto. It requires nothing less than breaking up existing power structures, overcoming capitalism and ending limitless economic growth.

Before hands are thrown over heads and the “extreme left” manslaughter argument slips over the lips: what does system change actually mean? What is required here and why? And last but not least: is there really no other way out of the climate crisis?

Breaking down power structures – sounds adventurous. Material for a heroic film. But in order to break down power structures, the word “power structures” must first be broken down. What does power mean? And what structures are we talking about here?

Answering this question is beyond the scope of this article. At the end of the text, interested parties will find an info box with an overview of the topic. What matters to us is that more and more climate scientists and economists are arguing that it doesn’t matter who is in power or which party the world leaders belong to. SP or SVP, Republicans or Democrats, Bharatiya Janata or Trinamool Congress – if the economy does not grow, it means unemployment, loss of status, fear of existence. To the point of homelessness and famine.

Accordingly, the primary goal of any government under capitalism is to maximize economic growth. It doesn’t matter how green you are. But the economy cannot continue to grow without plunging humanity into a climate catastrophe. The only solution: a political transition. From economic growth as a top priority to accepting a shrinking GDP as a condition to save the planet. Or more simply: a departure from capitalism as we know it today.

So the economies of this world should shrink. This idea is known as “degrowth” – roughly translated as “anti-growth”. In German-speaking countries, people also speak of «post-growth». The idea originated in the 1970s.

Degrowthers believe that economic growth in the modern world has become disconnected from improvements in human living conditions. This means that technological developments such as more environmentally friendly houses or solar panels are not used to reduce CO₂ emissions, but to be able to produce more with the same CO₂ emissions.

However, to overcome the climate crisis and ultimately ensure the survival of our species, CO₂ consumption must decrease. So this should be a priority at all costs, say the outgrowths. Emissions must be brought down to zero, even if that means shrinking the economy. In her new book, Greta Thunberg describes it this way:

Thunberg’s claim can also be found in the scientific mainstream. More than 26,000 female scientists signed an open letter in 2019. It requires humanity to prioritize ecosystem conservation over economic growth. The IPCC also referred to degrowth in a recently published report. In recent years, several books have been published by well-known anthropologists and climate scientists. Even former US Secretary of Energy and physics professor Steven Chu said:

The only question is: how should that work? The solution, according to the degrowth movement, is to limit the production of unnecessary goods and try to reduce the demand for things that are not needed.

James Hickel, anthropologist and leading degrowth researcher, put it this way: “If our washing machines, refrigerators and telephones lasted twice as long, we would use half of them. But our access to these goods would not deteriorate.”

But it’s not just about refrigerators. Food waste must be reduced, a barter economy must be introduced and private transport must be banned. Ultimately, GDP should shrink without causing poverty or a lower standard of living.

“We are proposing measures such as a living wage and wealth tax to achieve this,” Hickel said. « Products that last longer, shorter work weeks, better access to public services and affordable housing – we demand the opposite of poverty. Yes, industries like SUVs and fast fashion would decline, but that doesn’t mean poverty. We can replace them with public transport and more sustainable fashion that meets everyone’s needs.”

Sounds good. But there is a problem. No, many problems. First, people who argue against economic growth are usually not the ones who will benefit most from growth in the coming decades.

Banning cars the size of a one-bedroom apartment in the West would be a sacrifice probably worth making to save the climate. But most people in this world are still poor. Telling a developing country to shrink because the developed world destroyed the planet to enrich itself: that’s, well, a little unfair.

Of course, the outgrowers have already thought about that. The solution to the problem: you meet in the middle. Poorer countries can develop to a point, richer countries can shrink to the same point. “We live on a planet where resources are abundant and where we can all thrive together. But we have to distribute it more fairly,” said James Hickel.

But it’s not that simple. In a globalized world, rich countries cannot just shrink while poor ones grow. What sudden consumption stops do was seen during the corona pandemic. Developing countries have suffered disproportionately more. So here too the principle applies: the poor are always hit hardest.

And as imperfect as GDP is, there’s no denying that a higher GDP equates to a better life. Rich countries outperform on almost every measure. From education, life expectancy, general health and infant mortality to women’s work.

Degrowthers want to prevent shrinkage from harming developing countries, while at the same time fighting for economic justice – ending unequal trade relations and boosting domestic industries. However, there is still no patent recipe for exactly how this should work. That raises criticism: “The outgrowths live in a fantasy world. They assume that if you make a smaller pie, the poorest get a bigger slice for some reason,” says Per Espen Stoknes, director of the Center for Green Growth at Norwegian Business School. “That’s never been done before. happened.”

The political counterpart of the degrowth movement is the green growth movement. So the green growth. A path that most governments in the world are following to combat climate change. Economic growth must be decoupled from CO₂ emissions.

In fact, 23 countries have already succeeded in decoupling their GDP growth from greenhouse gas emissions. To this end, coal-fired power stations have been shut down, factories have been forced to work more efficiently and wind turbines and solar panels have been built that generate clean electricity.

But that’s not nearly enough. In 2021, more CO₂ will be emitted than ever before. The efforts of the international community to date to curb global warming to 1.5 degrees are also insufficient. Achieving the goal requires a good dose of optimism.

This is also the problem of the degrowthers. Because, as Vox journalist Kelsey Piper analyzed, the proposals of the green growers are still a lot more realistic than those of the degrowths.

The degrowth movement is extremely good at pointing out the weaknesses, problems and injustices of the current system. She is right when she says that it will be very, very complicated to maneuver humanity and our planet through the 21st century. And it is appropriate to be skeptical about the chances of success of the measures currently being negotiated. However, when it comes to the mammoth task of decoupling wealth and living standards while also ending global warming, she becomes strangely optimistic. Not to mention that the measures proposed by the movement seem almost ridiculously inadequate.

There is criticism of the COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh. For the fact that many of the participating heads of state have still not realized the seriousness of the situation. For large companies such as Amazon who misuse the website for greenwashing. For the fact that regular economic policy still pays far too little attention to climate change.

Because the reality is: there is not much time left to turn things around. CO₂ emissions must now be reduced. Massive investments are needed in green energy, sustainable agriculture and nature conservation. It needs decarbonisation and payments to poor countries that suffer disproportionately from climate change. And yes, all of this must be done faster than is currently being implemented.

But boycotting the climate conference and calling it a colossal fraud is wrong. This undermines the thousands of climate scientists and organizations committed to fighting climate change and solutions on the ground.

The degrowth movement offers valuable food for thought: fast fashion probably has no place in a sustainable world, neither do SUVs. It is essential that the green energy revolution does not repeat the existing patterns of overexploitation and overexploitation in the South. The governments of this world should include the available resources in their GDP calculation (read: Material Productivity).

But to believe that we can turn the whole world upside down in the short time left to us is only one thing: naive.