Whether our economies can absolutely decouple from environmental harm at the scale required to mitigate the worst consequences of the socio-ecological crisis is a central debate in sustainability academia. Whilst green growthers and techno-optimists consider these achievable, ecological economists and post-growthers like myself are much more sceptical.
There are many peer-reviewed articles on both sides, with the post-growth movement gaining significant gravitas in economic and policy circles. A global survey of 789 climate policy researchers revealed increased scepticism towards green growth approaches. Following these findings, a vision for how an ecological, post-growth liberal society could work is increasingly necessary.
Our growth economies are designed primarily to generate surplus capital efficiently to fulfil societal needs and wants. An economy designed in such a way is doomed by a hamartia: a constant structural dilemma. Balancing just economic development with protecting necessary ecological spaces, all whilst not aggravating the social-ecological crisis, is developing into a near-Sisyphean task.
Such a dilemma would be eased significantly in a post-growth liberal economy, because it would be designed for ecological stability. The economy would be regenerative by design, with the adoption of the circular economy and technological developments in resource efficiency being core to its success. Whether growth is desirable would be subject to a rigorous cost-benefit analysis, considering both social and environmental factors.
A post-growth liberal economy is grounded in the precautionary principle in environmental law. Whilst the debate of whether absolute decoupling remains ongoing, urgent action is required now. The socio-ecological crisis is much too pressing and urgent to warrant absolute certainty in this central academic debate.
Crossing tipping points in Earth’s system can trigger enduring and potentially irreversible changes, the consequences of which may not be immediately noticeable. The socio-ecological crisis is a slow, sinister beast which disproportionately causes more suffering for the poorest and most vulnerable. With the primary aggravator of the social-ecological crisis being overconsumption, a different perspective on freedom is required.
Stuart Mill’s harm principle in “On Liberty” would provide the liberal foundation to grant the state the legitimacy to implement powers to limit our overconsumption beyond sustainable scale. A reduction in the freedom to overconsume would be done in order to enable a greater freedom: the freedom to live on a healthy planet.
Markets would operate in a post-growth liberal economy, but the cost of their operations must be embedded within calculations that embody the biophysical state of Earth’s system. Market assumptions must be reformed to reflect current science, removing misleading ideals of “homo economicus” and “homo homini lupus est.” Rather than markets being optimised to be efficient at providing economic growth, they would be open spaces for entrepreneurship and innovation in ways to provide ecological stability.
A post-growth liberal economy by design would be a care economy. This vision is heavily inspired by Tim Jackson’s book, “The Care Economy”. It would champion the invaluable work of carers, and care would be central to its design. Policies such as a 4-day working week, full employment, and a universal basic income would provide the stability required to enable individuals to care freely without stress, granting the invaluable freedom to spend more time with loved ones.
A post-growth liberal society is not successful without transparent and honest governance. The distance between people and power must be reduced via devolution so that individuals can hold the government accountable. Rebuilding trust, integrity and honesty in public service as an elected official is essential for a just and liberal transition to a post-growth economy.
There are legitimate concerns that the transition could be hijacked by demagogues to enact their own authoritarian agenda. The implementation of systemic barriers to demagogues such as Trump and Farage hijacking power is crucial to the success of a post-growth liberal vision. Furthermore, the power of vested interests must be limited as a priority, with strong legislation protecting the legitimacy and transparency of government.
There exist practical and systemic barriers for this vision to become a reality. With vested interests and geopolitical rows being examples of barriers blocking progress, such a vision seems a distant fairytale. Crucially, as the social-ecological crisis worsens, implementing this vision will become much more politically challenging.
But such a vision is possible.
The adoption of a liberal, ecological post-growth vision is paramount in securing the freedom of future generations to roam on a healthy planet; whilst averting the worst consequences of the social-ecological crisis. Let’s begin discussing how we can implement it.
* Rodrigo is a Liberal Democrat party member and a Young Liberal.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Raising a flap about letterboxes
Arriving at one of East Finchley's ghost platforms
Chase Park fair photos
A swamp of lies and disinformation
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Nigel Jones
Katharine Pindar
17 Comments
A society where the state will decide what I can consume and in what quantities is not a liberal society. It is certainly not one in which I would wish to live.
@JoanSummers. A society that continues promoting greed and ecological destruction is not Liberal either. If business and individuals want to ignore the science and continue the destruction of the Earth, what mechanism do you propose to save our planet? Or are you going to sit by whilst the current system destroys us all?
As we account for less than 1% of global emissions – what about the rest of the globe. Are they not partaking in this never never land.
Or is just the UK that going to turn itself into an Amish paradise
I personally account for less than 1 billionth of global emissions, so I can fly round the world and drive a Hummer with a clear conscience.
PS not really. I haven’t flown anywhere for many years and get around mostly by cycling, longer distances in an electric car or train, depending.
@Joan & Craig – Do you want yourself and your descendants to stand a chance of surviving the coming storm? Remember the updated MIT forecast based on the same economic data used by economists and government put the crunch date as circa 2040, (I’ve yet to see any economist find flaws in the MIT work, probably because they struggle with Excel – see the “neoliberal paper excel error”).
It is worth rereading the story of Noah; he commenced the building of the ark well before there were any visible signs of a flood, by the time the deniers got around to believing in the flood and doing something about it, it was way too late… [Aside: going on the pace of work at Hinkley Point, if we start now we might have another nuclear power station ready to go live in 2040… The current oil and gas squeeze, if it becomes extended could be of real benefit to us…]
It’s an attractive vision of a utopian world, but I honestly don’t know how you get from here to there. I suspect it’s not a straight line.
If you want an example of a ‘post growth economy ‘ take a look at the UK in the past decade – how has that gone?
Our Party quite rightly wants growth so we can have higher living standards and higher tax revenue to spend on all the many things we want governments to do.
@SimonMcGrath. And how Simon do you propose the have a growth economy and not destroy the planet?
Our party talks blandly about ‘Green Growth’ without ever defining what it is and how it can be achieved.
What we should be talking about is how to square our high living standards with the abject poverty of others elsewhere in the world and the ever increasing evidence of climate destruction.
There seems to be a total disconnect between our aims for the economy and our aims for the environment and the planet.
Could it just be that we, along with almost every other politician in the UK is simply unwilling to tell voters that we can no longer have ever increasing income and wealth and that the real issue is sharing what we have more fairly?
@Mick Taylor. Lets see if i’ve got this right. We should square with the elctorate and tell them that they’ve got to have lower living standards and poorer public services because if they don’t we’re all going to die ? How many deposits do we expect to save next GE ?
Or we could not tell them, just crash the economy when we get elected, because we are democrats who believe power rests with the people, but that paradoxically, we know best.
Hi @Joan, thanks for your comment. Your judgement of liberalism only works under the assumption of an economy that is exponentially increasing alongside an exponentially increasing biosphere to support it. There is a wealth of evidence from Earth systems scientists which shows that assumption to be false. With Earth being a closed system, barely any matter leaves our system, so the “natural capital” we have on earth is finite, regardless of the abundant solar energy we have.
In the face of growing ecological limits, a liberal society is one in which people can live in an ecologically stable natural environment, that gives people the stability to live fulfilled, healthy and happy lives. Fighting for the freedom to overconsume completely juxtaposes this aim, because it actively works against having a stable natural environment. The old assumptions on which we founded liberalism no longer apply, and as such, we must change our approach to liberalism to reflect this new body of evidence.
Hi again @Simon, thank you for your continued engagement with my articles! A post-growth economy is not an austerity economy, because there would targeted policies to ensure a redistribution of current excess wealth which can fund our public services.
The idea of a continuously growing economy within biophysical limits does not take into account any evidence from Earth Systems science or ecology. Take examples from the natural world: trees don’t grow forever and ever, they grow, mature and then stabilise.
Why should we believe our economy can somehow magically exist outside these limits?
Our economies rely on the natural environment to function, and exist within the natural environment, so why shouldn’t the limits to the natural environment apply to it?
I am not a purely against growth. What my stance reflects it the idea that *there are costs to growth, and these are being severely downplayed and not accounted for*.
Extrapolating past trends to future scenarios is a dangerous and risky game, and with an increasing body of scientific evidence showing us the increasing costs of believing in pure economic growth as a panacea, we must change approach.
Hi @Tom, thanks for your comment. You are very right, it certainly will not be a straight line! From my perspective, the reason why implementing such a vision is so challenging is because there are deeply ingrained cultural assumptions that have to be made with a growth economy which would have to be changed or extended.
For example, the idea that humans only act in self interest, in “homo homini lupus est” (humans act as wolves to each other) is so deeply ingrained that we may not even realise it. This assumption is not universally applying, and completely downplays the evidence we have for the capacity for humans to be altruistic.
So deep rooted cultural assumptions like that need to change, and we need to show that having a different cultural approach works via a bottom-up, liberal approach. This provides a great opportunity for local authorities to get dug in by providing support and scaling up already existing community-led initiatives that are aligned with this approach.
Local authority policies should also be designed with the care economy and doughnut frameworks in mind. The success of such initiatives is paramount because not only will it allow people to understand why the change is being done, but it takes any concerns of individuals into account.
I completely understand the challenge that is faced financially with LAs at the minute, but any help, initiative or policy design which is centred around the care of the individual first approach over “growth” will be the key to the gradual steps required for success!
@ChrisCory. Actually that isn’t what I said and you know it. We can go on lying to the voters and pretending that growth will somehow magically transform their lives, whilst doing nothing to correct the extreme disparities of income and wealth that has developed since 1979. Or, we can level with people and say that the restrictions of the environment mean that continuous growth is not longer possible and that the only way to achieve a more equal society and maintain decent public services is through policies of a much more equal redistribution of income and wealth. So, yes, there will be a smallish section of the population who will be worse off, those who already have accumulated much more than they will need in several lifetimes and who are, currently, doing their best to grab more and who try to refuse to pay their taxes.
Unlike Mr Mandelson I do object to people getting filthy rich, even if they do pay (some) taxes.
Of course following such policies would draw squeals of anguish from the media who are owned by these people, who will seek to convince voters that it’s them who will be worse off. We just have to get smarter at countering this self interest and convince people that the world can be a better place for the majority of people and not just the uber rich.
So – One side thinks it is ludicrous to wreck the planet, the other side thinks it is ludicrous to stop growth and lose votes. Both are wrong. Seeing everything in black and white, and pushing a “my way or the highway” approach, is just a nihilistic recipe for disaster.
We have to do all we reasonably can to save the planet. It is not reasonable to move at such a fast pace that the voters are bound to turn against us. Not even if the scientists tell us about the dire consequences of moving too slowly.
Setting overambitious goals does nobody any good. Making excuses for not trying, like the “we’re tiny compared with China” line, is even worse. There are big differences between nations in green performance. Let’s challenge ourselves to move up with the best.
Does ALL economic growth result in significant contributions to environmental catastrophe and present/future mass fataities? Do ALL measures to reduce/eliminate environmental degradation necessarily resut in economic decline? Is climate change and environmental pollution the same thing? Are there different measures required to address one versus the other? On the assumption that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the primary cause fuelling evidence of climate change, should CO2 be regared as a pollutant? Sensible answers to such questions, avoiding confirmation bias, would help develop policies which are somewhat more precise.
Economic growth is only useful in as far as it generates resources for public services. It should be used only along side other measures such as wellbeing and the state of our environment. It should be law to define how the word growth is used and the context so the media and our politicians stop using the word without qualifications.