Peace Magazine , page . Some rights reserved.
Search for other articles by kgsimons here
I had fun chairing a forum that was an iteration of the old debate about whether it’s possible to decouple economic growth from resource consumption and environmental harm. This conversation originated in the 1970s with a famous report, Limits to Growth, which argued that economic growth cannot continue because it uses up the world’s resources, which are finite. Eventually, the authors said, we will run out and that might even put an end to civilization – so, let’s cut back now! Here’s my “take” on the discussion in one Project Save the World forum, which you can watch (or hear as an audio podcast) here: https:// tosavetheworld.ca/episode-624- sustainable-economies. I was happy to find that, instead of debating the issue, both speakers seemed to share a common vision of the path forward.
My two guests on this fine August day are Mark Jaccard, a professor of sustainable energy at Simon Fraser University and the CEO of the British Columbia Utilities Commission, and John Feffer, the director of Foreign Policy in Focus, the online publication of the Institute for Policy Studies. Their discussion ranges from the technical aspects of decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation to broader questions about the political, social, and policy challenges involved.
Jaccard begins by defining the key terms, particularly the concept of “economic growth” and what it means to “decouple.” He clarifies that economic growth typically refers to increases in GDP, but this does not necessarily correlate with resource use or pollution. He also raises the point that economic growth can be measured per capita, which is particularly relevant in discussions about stabilizing the global population. Jaccard emphasizes that if we aim to decouple growth from environmental harm, we must clearly define what we mean by both terms.
Feffer contributes by pointing out that GDP as a measure of prosperity is increasingly being questioned. He suggests that harmful activities, like those that damage the environment, can still cause GDP to increase, which highlights the flaws in using GDP as the primary indicator of economic success. He advocates for looking at alternative measures, such as happiness indices, that can capture well-being more holistically.
Both Jaccard and Feffer agree that the core challenge lies in transitioning to an economic model that does not rely on depleting resources or polluting the environment. Feffer highlights how innovations like electric vehicles or renewable energy storage could help reduce emissions while maintaining some level of economic growth, though he remains skeptical about whether GDP should remain the sole measure of success. He also stresses that the Global South may need to grow more in GDP terms to catch up with the developed world, even as the Global North looks to stabilize or even reduce its own growth.
A particularly poignant moment in the conversation comes when Jaccard touches on the issue of equity. He acknowledges that while environmental sustainability is crucial, achieving equity—especially global equity— remains a significant challenge. Jaccard admits that some forms of equity might take centuries to achieve but emphasizes that environmental catastrophes disproportionately harm the most vulnerable populations. Therefore, addressing environmental sustainability is, in a way, addressing equity as well.
Feffer brings up the idea of “planned obsolescence” and its detrimental im pact on sustainability. He argues that our current manufacturing system is designed to encourage the rapid re placement of goods, which exacerbates the waste stream. Both speakers agree that this model needs to change, with Feffer suggesting that we need more products designed to last longer or be fully recyclable.
Towards the end of the discussion, Jaccard makes a compelling case for regulatory approaches over carbon pricing. While carbon pricing is often hailed as an economically efficient way to reduce pollution, Jaccard argues that it is politically challenging and has limited effectiveness in many cases. Instead, he advocates for flexible regulations that can drive technological changes, which, in his view, will be more effective than trying to change individual behaviors.
The conversation ends on a thought-provoking note, as Feffer and Jaccard reflect on how these ideas can be implemented in democratic societies. Feffer points out that regulations are often politically unpopular, especially in places like the United States, but they may be necessary to achieve meaningful environmental progress. Both speakers agree that finding politically feasible solutions is key to addressing the global environmental crisis.
In summary, this forum on “Sustainable Economies” was a nuanced exploration of the complexities involved in decoupling economic growth from environmental harm. The speakers bring valuable insights into the policy tools that can help achieve this goal, from regulations to innovations in technology. While they acknowledge the immense challenges— particularly in terms of equity and political will—they remain hopeful that progress is possible, even if it requires compromises and difficult trade-offs.
The key takeaway from this conversation is that while there is no one-size-fits-all solution, focusing on what works and adopting a flexible approach to regulations may offer the best path forward.
Peace Magazine and Project Save the World are “open forums” — places where expert discussions of life-threatening global Issues are made freely accessible. We now send digital copies of the magazine without charge to organizations around the world that address six major threats to humankind. Our website contains a page for each threat.
editors agree with your analysis, we invite your informed, relevant discussion. Feel free to ask questions or challenge other posts — in a civil, constructive way. Our moderators watch the website and remove inappropriate posts, including advertising, vulgarity, promotion of political candidates, parties, or campaigns, appeals for endorsements, and There you can share well-reasoned, evidence-based knowledge, including responses to Peace Magazine articles and our video forums. Whether or not we personal rudeness. But your civil society organization is welcome to notify others about your upcoming activities on our events column.