We Have to Break the Cycle
6 years, 3 months, 6 days, 3 hours
16 April 2023
A few weeks ago the cover of The Economist magazine carried a headline I could not ignore.
‘Hug pylons, not trees’. As I began to read the leader article I found myself in significant agreement. In order to reach net zero carbon emissions the world must invest huge sums in new infrastructure, including renewable generation and power grids. The backing article suggested by 2050 we will need four times as much electricity generation as today, and three times the grid capacity. I could also easily accept that more access to power in poor countries would drive up living standards.
But towards the end of the leader I found myself getting uncomfortable. The Economist took its argument to a perhaps logical, perhaps self-serving, conclusion, that the most effective way to tackle climate change is through economic growth.
I agree we must balance economic, social and environmental progress, using the Sustainable Development Goals as our guide. But The Economist offered no boundaries to its final statements. It suggested we can’t expect the mindset of the population to change – presumably to change away from always wanting more. It ignored the possibility that restraining, or constraining, our demand might be at least part of the answer. And it ignored the fact that ultimately there MUST be a limit to growth, because the resources of our Earth are finite, and personally I’m not in a hurry to follow Elon Musk to Mars.
The week before Darren White kindly shared with me this UN video. It tells a familiar and sobering story. But jump to 2.28 and watch the next 20 seconds. I thought that was particularly powerful.
We have to break the cycle of extract, produce, discard. And notwithstanding The Economist’s pessimism, I think we are seeing signs that this message is getting through. Only a few weeks ago the European Commission proposed the introduction of new consumer rights to have products repaired, rather than replaced.
Personally I think a mindset shift is the most powerful lever we have to change the currently perilous trajectory of humanity’s impact on the world. I am sure The Economist is right that it will be hard. But we should at least pursue it in parallel with trying to build our way out of the climate emergency.