Paralysis by Analysis? Some reflections on the 10th International Degrowth Conference

(Translated by David Costalago and reviewed by Mark H. Burton and the author.)

The 10^th International Degrowth Conference… more than 1100 people from 48 countries gathered in Pontevedra from 18 to 21 June, many of them affiliated to universities and research centers, presenting works in which they have put their dedication, their effort, their talent… And in some cases through research projects with funding from public institutions such as the EU, which for some time now seems to consider it appropriate to allocate funding to research on Degrowth (albeit under a less daring term: Post-growth), a strategy aimed at solving the environmental crisis that is threatening our way of life. To what extent is all this worthwhile?

I will now try to reflect on some of the thoughts that were going through my mind during those days in case they might be of some use. Just as examples: one session addressed the question of whether radical climate activism in a given country attracted more or less popular support than moderate activism, and whether and why the ideology of the target audience was a determining factor. Another paper presented a taxonomy of different proposals according to different criteria, including that of Green Growth, officially assumed as opposed to Degrowth, and discussions took place on the suitability or otherwise of replacing the term Degrowth with others perceived as less pessimistic, such as Post-Growth. In general, interesting reflections and debates for those of us who like to analyze in depth. However, the nagging thought arose in my mind as to whether we might not be limiting ourselves to intellectual games that, given the seriousness and urgency of the situation, should be left aside.

Other works quantified, for example, the extent to which different policies could worsen or mitigate some aspects of the environmental crisis, to make predictions of outcomes of processes that are too complex to claim conclusive results. In some cases, the formalization of some questions leads to conclusions that are rather common sense and whose final figures have limits to their reliability, limits that are highlighted by the authors of the research themselves and which mean that they cannot be taken as true in terms of exact figures.

Some say that a bad prediction is preferable to no prediction at all. This does not seem correct to me because the above limitations are often overlooked by taking incorrect predictions as a basis for debating proposals, thus undermining rigor. Taking into account the seriousness of the environmental crisis in which we are immersed and its probable effects on human living conditions, is it relevant to quantify to what extent the problem could get worse if we continue to operate as we are doing now, or exactly how much it could improve if we take some measures that we already know are going in the right direction? Whatever the numbers tell us, it is clear what direction should be taken, guided by a precautionary principle. We should not forget that no knowledge is infallible, including scientific knowledge.

We know that action must be taken by implementing measures that have already been widely discussed and whose positive effects can hardly exceed what we need to achieve.

In two round tables attended by trade union and political representatives, it became clear more or less explicitly that the proposals of Degrowth have begun to catch on in some political parties aligned to the left or concerned with the environment. In the case of trade unions, it is sometimes difficult to reconcile long-term environmental issues with the more short-term social issues that have to do with employment and which are often a priority for trade unions when they come into conflict.

The impression was conveyed that descending into the political arena in democracy sometimes requires complicated trade-offs between stakeholders. The actions we need to make a transition to a different way of producing, consuming, and distributing have challenges. These include industrial lobbies, the culture of growth and consumerism… in short, the dynamics of the current socio-economic system oriented towards unlimited economic growth and quantified by that misleading indicator, GDP.

If science, especially science financed with public funds, is to be at the service of society, wouldn’t society have reason to criticise those who are aware of the problem for not putting their efforts into acting under the seriousness of the situation and the urgency it requires?

It can be said that scientists and intellectuals do not have the power and, therefore, do not have the responsibility that politicians have. However, I would say that they do have a certain responsibility towards society and that is to try to convey to the media and politicians the results of their analyses and the possible measures to be implemented.

In general, in the problem that concerns us, the most rigorous quantification does not seem to lead to greater awareness or a better willingness on the part of citizens to change the current productivist and consumerist model. Shouldn’t we put our talent and dedication, not at the service of what to do, but rather HOW to do it? Yes, there is research that points in this direction and yes, the answers are more complicated, but the balance, I believe, should be tipped more strongly to this side.

The day after the end of the ConferenceI overheard a conversation … one woman was telling another that, in the last few days, life in the city had become complicated, it had been full of people because of a conference: “no less than 1200 participants! …all vegetarians!”, she added. “What was the conference about?”, asked the other woman. “Sustainable Ecology” (sic), was the answer. There were several posters with the name of the conference hanging on buildings in the old part of the city, but I am afraid that the message of ecological urgency is not reaching the majority of the population. In a democracy, it is necessary for a good part of the voters to be aware of what the problems are and what measures can be applied, so that this translates into electoral support for those political forces that are beginning to glimpse the need to move away from an economy oriented towards economic growth.

Recognition of the magnitude of the problems we face brings with it a sense of powerlessness to act individually. Individual action is inspiring, but it cannot by itself transform the system. We should put even more focus on advocacy. We should look for the most effective means to convey to society the need to act in order to ensure that the request, or better the demand, that politics gets down to work to promote structural changes also comes through the citizens. These changes will have to generate the necessary conditions so that our way of life can be transformed collectively.

I suppose that those of us who believe that the path of Degrowth is necessary also recognise the great difficulties in achieving this transformation. Perhaps it is time to put more energy into activism. But this sounds to me like a letter to Santa Claus… which I would like to believe in.