Photo: Can emissions shrink while the economy grows?

(Photo credit: Walter via Flickr)

By David Suzuki with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Research Fellow Brett Dolter. Dolter is co-editor of the recently released Handbook on Growth and Sustainability.

What does climate change have to do with economic growth? Canada's prime minister and premiers signed a deal in December to "grow our economy, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and build resilience to the impacts of a changing climate." The Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change outlines plans for carbon pricing, energy-efficient building codes, electric vehicle charging stations, methane emission regulations and more.

Subscribe to Science Matters

Is the framework correct in assuming we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and grow the economy? If not, which should be given precedence?

These questions come at a pivotal moment in Canadian climate action. The Pan-Canadian Framework marks the first time Canada's first ministers have endorsed a national plan to tackle climate change. It opens the door to a game-changing carbon price that will make reducing greenhouse gas emissions the smart, cost-saving choice for businesses and individuals.

However, a recent Nature Climate Change article claims, "No major advanced industrialized country is on track to meet its pledges to control the greenhouse-gas emissions that cause climate change." Canada pushed for ambitious targets during the 2015 Paris climate negotiations, but even the framework won't put us on track to meet our pledged reductions.

Rather than being an outcome of climate action, economic growth may prevent us from reaching climate targets. A July 2017 study in Nature Climate Change concluded that the world only has a five per cent chance of keeping global average temperature from increasing beyond 2 C. On a positive note, the authors found economies worldwide will likely become more energy-efficient, and low-carbon sources like wind and solar will make up a growing share of the mix.

But economic growth will likely cancel out these advances. For every megatonne of emissions reduced through efficiency and clean energy, another megatonne will be produced because of economic expansion. Our economies will get bigger almost as fast as they get cleaner and emissions will not drop quickly enough to stave off catastrophic climate change.

Economic growth has been the primary goal of every Canadian government, provincial and federal, for decades. Leaders' speeches are peppered with references to it. Election campaigns are filled with promises of economic expansion. Pity the politician who presides over an economic downturn.

Rarely do we stop to ask what economic growth means. In short, it's a year-to-year increase in production, distribution and consumption, as expressed by gross domestic product.

If GDP strikes you as a poor indicator of well-being, you're not alone. The late U.S. politician Robert F. Kennedy once remarked that GDP "measures everything, except that which makes life worth living." It's a flawed indicator of progress.

The Pan-Canadian Framework expresses optimism that we can reduce emissions while expanding the economy. This promise of "green growth" is popular because it offers something for everybody. It maintains a commitment to economic growth while claiming greenhouse gas emissions will drop. But, as the Nature Climate Change study asserts, "green growth" is likely an oxymoron.

"Degrowth" advocates argue that tackling climate change requires shrinking the economy. A planned slowdown of the economy would be achieved by implementing shorter workweeks and more holidays and encouraging low-consumption lifestyles.

"Agrowth" advocates such as environmental economist Jeroen van den Bergh argue that we should ignore GDP altogether, and instead evaluate progress using indicators such as literacy, employment, rates of diabetes and heart disease, water and air quality and climate stability. If GDP happens to go up while these indicators improve, so be it. If GDP goes down while other measures of well-being increase, what have we truly lost?

When the Pan-Canadian Framework is implemented, some economic sectors will likely grow. Companies that offer low-carbon energy sources, energy-efficient products and opportunities to offset or store greenhouse gas emissions will prosper. Other sectors, like coal mining for power production, will shrink. We may or may not have "clean growth," but we will have a cleaner economy and a better shot at preventing or mitigating climate change's most harrowing effects.

If moving beyond the Pan-Canadian Framework is at odds with growing the economy, let's make sure our elected officials have their priorities straight. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions should take precedence over economic growth.

September 14, 2017

Read more

Post a comment


Sep 19, 2017
4:08 PM

If Canadian provincial and federal economies adopted a more holistic measure of growth, such as the GPI (genuine performance indicator), which has been by US states Maryland and Vermont, issues such as climate change would be accounted for. Climate change has escalated as markets have failed to correct for it’s impact, because it is externalized to current measures of growth i.e. GDP. Transitioning to the GPI will require a fundamental shift in economic policy from the top down.

Sep 16, 2017
12:05 PM

Regulation is but one of governments tools for shaping the economy. Another one which is mostly ignored today is fiscal policy.

Federal tax policy and federal spending are the two most powerful tools the government has at it’s disposal. In the current era the emphasis has been on reducing the influence of government on economic activity, in favour of letting corporate profits gained from so called free market activity decide what we produce and how we produce it.

If a government wishes to follow a democratic will to green the economy and does not wish to hurt economic growth prospects it must use it’s power to tax and spend to the fullest advantage. This is the point of having an elected leadership.

If we want to develop alternatives to oil then the government may choose to specify things it wishes to purchase, that it knows will prompt profit seekers to employ labour in pursuit of green profits.

Growth need not and should not suffer if such a model were used and if pursued wisely all of society will gradually reap the rewards of cleaner energy technology and other sustainable products.

As the monopoly issuer of currency the federal government does not tax in order to collect funds to allow spending

Sep 15, 2017
8:41 PM

Is i too much to ask of our leaders who, by the way, are on OUR payroll, to cut the crap and get with the program? like keeping US, the taxpayer, happy and healthy and enjoying life as it should be ? Can’t you disassociate from that backwards, primitive ‘colonial’ mentality, for crying out loud ? Can’t you finally grow up and join the rest of us in earnest ? Do you have to keep playing your tired old, pathetic games, and face the real reality ?

Sep 15, 2017
10:47 AM

Thank you for challenging the “Church Of Growth” dogma! But expect criticism for goring the holy ox of civilization.

The David Suzuki Foundation does not necessarily endorse the comments or views posted within this forum. All contributors acknowledge DSF's right to remove product/service endorsements and refuse publication of comments deemed to be offensive or that contravene our operating principles as a charitable organization. Please note that all comments are pre-moderated. Privacy Policy »