Kicking our growth addiction is the way out of the climate crisis. This is how to do it. With the right global economic policies, we could fight poverty and global heating at the same time. Guardian Larry Elliott 17 Nov 2022 For the best part of three centuries, there has been a consensus about the goal of economic policy. Since the dawn of the industrial age in the 18th century, the aim has been to achieve as rapid growth as possible. It’s not hard to see why there has been this focus. Growth has raised living standards, increased life expectancy, improved medical care and resulted in better educated, better fed populations. Indeed, it is a mark of how successful rich western countries have been in lifting people out of poverty that developing countries are keen to have what we’ve had. If faster growth means cleaner drinking water, more children in school and fewer mothers dying in childbirth then the world’s poorer nations want more of it. But there’s an obvious problem. If developing countries are to have the same – or even remotely the same – standards of living as developed countries, that means a lot higher use of resources and additional pressure on the planet. It means an increase in energy use and the risk of an irreversible global climate crisis. 

Given the existential threat posed by global heating, the concept that growth is good is being seriously challenged by those who say policymakers should be aiming for zero growth or even degrowth economies, ones that are shrinking. Make no mistake, it is a good thing that the accepted wisdom is being questioned. The idea that faster growth is the solution to every problem is no longer tenable. But there’s an obvious problem. If developing countries are to have the same – or even remotely the same – standards of living as developed countries, that means a lot higher use of resources and additional pressure on the planet. There is nothing new about the current debate. Thomas Malthus predicted eventual famine once population growth exceeded food supplies. John Stuart Mill’s comment, that the “increase in wealth is not boundless”, paved the way for what became known as steady-state economics. Herman Daly, who died last month, long championed the idea that the constraints of the natural world imposed limits to growth. Robert Kennedy famously said that gross domestic product measured everything except that which makes life worthwhile, and his words resonate now even more strongly than when he uttered them in 1968.

That said, achieving a steady-state economy or degrowth is not going to be easy. Far from it, it will be hellishly difficult. For a start, it will mean changing the way we think about economic success. Political debate is conducted by parties that vie with each other to promise voters the best growth strategy. Language matters, so when GDP is rising, that’s good news, and when it is falling, it is bad news. Countries are judged by where they sit in international league tables of growth. It would be the hardest sell for any politician to try to convince UK voters they should welcome the recession that is now only in its early stages. That’s because over many decades, people – especially the most vulnerable – have found that degrowth has not been good for them. Recessions are a form of degrowth, and they result in unemployment, bankruptcy, homelessness and hardship. Recessions also mean politicians tend to double down on growth, fearful of a backlash from voters if living standards are falling. Faced with the choice between higher use of fossil fuels or having the lights go out, governments have opted for the former.The only way to make a steady-state economy achievable is to harness an anti-poverty strategy to a pro-planet strategy. It is just about possible to imagine western societies where – after some vigorous redistribution – everyone has the income, wealth and time to lead a good life. But even that’s not going to be enough. What’s needed is a global strategy that encourages poorer countries to meet their legitimate anti-poverty goals in a way that is least harmful to the environment......read on    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/17/growth-addiction-climate-crisis-economic-policies

Kicking our growth addiction is the way out of the climate crisis. This is how to do it. With the right global economic policies, we could fight poverty and global heating at the same time. Guardian Larry Elliott 17 Nov 2022 For the best part of three centuries, there has been a consensus about the goal of economic policy. Since the dawn of the industrial age in the 18th century, the aim has been to achieve as rapid growth as possible. It’s not hard to see why there has been this focus. Growth has raised living standards, increased life expectancy, improved medical care and resulted in better educated, better fed populations. Indeed, it is a mark of how successful rich western countries have been in lifting people out of poverty that developing countries are keen to have what we’ve had. If faster growth means cleaner drinking water, more children in school and fewer mothers dying in childbirth then the world’s poorer nations want more of it. But there’s an obvious problem. If developing countries are to have the same – or even remotely the same – standards of living as developed countries, that means a lot higher use of resources and additional pressure on the planet. It means an increase in energy use and the risk of an irreversible global climate crisis. 

Given the existential threat posed by global heating, the concept that growth is good is being seriously challenged by those who say policymakers should be aiming for zero growth or even degrowth economies, ones that are shrinking. Make no mistake, it is a good thing that the accepted wisdom is being questioned. The idea that faster growth is the solution to every problem is no longer tenable. But there’s an obvious problem. If developing countries are to have the same – or even remotely the same – standards of living as developed countries, that means a lot higher use of resources and additional pressure on the planet. There is nothing new about the current debate. Thomas Malthus predicted eventual famine once population growth exceeded food supplies. John Stuart Mill’s comment, that the “increase in wealth is not boundless”, paved the way for what became known as steady-state economics. Herman Daly, who died last month, long championed the idea that the constraints of the natural world imposed limits to growth. Robert Kennedy famously said that gross domestic product measured everything except that which makes life worthwhile, and his words resonate now even more strongly than when he uttered them in 1968.

That said, achieving a steady-state economy or degrowth is not going to be easy. Far from it, it will be hellishly difficult. For a start, it will mean changing the way we think about economic success. Political debate is conducted by parties that vie with each other to promise voters the best growth strategy. Language matters, so when GDP is rising, that’s good news, and when it is falling, it is bad news. Countries are judged by where they sit in international league tables of growth. It would be the hardest sell for any politician to try to convince UK voters they should welcome the recession that is now only in its early stages. That’s because over many decades, people – especially the most vulnerable – have found that degrowth has not been good for them. Recessions are a form of degrowth, and they result in unemployment, bankruptcy, homelessness and hardship. Recessions also mean politicians tend to double down on growth, fearful of a backlash from voters if living standards are falling. Faced with the choice between higher use of fossil fuels or having the lights go out, governments have opted for the former.The only way to make a steady-state economy achievable is to harness an anti-poverty strategy to a pro-planet strategy. It is just about possible to imagine western societies where – after some vigorous redistribution – everyone has the income, wealth and time to lead a good life. But even that’s not going to be enough. What’s needed is a global strategy that encourages poorer countries to meet their legitimate anti-poverty goals in a way that is least harmful to the environment......read on    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/17/growth-addiction-climate-crisis-economic-policies

Five changes we need from fashion, to protect people, our fellow animals and the planet Collective Fashion Justice.Hayley Bruner Jun 25 2025  Citizen consumers, the fashion industry and global governments are starting to shift their priorities, recognising that a sustainable and ethical fashion industry is not something ‘nice’, but essential to fashion’s continued existence.But to fully realise a vision of total ethics fashion where people, animals and the planet are prioritised ahead of profit, a lot more must be done. Here are five key changes we still need from fashion, and fast. Material phase out: fossil fuel-based synthetics......Synthetic materials like nylon, acrylic, and polyester make up nearly 70% of all clothes on the market today. These fabrics are made of crude oil, despite the global urgency of ending fossil fuel extraction to curb climate crisis and protect biodiversity. These materials are essentially made of plastic, with microscopic fibres shedding when they are washed. That means that each time we wash polyester shirts, an influx of microplastics can enter water supplies, local environments, and ultimately, our bodies. Synthetic garments are also major pollutants in landfills and other clothing dumps that are intentionally concealed from the view of Western consumers through waste colonialism. This process sees Global South nations forced to deal with this waste and the environmental harms caused by it. Material phase out: animal-derived materials......The breeding, rearing and slaughtering of animals for fur, leather, wool and feather down contributes disproportionately to today’s most serious environmental problems. Methane emissions are far more potent and harmful than carbon in the short-term, and slashing these can curb the climate crisis. Yet, the fashion industry’s exploitation of cattle, sheep and goats results in enormous methane emissions. Animal-derived materials are also land inefficient, requiring far more once biodiverse land to be cleared for production than plant-based, recycled and other innovative materials. As a result, animal materials pose serious wildlife and biodiversity risks. As we work to ensure fashion respects the life of the Earth, we must also ensure all sentient life on the planet is protected. The use of animals for materials denies animals their autonomy and wellbeing, seeing them routinely confined in cages, mutilated, and slaughtered without regard for their pain or rights. Material phase out: uncertified cellulose........The third material that the fashion industry must move beyond is uncertified and irresponsibly sourced cellusoic fibres.,,,,,read on, there's three more https://www.collectivefashionjustice.org/articles/five-changes-we-need-from-fashion