Shifting values of growth to stay in a safe space for humanity (Earth System Governance Student Blog)

A synthesis reflection on the apparent need for GDP growth and safe space for humanity.

Author Bio: This post is authored by Charlotte Hullmann, former Radboud master student in Environment and Society Studies. In October, she started a Junior Researcher position and her External PhD at the Wuppertal Institute. This blog summarizes her key reflections on the ESG Conference.

Attending the large 2023 Radboud Conference on Earth System Governance as a first month PhD student comes with a lot of inspiration. In my external PhD at the Wuppertal Institute, I will dive into the analysis of policy supporting industrial players to decarbonize. A concept that to me has felt like a great elephant in the room, not only during this PhD, but also during my bachelor studies in International Development Management and my master in Environment and Society Studies, is the emphasized need for Growth Domestic Product (GDP) growth. While GDP growth is understood to be an important indicator of the general health of the economy, it is also linked to unsustainable resource use.

Overshooting our planetary boundaries

During this conference on Earth System Governance, a guiding principle was the respecting of planetary boundaries. This concept was introduced by Johan Rockström and 28 internationally renowned scientists in the journal of Ecology and Society in 2009. With this concept, 9 planetary boundaries are set out, which, when respected and not overshot, provide the safe space for humanity to thrive for generations to come. In the latest update of 2023, six of these boundaries have been identified as being overshot. Overshot boundaries are the biochemical flows, freshwater change, land-system change, biospheric integrity, climate change and novel entities. The only boundaries which are not overshot by now are the stratospheric ozone depletion, atmospheric aerosol loading and ocean acidification. Except for the boundary of ozone, the pressure is increasing on all of the boundaries. Scholars argue that overshooting these planetary boundaries should be avoided as their overshoot will lead to tipping points which eventually may lead to a cascade effect, influencing other tipping points, which in turn may lead to the irreversible disruption of the ecosystem as we know it. The pressure to protect these boundaries is increasing, while this planetary boundaries perspective is eye opening that protecting our climate is not enough. We need to take on a holistic approach to maintain a safe space for humanity.

Decoupling GDP from environmental impact?

What does this have to do with the concept of economic growth? Growing the GDP is traditionally linked to resource extraction. One idea for avoiding overshoot is a strategy known as “decoupling,” where a change in practices or technologies separate the link between economic growth and resource extraction. For now, decoupling is a goal that is set in the GreenDeal by the EU still to be reached. Within the formulation of this goal, the European Parliament refers to the uncertainty of reaching tipping points connected to the coupling of GDP growth and resource use. From a scientific perspective the possibility to decouple GDP growth from resource use is uncertain. Even if it should be possible, decoupling is unlikely to be achieved at a rapid enough rate to return to the planetary boundary of climate change. Whether GPD growth is a well-guided objective to be pursued is questioned by the scholars who developed the planetary boundaries model. They do not say that GDP growth should be avoided, but that a shift in focus is needed on the estimation of the safe space for human development. Also at the European level GDP growth is questioned as an objective as at a certain performance of the economy the growth is no longer linked to increasing life fulfillment any longer.

A safe and just space

During the conference semi-plenary on “Social Tipping points and living within just Earth system boundaries”, the potential approaches to reduce the overshoots have been discussed from a societal change point of view. The necessity to take into consideration the concept of justice has been emphasized regarding the concern that without it we might shift from one unjust system to another. In line with this concern is the conceptual useof the social boundaries by Kate Raworth in her Doughnut Economics model. According to Raworth, the social boundaries do not only ensure justice but are also linked to the aspect of safety. The social boundaries are interdependently linked. Stress on planetary boundaries can increase the stress on social boundaries. 

In this context, the emerging notion of social tipping points explores how social systems may be able to tip similarly as ecological systems. I saw much euphoria in the room thinking of this possibility, with the hope of speeding up changes in values and beliefs and thereby responding and countering planetary tipping points. Nevertheless, a very charismatic “reality check” was provided to us by Manjana Milkoreit, from the Department of Sociology and Human Geography at the University of Oslo: It would be uncertain whether such social tipping points actually exist, whether it would be good if they did and finally that social change may not be (as hoped) quick and easy to bring about. Such change would take time. The need for value change and the long time needed for values to change was provided during this session at the example of shifting our focus away from the emphasized GDP growth, towards the emphasis of valuing the creation of safe and just space for human development.

The key takeaway for me is that there is no shortcut for ensuring the safe and just space, but that there is hard work to be endured for the decades to come. 

Can we live within the boundaries of our planetary ecosystem?

During this semi-plenary on social tipping points, Joyeeta Gupta, who is a professor on Environment and Development in the Global South at University of Amsterdam, stated that staying within the boundaries will be “painful - but just”. She also understands that redirecting humanity into safe and just space will not be easy, but is linked to difficult discussions such as the discussion of who, which country, is entitled to which share of planetary boundaries. During the session “Demystifying degrowth – Connecting research and practice” the rethinking of our values and beliefs has been put into practice. Natasha Hulst from Grond van Bestaan has provided us with the example of how commons can help us rethink the importance of economic growth. As the indicator of GDP growth has been misunderstood to be the guiding principle for human development, commons have been misunderstood as a resource, but should be seen as a self-organized system. Either system should not be exploited for profit, but instead treated with care  to be sustained for the future. Other examples of shifting the focus away from GDP growth were the ideas of setting up alternative currencies such as services measured in time spent (Timebank.CC) and two alternative housing possibilities. One rather emphasized the concept of circularity than degrowth (Wooncoöperatie De Warren), while the other focused on becoming a self-sustaining entity, with the aim to become more independent from mainstream values and beliefs and resultantly being able to rethink them (EarthShips).

My key takeaways 

A shift away from GDP growth alone is necessary. Our main focus should be looking for indicators to support humanity to be redirected into a safe and just space. This shift is not just linked to the use of indicators, but also to a shift in values and beliefs which support a safe and just space. Therefore, it was inspiring to be provided with a couple of examples. This conference has strengthened my understanding that much work still needs to be done to operationalize the planetary and social boundaries for research, as well as for policy making and other means to increase humanity's chance to return to our safe and just space. With the inputs received at the conference, I expect the operationalization of the boundaries, and especially the reorientation into the safe and just space will not be a quick and easy fix. Rather that this change will take time. 

Nevertheless, from a scientific point of view, I would have appreciated coming back from the conference with new frameworks and methods to challenge the status quo and support the transformation towards a safe space for humanity. The greatest inspiration I take in this regard comes from Andreas Buser, who is from the Department of Public and International Law at the Freie Universität Berlin. In his presentation on “Green Growth Within Planetary Boundaries - A Human Rights Perspective” he provided a translation of the planetary boundaries into human rights, which may help working towards the safe space from a social science perspective. I am very curious to read more about his research (currently in progress). How can the planetary boundaries be operationalized for example for policy analysis? How could policy such as environmental, climate and industrial policy be redirected based on the consideration of the planetary boundary model? Would this consideration potentially be beneficial to enter a safe and just space for humanity?

Finally, a key takeaway worth mentioning is something that stunned me during the conference. That is the call for interdisciplinary research that has been made over and over again, while the majority of participants were still social scientists. The ESG community aims to bring together “social sciences and humanities researching at local and global scale” with a vision “to understand, imagine and help realize just and sustainable futures”. But to understand, imagine and realize these futures I expect other sciences than social sciences and humanities to be of relevance.

We are still in our academic bubbles, presenting sessions using jargon that only our fellow scholars may understand.

Bringing together these disciplines may be difficult. Just to name some difficulties, a conference on governance may not be the most interesting for natural science scholars to attend as it may not be their focus. It would be important to obtain key insights from other disciplines in a manner that is low in jargon, understandable and utilizable. Communication outside of the used-to-bubble may require a certain training and experience. Finally, I hear from colleagues that it is still difficult to apply for projects that are interdisciplinary and publishing interdisciplinary research may be challenging as well. Resultantly, the incentive for other disciplines to attend may be low. Still, most of us seem to understand that we have to become more approachable in our communication for interdisciplinary collaboration to be possible and momentum to be gained in transformation towards creating safe spaces for humanity. Maybe to initiate change we have to start with ourselves. We could and probably should see whether we can attribute some of our already scarce time to trying to attend other conferences outside of our own discipline to increase the engagement. I will be paying attention to making my research approachable to different disciplines and to increase the possibility for interdisciplinary collaboration. Please feel free to keep me accountable and especially also to inspire me on this matter.