There are far more important considerations than our personal life experience. The economic system we have is damaging the planet and leading all of us towards a catastrophic biological and social breakdown that is likely to impact within decades. The fundamental cause is the fact that the levels of production and consumption, and thus resource use in rich countries, are far beyond those that can be sustained for much longer or extended to all the world’s people. Yet we have an economic system that cannot take us in any other direction. Capitalism is about maximising the amount of production for sale and constantly increasing it.
We cannot solve the alarming global problems confronting us if we continue to be committed to affluent-consumer lifestyles in economies driven by market forces and economic growth. For decades the argument for this “limits to growth” analysis of our situation has been overwhelmingly convincing, but it has been almost impossible to get people or governments to attend to it.
The way of life we have in rich countries involves average per capita rates of resource consumption that are probably more than seven times too high. (See below.) There is no possibility of the “living standards” of all people on earth ever rising to rich-world per capita levels of consumption of energy, minerals, timber, water, food, phosphorous, etc. These rates of consumption are generating most of the alarming global problems now threatening our survival, including resource depletion, environmental destruction, the deprivation of billions in the low-income countries, resource wars and deteriorating social cohesion and quality of life.
Most people have no idea of the magnitude of the overshoot, of how far we are beyond a sustainable levels of resource use and environmental impact. Here is an indication of the reasoning. (For the detailed derivation see Trainer, 2021a.)
The abundant literature on the “limits to growth” (Meadows, et al. 1972) and “planetary boundaries” (Richardson, 2023) has established that global and especially rich world rates of production and consumption are now far beyond levels that are sustainable. Rich world per capita levels are many times those that can be kept up indefinitely or could be generalised to all the world’s people. (Trainer, 2021.) Here is a brief outline of the supporting reasons.
The World Wildlife Fund’s “Footprint” measure (2022) indicates that the amount of productive land required to meet the demand of the average Australian is over 6 ha. This means that if the 10 billion people likely by 2050 rose to Australian “living standards” we would need around 60 billion ha. But the planet has only about 12 billion ha of productive land. Thus if one-third of it is left for nature the per capita amount available would average only 0.8 ha. In other words Australians today are using over 7 times the per capita amounts that would be available to all in 2050.
The Footprint measure takes into account only a limited number of factors. A full accounting of the sustainability overshoot would reveal a much higher multiple than is indicated above. The Planetary Boundaries approach identifies limits in 9 realms and states that sustainable limits have already been exceeded in 6 of them.
Almost all global resource sources are depleting. Mineral oil grades are falling, water resources are increasingly scarce, most fisheries are over fished, forests are diminishing, agricultural soils are being lost or damaged causing concerns about global food supply. It is likely that petroleum supply will peak within a decade.
Massive and accelerating damage is being inflicted on the ecosystems of the planet. A major consequence is the huge loss of species. This is mainly due to loss of habitats, and that is a consequence of economic growth. The damage is generating cost increases of many sorts especially due to storms, fire and floods. This is producing rapid rises in construction, production and insurance costs.
The major environmental impact is the climate crisis. Some scientists say there is now no possibility of limiting temperature rise by 2050 to 2 degrees, let alone 1.5. We are heading for over 3 degrees by 2050, and possibly 4.5…which would probably mean the end of civilisation. There is a strong case that renewables cannot sustain energy-intensive societies. (See below.) Carbon emissions continue to rise.
Around the world there is increasing discontent with government, fuelled by deteriorating living conditions and cost of living rises. Faith in democracy is declining and many are turning to authoritarian leaders. This will not solve their problems and is likely to lead to fascist regimes.
Rich world affluence is built on exploitative resource extraction from poor countries, estimated by Hickle to be worth a net annual flow of $2.5 trillion (2021), not including the environmental damage, low wages and social disruption left in poor countries. The global capitalist economy inevitably generates this outcome.
But there is one factor which trumps all of the above. It is the imminent inevitable collapse of the global financial system. The only way the global economy can be kept healthy has been by pumping in vast amounts of money created by the banking system and issued as debt. Global debt has tripled in three decades, is much higher than before the GFC, and is now totally unrepayable. It is not possible for the borrowed money to be invested in ventures that will repay it plus interest. It cannot be invested in productive activity basically because people suffering cost of living increases do not have the surplus purchasing power to buy more products. This cannot continue for much longer. At some point borrowers will realise that the debts are not going to be repaid. Catastrophic effects will quickly cascade, including widespread bank failures and loss of savings, bankruptcies, inability to finance trade, etc.
Too few realise the magnitude of the combined sustainability and injustice predicament set by these figures. Solutions cannot be achieved by reforms or action on the supply side; that is, by attempting to find more resources or reduce impact in an effort to meet existing demand. The overshoot is far too great now. They can only be achieved by enormous and radical transition to a very different social form, primarily defined in terms of much simpler lifestyle systems.
However this has only been an indication of the present grossly unsustainable situation. We must add the effect of economic growth. If by 2050 the expected 10 billion people were to rise to the GDP per capita Australians would have then, given 3% p.a. economic growth, then total world economic output would be over 12 times the present amount.
But the present amount is grossly unsustainable: the WWF estimates that at present we’d need 1.7 planet Earths to meet the present global productive land demand sustainably.
Rejection of this “limits to growth” case is usually based on the belief that technical advance will deal with the associated problems, that is, enable continued increase in production and consumption to be “decoupled” from resource demand and environmental impacts so that these can be brought down to sustainable levels while production and consumption and GDP continue to rise. But there are now many studies finding that this is not happening and is not at all likely to happen. (For devastating reviews see Parrique, et al. 2019, Haberl et al. 2021.)
These figures make glaringly obvious the impossibility of all people ever having the “living standards” we have taken for granted in rich countries like Australia. We are not just a little beyond sustainable levels of resource demand and ecological impact—we are far beyond sustainable levels. Again, few people seem to grasp the magnitude of the overshoot. We must face up to dramatic reductions in our present per capita levels of production and consumption.
But why think in terms of all people rising to rich-world levels? Even if we ignore the moral problem that would be set by assuming that the present rich few should go on consuming far more than their fair share of world resources, how secure would your future be if the presently highly unequal access to resources got even worse? Do you think this won’t lead to trouble? We have taught the world’s poorer peoples that progress is achieving materially higher “living standards” and GDP, so what happens when they realise that this is not possible for them? And what happens when their systems are collapsing because of deterioration in resource availability and price rises etc.? Are you ready to deal with the resulting civil wars and refugees from failed states containing billions of people?
In any case all the world’s nations are determined to rise to the “living standards” and levels of GDP that the few rich ones have, so whether you like it or not you had better think about whether that is possible, about the above reasons for concluding that it is not, and what we should do about it. You are going to have to cope with the resource and ecological effects of 10 billion people trying to live as affluently as average Australians do at present.
The main worry is not the present level of resource use and ecological impact discussed above, it is the level we will rise to given the obsession with constantly increasing the amount of production. If we assume: a) a 3% p.a. economic growth, b) a 2050 population of 1 billion and c) all the world’s people rising to the “living standards” we in the rich world would have in 2050 given 3% growth until then, the total volume of world economic output would be around 20 times as great as it is now, and doubling every 23 years thereafter.
So even though the present levels of production and consumption are grossly unsustainable the determination to have continual increase in income and economic output will multiply these towards absurdly impossible levels in coming decades. Increasing numbers of people are realising that growth is suicidal. There is now a global “Degrowth” movement.
This “limits to growth” perspective is the essential base from which to understand why we have the most serious global problems facing us. To repeat:
Resources are being depleted fast.
The environmental problem is basically due to the fact that far too much producing and consuming is going on, taking too many resources from nature and dumping too much waste back into nature.
Poverty and underdevelopment in the low-income countries are inevitable if a few living in rich countries insist on taking far more of the world’s resources than all could have.
Conflict and resource wars are inevitable if all aspire to rich world rates of consumption. Our rich world “living standards” could not be as high as they are if a great deal of repression and violence was not taking place, and rich countries contribute significantly to this.
The above figures show the extreme inequality in access to the planet’s resource wealth. Many people get so little that at least 600 million are hungry and more than that number have dangerously dirty water to drink. Hundreds of millions live on $5 per day or less. Why is there such gross economic injustice? Why do most people get far less than a fair share of world resources, especially when so many resources come from their lands?
This grotesque injustice is primarily due to the fact that the global economy is a capitalist economy and therefore operates on market principles and allows profit to determine what happens. In a market, need is totally irrelevant and is ignored. Instead things go mostly to those who are richer, because they can offer to pay more for them. Thus we in rich countries get almost all of the scarce oil and timber traded, while millions of people in desperate need get none. This explains why one third of the world’s grain is fed to animals in rich countries while hundreds of millions have insufficient food.
Even more importantly, the market system explains why Third World development is so very inappropriate to the needs of Third World people. What is developed is not what is needed; it is always what will make most profit for the few people with capital to invest. Thus land is put into development of export plantations and cosmetics factories but not into development of small farms and firms in which poor people could produce for themselves the basic goods they need. Many countries get almost no development at all because it does not suit anyone with capital to develop anything there, even though they have the land, water, talent and labour to produce most of the things they need for a simple but satisfactory quality of life. Chapter 5 elaborates on the way this economic system deprives the perhaps 5 billion poorest people in the world. But the same market mechanism determines that perhaps a billion people in rich countries also remain poor and struggling, because it will not allocate to them a fair share of the available resources, jobs or wealth.
These considerations of global sustainability and economic justice show that the big global problems cannot be solved in consumer-capitalist society. This economy cannot be fixed. The problems are being caused by some of the fundamental structures and processes built into this economy. There is no possibility of having an ecologically sustainable, just, peaceful and morally satisfactory society if we allow growth, market forces and the profit motive to be the major determinants of what happens, or if we constantly seek economic growth and ever-higher “living standards”. The longer we have this economic system the more we will accelerate into a time of great troubles from which we might never recover. Many are now saying this, including many scientists and economists, such as Bardi 2011, Collins 2018, Duncan 2013, Korowicz 2012, Kunstler 2005, Mason 2003, Morgan 2012, Greer 2005 and Gilding 2011. (See Chapters 8 and 11.)