My regular 6:30 a.m. shower is one of my favorite moments of the day. The shower is a perfect example of the excesses of the Western lifestyle. Every day, we wash billions of gallons of clean water down the drain, while thousands of people elsewhere in the world die from lack of safe drinking water. No, my daily shower doesn’t seem to be a contribution to a better, more sustainable world.
But my most creative moments come while I’m in the shower. New ideas and insights flow as the water pours over me; most of my plans are born there. My contribution to a better world would have been smaller if I’d spent less time in the shower. I would have “wasted” less water but done fewer good things. In other words, the world is better off if I keep taking showers.
The prevailing conversation about sustainability resembles my shower dilemma. The message set forth by the Club of Rome in the 1970s, “limits to growth,” still reverberates: Our natural resources are limited; too many people live on the planet. But the “If we start tiptoeing around, maybe Mother Earth won’t notice” approach isn’t going to get us there. Climate change can’t be tamed with soothing whispers; it requires all our creativity and energy.
The quest for sustainability is the modern variant of the Industrial Revolution, and it offers entire generations the opportunity to do meaningful work and redesign societies. We must take full advantage of that opportunity. But we can only do that if we let go of our defensive, conservative vision of sustainability and adopt a vision in which two aspects are central: people and economic growth.
After all, our goal is to create a sustainable world for people—all people—and so the fight against poverty must be an integral component of our quest. We live for each other and with the planet, not for the planet. To reach our goal, we need a great deal of the very best we have to offer: innovation and economic growth.
It’s wrong to think economic growth and sustainability are mutually exclusive. Nature is characterized by constant explosive growth. I can’t command the apple tree in our yard to slow down next season. Yet that’s exactly the message fed to citizens and companies: Lower your carbon emissions and your ecological footprint. That’s fine, but we need to achieve it through innovation and the same enthusiasm with which we’ve embraced the Internet and mobile telephony, not with tail-between-our-legs retreat. It’s very simple: If we limit growth, we ultimately limit innovation.
This is not a plea to keep consuming as much oil as we can. The question is, How do we grow the economy? We are already capable of doing much more with clean energy than we’re doing, and governments can stimulate that. Germany has the highest percentage of solar panels in the world—and that’s not because the sun shines any harder there. The fossil fuels we know and love will, indeed, run out. But the carbon and hydrogen atoms that compose these resources will still be available, and we will find new ways to combine those atoms to generate energy. In a sustainable hydrogen economy, the sun, the wind and the reaction between hydrogen and oxygen produce energy. There’s no need for carbon, thus no carbon emissions. The transformation of our energy supply holds exceptional opportunities for continued economic growth toward a cleaner and more prosperous world. No company has better utilized the potential of the Internet than Google. Sometime in the future, a new Google will rise up, a power company that will change our world even more dramatically. The digital revolution is passing billions of people by, but even the poorest resident of our planet uses energy on a daily basis. The enormity of the market for clean energy is almost inconceivable, as is how richly the pioneers in this energy revolution will be rewarded.
This is the problem that arises in every conversation about sustainability: In all our future projections, clean energy gains ground mere percentage point by percentage point, and so the Earth continues to warm up. But those projections are based on known elements, though history shows that it’s always the unknown that radically changes the world. The horse-drawn carriage wasn’t replaced by the automobile percentage point by percentage point. You don’t have to be a prophet to predict that the clean energy revolution will take the world by storm in a similar fashion. Not decades into the future, just years, the coal-fired power plant will seem a hopelessly old-fashioned source of energy, a dinosaur like the first clunky business computers of the 1950s, which occupied a company’s entire basement.
If we take history as our guide, we must trust that new energy solutions will invalidate all the climate scenarios that threaten us. There’s one condition, however: We must embrace the new sustainability with open arms and direct the process of change and growth, not disrupt or delay it.
On our way to the new sustainability, we have to dare to stay in the shower a little longer. That might mean, for example, that we accept China’s construction of more carbon-spewing coal plants, simply because China—and India and Brazil and every other developing country—first needs greater prosperity. That prosperity drives the economic vitality that gives rise to solutions. You can’t expect people fighting to survive to lead the search for sustainable energy. But wherever poverty is vanquished, opportunities arise. Thanks to those coal plants, China is an economic power, and its jump in prosperity makes it a frontrunner in sustainable initiatives. In other words, thanks to its dirty coal plants, China will soon be manufacturing the clean electric cars the world needs. To get there, we must step on the gas, not the brakes.
Humanity’s mantra: The more people, the more creativity—and the more solutions. That’s why the fight against poverty is essential to the new sustainability. Paul Hawken, author of Natural Capitalism, says, “We need to address sustainability in a wider sense. It is not only about humans and their environment. It is also about the social fabric of our world, and the painful divide between the rich and the poor.”
The world needs more economic growth to respond successfully to climate change. That isn’t a paradox, but a logical next step in the development of humanity’s potential—a process that has been going on for thousands of years. A vibrant, innovative and humane economy is the answer to the challenges facing humans and our planet.
And every one of us can contribute. Inspired by the abundant blossoms that grace our apple tree in the spring, I’m looking for answers that embrace more, not less. I’m searching for solutions that make the world lovelier and cleaner and fairer and richer—and I know that the generations before me have always managed to find those solutions. It’s 6:30 a.m., I’m taking a shower, and it’s going to be a fantastic day. | Jurriaan Kamp
Thanks for the article. I understand the point you are trying to make and to some degree I agree. However, the earth can only take so much and scientists have already said that we have reached a point of no return with regards to the damage that has been done. I know this is not in line with the Optimistic view Ode is trying to convey but we have to face the facts. Take the ocean for example. All this “economic growth” you speak of does more damage to it. The oceans are becoming acidic and reefs are dying as a result. Not to mention hundreds of species which are becoming extinct as a result! Economic growth comes at a cost, a very high one and from the evidence I have seen, the damage we have done is irreversible. You are only looking at one aspect, the need for energy and the fact that at some point, one day, we will have the solution. Human beings are a malignant cancer on this earth! Overpopulation is the problem – solve that and future generations might have a chance. Hopefully Mother Nature fights back and it looks like that is happening already. Bring on the natural disasters!! We deserve everything we get!
JK:
Alas, the Western Civilisation defines ‘growth’ only as economic growth–more and more activity–which is why it makes sense to argue that the vast human potential must be applied to the pursuit of MORE. A cleaner, nicer More, but More it has to be.
Actually, this essay did not convey optimism at all. It conveyed a fear of getting out of the proverbial shower. “What the hell will I do without the decadence that I’m used to?”, it says. “Oh well, here’s a solution: Dream on! Let’s bet that there is a clean solution out, there while I continue to cling to my habits. And while we’re at it, let’s also spin an argument in the favor of waste.”
What we need, dear JK, is a bloody full-stop. To place our optimism not in the possibility of distant solutions, but in our ability to transform ourselves and put a halt to our voracious need to consume.
Did you know, you can get equally excellent ideas on the chamber pot? Try convincing yourself to seek new and immediate solutions first than to continue to hide under the shower and pray that China will go clean.
Similar to you, it seems, I also see innovation through thriving ‘clean’ business the way of the future. But for two things, I reall enjoyed your article:
1) With all due respect, the call for unrestricted economic growth seems a little naive given the global financial meltdown occured BECAUSE unchecked economic growth and its attendent dark side ran amuck – and because the brightest mind around the globe couldn’t innovate beyond the system they knew. The ways (including the mindset) of the wealthy west (and rising east) need to dramatically change to allow for the kind of systemic and cultural innovation necessary to pave the way for the kind of balanced technological advanced, business innovation and economic growth you speak of. As Einstein said, problems can’t be corrected from the same mindset that created them – and big (economic) business has, of late, demonstrated it’s mindset is not always focused on either the greater good or long-term outcomes.
2) Sharing more of what we have NOW so we encourage & cultivate the conditions of, and opportunities available to, those whose talents and creativity have been neglected so they flourish and their contributions increase seems notably absent.
Isn’t the main goal of economics (from the Greek – oikos = home) to maintain a secure state of equilibrium for us to live in? To me, that means taking care of the basics – food, shelter, safety, peace.
And isn’t “growth” as commonly understood today all about increasing prosperity?
Surely these are two quite different and incompatible mindsets?
The apple tree grows , yes, but it doesn’t take over the rest of the field in doing so. Innovation isn’t needed to grow enough food to feed the world: fairness, and care, and taking a stance against greed and hostility, will do it.
As my mathematician father often tells me, suppose the economy grows at 5% per annum, then at compound interest rates that amounts to a growth of 50% in less than 9 years, and 100% in less than 15. That means that at that rate, we should all be twice as rich as we were 15 years ago – and there isn’t that much wealth in the world to be had! Wealth and prosperity doesn’t come out of thin air…….
Great concept for a magazine, but I’m quite disappointed in this fluff piece about an important topic in which a lot of work has been done. I’ll summarize:
Financial growth is meaningless. It’s what we measure, but it’s not what we want – what we want is the ability to exchange money for goods and services that make us happy and healthy. In other words, we need growth in intangible assets, such as trusted relationships, an environment conducive to mental and physical health, the ability to attain and maintain health, and continued learning.
But we don’t measure any of that in a formal way in the US. So “economic growth” is just truly useless as a measurement of the success of our “economy,” and sustainability is a term that also requires a thorough understanding of the ACTUAL things we have and want, not a projection of our current rate of depleting the environment vs. a rate at which the planet can sustain itself.
The reason you’re having trouble tying innovation into sustainability is because you’re comparing a straw man with an unused metrics system.
In response to some of Jessica’s concerns: The Economist is holding a competition for proposals on devising a new “Human Potential Index” which could be used as an alternative metric. There’s also Bhutan’s “Gross National Happiness” metric and the OECD’s “Quality of Life Index”.
I agree that we, as a culture do need a new ‘mind set’… a new ‘come from’. I also agree that the same old thinking that has brought us to the brink cannot be the way forward.
I agree totally that we are measuring the wrong stuff when we talk about success and prosperity. Ever expanding growth is (like the wonderful comment about… apple tree grows… but doesn’t take over the orchard) not what will safe us.
Learning to be At One with this Earth and it’s natural cycles and wisdom is what could… if it isn’t too late.
i found this very optimistic! Not the article, rather every one of the comments thus far. i am impressed by my fellow readers’ thinking on this issue, as well as their ability to offer divergent perspectives with clarity and respect for the dialogue. Thank you all.
Oh, I do apologize for the stronger-than-needed tone. The article just came to my attention at a time when I was feeling appalled at the continuity of the illusion that we can carry on producing and consuming more and more, while there will be amazing solutions… some time in the distance.
The greater issue, though, is that it’s not sufficient to reach one or the other ‘right’ conclusion. Rather, we’re in it together, and we have work to do together. This cannot be forced, hence it is awaited. So, here’s to hope in the time of darkness!
To JK’s credit, the piece did inspire me to write a poem about what growth could possibly mean, apart from, you know, apple trees taking over the planet.
Here’s a taster, folks:
– Excerpt from ‘Growth Is Not Just One Thing’
I’d like to see growth too, growth in compassion, sustainability, democracy, happiness, nutrition, health, literacy, social relationships, cultural exchange, peace, justice, and access to housing, education, healthcare, clean water, healthy food, innoculations, sanitation, social security, computers, and so on.
Myself, I love to drive a hundred miles an hour to work. It helps to wake me up. The near death experience results in me not taking my life for granted. The world is a better place … except for that future person or people that I’m going to run over and kill.
There’s so much wrong…both with your math and your attitude, that I really have no where to begin. Are you somehow more optimistic than someone trying to save a little bit of the future for our children and our children’s children? No, all you’ve proven is that you are more wasteful and ignorant. Call it greed or blind consumerism if you like, but don’t call it sustainability.