Sufficiency is a field of action that seeks to enhance the material wellbeing of the world’s poorest but simultaneously supports a more just distribution of the scarce resources provided by the Earth. Sadhbh O’Neill, a lecturer in climate policy and member of Dublin City University Centre for Climate and Society, in an article on the Irish Times website, argues that an entirely different model of progress and a new ethic that embraces sufficiency and equity together.
From efficiency to sufficiency: the new logic of sustainability
This year, Earth Overshoot Day will take place on July 28th.
This day marks the date when humanity’s demand for ecological resources and services in a given year exceeds what Earth can regenerate in that year. Scientists estimate that we would need the regenerative capacity of 1.5 Earths to provide the ecological services we currently use.
The consequences of resource depletion and overuse are becoming all too evident. Increasing degradation of land and marine ecosystems, accumulation of waste and the alarming growth in the concentration of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are not just local problems but global emergencies. Five of the planetary boundaries have been overshot: climate change, biodiversity loss, nitrogen and phosphorous loading and land-system change. However, for many poor countries, increasing levels of resource use and energy consumption are still necessary to achieve basic needs.
A crucial question, therefore, is the level of biophysical resource use that would meet basic needs and how this could be extended to all people without exceeding critical planetary boundaries. There is now a significant body of research which attempts to answer this question quantitatively for a range of ecological and social indicators.
Researchers at the University of Leeds together with chapter 5 of the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report point to the concept of sufficiency and degrowth. It’s not just a question of doing more with less: sufficiency requires a paradigm shift towards “enoughness”, a model for economics that is shaped around intra- and intergenerational fair shares of the world’s resources. Sufficiency is a field of action that seeks to enhance the material wellbeing of the world’s poorest but simultaneously supports a more just distribution of the scarce resources provided by the Earth.
The 6th IPCC assessment report endorses some of these approaches highlighting the potential for a transition based on modal shifts, plant-based diets and prioritising ways in which decent living standards can be provided in ways that bring multiple interacting benefits. But sufficiency is not just about reducing consumption. On the production side, business models will need to understand value creation in new ways that support product longevity and sharing practices, as well as a fundamental shift in sales tactics and marketing. Fundamentally, however, sufficiency demands a reorientation towards limited or no growth in profits and GDP [gross domestic product].
Conventional neoclassical economics maintains degrowth is unnecessary as GDP growth can be maintained if economic growth is “decoupled” from resource use through, for example, improving energy efficiencies, new technology and renewables. But GDP growth makes climate action much, much harder because the scale effect of growth drives up resource use.
The scholar Jason Hickel notes that an equity framework requires rich, high-emitting countries to commit to about 13 per cent annual reduction rates in greenhouse gases. But this figure is seven times the decoupling (or efficiency improvement) rates between 1970 and 2013. It is not realistic, he argues, for wealthy countries to rely on relative decoupling to meet the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement. Absolute emission reductions and much lower levels of resource use will be necessary in ways that limit the possibility of rebound effects, where savings in energy use are eaten up by other activities.
Staying within planetary boundaries also requires a radical global redistribution of wealth from the rich north to the global south. As Hickel notes, this amounts to a fundamental reorientation of development theory from focusing primarily on the deficiencies of poor countries to focusing on the excesses of rich countries, including Ireland. This could involve caps on resource use and pollution for key indicators so that we never extract more than the Earth can safely regenerate, and never pollute more than it can absorb.
For rich countries, an equitable global framework requires very significant reductions in per capita material and ecological footprints as well as drastic and sustained reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. However, many researchers argue that degrowth can be achieved without any loss to social wellbeing, and it could even enhance wellbeing if done equitably. Staying within the safe operating space for humanity, or the doughnut, as Kate Raworth describes it, could be accomplished by downscaling ecologically destructive industries, while shortening the working week, by distributing existing income and resources more fairly through progressive taxation and reallocation into social spending.
The general trend shows that the more social thresholds a country achieves, the more biophysical boundaries it transgresses, and vice versa. Breaking this vicious and inequitable cycle will require an entirely different model of progress and a new ethic that embraces sufficiency and equity together.
4 thoughts on “Not just a question of doing more with less, sufficiency requires paradigm shift towards ‘enoughness’”
For decades, it has been acknowledged that employing Gross Domestic Product as the main criterion by which to judge a government’s relative all-round success is an insurmountable barrier towards addressing the threat of climate change.
So why on earth do international institutions devote so little time and effort towards establishing a less overtly damaging measure of progress?
Unfortunately, there is no good answer to your question. You are so right.
Progress started with the industrial revolution. The more things we could make and have the better off we were. Electric clothes washers freed us from a lot of work. So did electric irons and stoves. Nobody wants to go back to the days before the revolution. We will gave progress until the last bit of fossil fuels are used. Then we will go back. Unless we reach a tipping point toward sustainability before tgst happens. I see no signs that we are anywhere bear that point yet. We love our cars and planes snd plastics more than we care about the future of our grandchildren.
You make excellent points. I don’t see those signs either.