As US carbon emissions rise, the need for systemic change is clearer than ever

Power plant emitting CO2.
Support us and go ad-free

Recently released estimates show how US carbon emissions rose significantly in 2018. This is in spite of reductions in coal-derived energy and Obama-era drives to cut consumption.

This once again raises the question of whether tinkering around the edges of our economic and political systems is enough to deal with the climate chaos we face.

Disappointing rise after signs of progress

On 8 January, the Rhodium Group research firm released a study providing a preliminary estimate of a 3.4% increase in CO2 emissions in the US for 2018. The data is both troubling and confounding, especially as the previous three years all recorded a decline in emissions.

The increase was so large that it represents the “second largest annual gain in more than two decades”. Furthermore, carbon emissions have generally been experiencing a steady overall decline since 2005, owing in large part to developments in renewable energy and increased use of natural gas.

As the New York Times reported, the increase comes in spite of “a near-record number of coal plants around the United States [having been] retired last year.” It also pointed to another possible explanation, insisting that:

as the United States economy grew at a strong pace last year, emissions from factories, planes and trucks soared.

Unlimited growth at odds with climate responsibility?

The question of whether economic and other forms of growth could be fundamentally at odds with averting climate chaos is nothing new. In 1972, four academics associated with the environmentalist Club of Rome published a widely-debated book called The Limits to Growth.

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

They argued that failure to address trends in economic and population growth would lead to “sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity” at some point in the 21st Century. It was not entirely fatalistic, however. The scholars also argued that the development of stable and ecologically sustainable economic systems could avert this catastrophe for human societies across the planet.

The book first met with ridicule. A New York Times article, for example, described it as “an empty and misleading work.” Researchers at the University of Sussex, meanwhile, dismissed it as excessively pessimistic. And Yale University economist Henry C. Wallich argued that the work discounted the role technology could play in addressing such problems, and that deliberately slowing down growth could negatively impact poverty reduction.

As the new millennium dawned, however, esteem for the book began to rise.

The lost decades

In 2000, energy economist Matthew Simmons stated:

In hindsight, The Club of Rome turned out to be right. We simply wasted 30 important years ignoring this work.

In 2010, meanwhile, Danish scientists Jørgen Stig Nørgård, John Peet and Kristín Vala Ragnarsdóttir described the work as a “pioneering report”, which “has withstood the test of time and, indeed, has only become more relevant.”

In 2012, investigative journalist Christian Parenti said:

The Limits to Growth was a scientifically rigorous and credible warning that was actively rejected by the intellectual watchdogs of powerful economic interests. A similar story is playing out now around climate science.

And in 2014, the Guardian published an article reporting on research from the University of Melbourne showing that the book’s forecasts are accurate.

Time to get real

It’s time for global public opinion to consider very seriously whether tinkering at the edges of our economic norms is really going to be enough. Perhaps instead we should be looking for more radical change. The debate surrounding The Limits to Growth is palpably as relevant as ever, and it increasingly seems like its authors were right all along.

Featured image via Pixabay

Support us and go ad-free

Get involved

  • Join The Climate Reality Project or one of the many other environmental NGOs fighting global warming.
  • Support groups like WWF, RSPB, and Greenpeace.
  • See more of The Canary‘s Environmental articles.

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us