The Dangers of Decoupling: Earth System Crisis and the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’

Abstract

The question of whether global capitalism can resolve the earth system crisis rests on the (im)possibility of 'absolute decoupling': whether or not economic growth can continue indefinitely as total environmental impacts shrink. Ecomodernists and other techno-optimists argue for the feasibility of absolute decoupling, whereas degrowth advocates show that it is likely to be neither feasible in principle nor in the timeframe needed to ward off ecological tipping points. While primarily supporting the degrowth perspective, I will suggest that the ecomodernists have a wildcard in their pocket that hasn't been systematically addressed by degrowth advocates. This is the 'Fourth Industrial Revolution', which refers to convergent innovations in biotechnology, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, 3D printing, and other developments. However, I will argue that while these innovations may enable some degree of absolute decoupling, they will also intensify emerging risks in the domains of biosecurity, cybersecurity, and state securitization. Overall, these technologies will not only place unprecedented destructive power in the hands of non-state actors but will also empower and incentivize states to create a global security regime with unprecedented surveillance and force mobilization capacities. This reinforces the conclusion that mainstream environmental policies based on decoupling should be reconsidered and supplanted by alternative policy trajectories based on material-energetic degrowth, redistribution, and technological deceleration. Policy Implications• Policy makers should explore the evidence challenging mainstream assumptions about 'green growth' and consider the possibilities for a 'post-growth' transition.• Policy makers should recognize the potentially catastrophic risks posed by Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies, which will increase in severity if they are relied upon to decouple economic growth from growing resource consumption.• To manage the risks posed by Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies, citizens assemblies should be empowered to shape the pace and direction of innovation and deployment, rather than relying solely on traditional arms control and private sector initiatives.

Scientists’ warning on affluence

“…While the digital revolution undoubtedly increases labour productivity-demonstrated by individual leading businesses showing a strong productivity paradox-it remains to be seen whether the same is true for resource productivity, and this will depend on governance and regulation. Even if the FIR were to achieve absolute decoupling, this would come at a potentially high risk for privacy, liberty, data sovereignty, civic rights, security, equality and democracy 96,97 .…”

Climate change and agrarian struggles: an invitation to contribute to aJPSForum

“…This implies technical competence and distributive and allocative efficiency (rather than justice), all with unbridled expanded reproduction of capital and economic growth without limits, celebrating a peculiarly Western vision of modernity and progress (Isenhour 2016). The controversial 'ecomodernist manifesto' published by the Breakthrough Institute (Asafu-Adjaye et al 2015) encapsulates this view, with an argument for technology-led decoupling of economy and environment that has provoked many critiques (Caradonna et al 2015;Hickel 2020;Albert 2020).…”

The EU’s Green Deal: A Third Alternative to Green Growth and Degrowth?

“…This is why several observers have pointed out that absolute decoupling is unlikely to happen in the near future and that relative decoupling will not be sufficient to reverse the damage done [22]. The belief that growth is possible without environmental burden, and even more so, with reduced environmental burden rests on the yet unproven premise that technology can undo the harm done without causing further harm, either in the farther future or in the form of externalities (for instance, pollution in the regions where raw materials are extracted, disruption of local communities, the creation of more social inequalities, the making of surveillance societies [32]. Indeed, both the production and disposal of new green technologies involve processes that are often hidden from public scrutiny or simply not disclosed to the end users of these technologies.…”