Economic growth cannot save us from deforestation

Written by Dr Hannah Wauchope, Lecturer in Ecology and Conservation

Emissions are rising, deforestation and green space destruction continue, and we are breaching more planetary boundaries. Clearly, we need stronger solutions to solve the joint climate/biodiversity crises.

People often take it as a given that economic growth is the only means of human progress, with the UN making sustained growth an explicit Sustainable Development Goal. Consistent critiques have pointed out the impossibility of endless growth on a finite planet¹, yet for more than 50 years, global economies have shown a near single-minded pursuit of it. In recent decades, there has been an increasing focus on the idea that environmental protection can walk hand in hand with economic growth².

However, there is no evidence that green growth is possible³. Higher GDP equates to higher resource consumption and more intensive land use⁴. Studies show that if the global north has been able to reduce (though not eliminate) local environmental harms associated with economic growth it is only because it has externalised those harms to the global south⁵. Meanwhile, improved technological efficiency does not reduce resource consumption; it often increases it, a phenomenon known as Jevons paradox⁶. Clean energy technologies still cause environmental harm, whether land for solar panels⁷ or mining for metals⁸.

The deforestation paradox

What all this means is that plans for environmental protection, that rely on economic growth are a paradox. For example, the Tropical Forests Forever Facility (TFFF),⁹ introduced at last year’s COP30 in Belem, is an innovative scheme to fund the protection of tropical forests through dividends from investment that, within current systems, could help some countries to reduce deforestation. Even though TFFF precludes direct investment in fossil fuel or deforestation-related industries, returns from other investments will indirectly and inevitably rely on resource extraction.

Emerging nature markets focus on preventing environmental destruction by allowing landholders to be paid to protect their natural habitats. Yet, in a similar way, these payments very often come from companies and economies looking to offset their emissions from growth.¹⁰ What’s more, our research has shown that nature crediting schemes inevitably involve abstractions of the true value of nature, meaning they can cause more harm than good¹¹. Studies from others at Edinburgh¹² have shown that the accounting used to determine offsets often exaggerates their benefits.

Preserve and reduce

In both of the above examples, clients are paying for protection using profits from damage. But to achieve climate and biodiversity targets, we need to preserve what remains of the natural world and reduce harms, not one or the other. We do not need endless growth for wellbeing: though some degree of growth has and will continue to bring poorer nations out of poverty¹³, in wealthier countries such as the UK, the link has been broken. Growth increasingly serves to accumulate wealth and affluence in the hands of a few¹⁴.

Instead, we must turn to new economic models that are compatible with a good life ¹⁵for all and a sustainable planet¹⁶. This means increasing regulation to safeguard areas of the planet, permanently, from potential harm from destructive resource extraction, and transitioning to economies that make circular use of the resources we already have from the rest. To break out of the current system will require international cooperation and strong and decisive leadership, by leaders able to speak clearly for the rights and needs of the majority of living beings on the planet. Researchers at Edinburgh are working on solutions to foster these goals. For example, work arguing for stronger regulation of protected areas¹⁷, or discussing how to achieve international regulation of shared resources,¹⁸ ways to recover critical metals from recycling, or ensuring that energy transitions are just and fair.¹⁹

Growth cannot save us

It is time for us to take a clear-eyed look at the system that is trapping us. We cannot shy away from the paradox that lies at the heart of many proposed solutions: that of relying on the very thing that is causing environmental degradation to try and fix it. Growth cannot save us. Wise regulation can.

I am grateful for conversations with Sophus zu Ermgassen on this topic, as well as Harrison Carter on matters of Biodiversity Finance.

_{Image credits: Forest by Rudolf Jakkel; birds-eye view of trees by Pok Rie; logs by Khari Hayden and sunny forest by Nejc Kosir}

1. The Limits to Growth ↩︎
2. Towards Green Growth ↩︎
3. Is Green Growth Possible? ↩︎
4. Biodiversity policy beyond economic growth ↩︎
5. Increasing impacts of land use on biodiversity and carbon sequestration driven by population and economic growth ↩︎
6. Understanding the Jevons paradox ↩︎
7. Renewables in Spain threaten biodiversity ↩︎
8. Sustainable bio-mining from Space technologies ↩︎
9. Tropical Forests Forever Facility (TFFF) proposes innovative financing model for conservation ↩︎
10. Brazil proposes global integration of carbon markets at COP30 ↩︎
11. What is a unit of nature? Measurement challenges in the emerging biodiversity credit market ↩︎
12. The most important GHG accounting concept you may not have heard of: the attributional-consequential distinction ↩︎
13. The Role of Income Inequality for Poverty Reduction ↩︎
14. The Post-Growth Challenge—Secular Stagnation, Inequality and the Limits to Growth ↩︎
15. A good life for all within planetary boundaries ↩︎
16. Doughnut of social and planetary boundaries monitors a world out of balance ↩︎
17. Protected areas have a mixed impact on waterbirds, but management helps ↩︎
18. Making the Law of the Sea ↩︎
19. Dr Kirsten E H Jenkins ↩︎