A response to UK government investment in Carbon Capture and Storage - part 1 - the problem
I found myself frustrated by the announcement of investment in CCS today, especially with nature based solutions and degrowth being potential ways forward.
I have started a conversation using Chat GPT to attempt to gain some insights, understanding and nuances whilst attempting to expose (politically unacceptable) blind spots and my own biases.
Let’s see how this use of technology helps.
I started with this request:
Perform a comparative analysis of carbon capture solutions and potential, considering carbon capture and storage and nature-based solutions including but not limited to rewilding, agroforestry, food forests. Show the nature positive benefits including increases in diversity, reduction in pesticides, soil restoration and water quality improvement. Include a table that provides a simple, easily understood comparison of the benefits of these different approaches with regard to carbon capture potential and he other factors listed above. Explore the hypothesis that CCS technologies are being promoted because of the national economic advantages of becoming technology leaders. Explore the flaws in this argument in regard to social equity and tendency of the profit from government investment to be captured by private industry. Explore other aspects so this is a balanced exploration in regard to being of benefit to the natural world and the thriving of all of humanity, using available, relevant research.
Not happy with this result, I asked for this to be extended:
Extend this essay considering underlying assumptions about infinite economic growth that exclude exploration of other options. These include a degrowth agenda where nature and human wellbeing becomes the measure of planetary thriving, replacing GDP. These will include but not be limited to reduction of our consumption; and understanding the true drivers of wellbeing; understanding how the profit motive positions companies as the only or primary means of meeting human needs. Please consider other alternative perspectives to ensure this is a baloanced view and avoid the bias in these instructions. Include all of these options in the comparative analysis.
And this was the result
Extended Comparative Analysis of Carbon Capture and Economic Models
In extending the analysis of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies and nature-based solutions (NbS), it is essential to explore the broader economic and philosophical assumptions that underlie current climate solutions. One fundamental assumption is that infinite economic growth can coexist with environmental sustainability, and that technology-driven solutions, like CCS, will enable economies to continue growing while reducing emissions.
This essay will explore alternative perspectives, including the degrowth agenda, which suggests that reducing consumption and focusing on well-being, rather than economic growth, should be the foundation of a thriving planet. This critique extends to the way GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is often used as the primary measure of societal success, ignoring other metrics of human and ecological well-being.
Incorporating these ideas into the comparative analysis, we will examine how degrowth and a well-being-centered economy could shift the way we approach climate change solutions. This will include exploring the reduction of consumption, a focus on human well-being as the central measure of success, and the reconsideration of the profit motive as the driving force for meeting human needs. These alternative perspectives will be considered in balance with the existing growth-based paradigms to ensure a comprehensive view.
1. Underlying Assumptions of Infinite Economic Growth
Modern climate policy often assumes that economic growth can continue indefinitely as long as technological solutions, such as CCS, are developed and implemented to decouple growth from emissions. This model prioritizes GDP growth as a marker of success and relies heavily on technological advancements to address environmental challenges without altering the fundamental structure of economies.
Challenges to this Assumption:
Ecological Limits: Infinite growth is fundamentally at odds with the finite resources of the planet. Ecological economists argue that continuous economic expansion leads to unsustainable resource extraction, ecosystem degradation, and loss of biodiversity.
Carbon "Decoupling": While CCS technologies aim to decouple emissions from industrial growth, they only address a narrow part of the problem. Continued growth in consumption, particularly in affluent societies, drives emissions from sectors such as agriculture, transportation, and consumer goods, which are not captured by CCS.
Resource Inequities: Economic growth, as measured by GDP, often overlooks social inequities and the unequal distribution of resources and benefits. While technological advances can provide solutions, they may disproportionately benefit wealthier nations and private corporations, leaving behind vulnerable populations.
2. The Degrowth Agenda and Nature-Centered Well-being
Degrowth is an economic philosophy that advocates for reducing overall consumption and production in wealthy nations, focusing instead on improving human well-being and ecological sustainability. Degrowth proponents argue that a reduction in consumption can lead to better outcomes for both people and the planet, challenging the idea that economic growth is necessary for human progress.
Key Principles of Degrowth:
Well-being over Growth: Human well-being should be measured through indicators like health, happiness, education, and environmental quality, rather than economic output.
Reduction of Consumption: Reducing the consumption of energy, goods, and natural resources is necessary to bring humanity back within planetary boundaries.
Nature as a Measure of Success: Instead of GDP, degrowth calls for measures that assess ecosystem health, biodiversity, and the regeneration of natural systems.
Local Economies and Self-Sufficiency: Degrowth emphasizes local economies, regenerative agriculture, and community resilience, reducing dependence on global supply chains and resource-intensive industries.
3. Critique of the Profit Motive
Another assumption embedded in current models is that private companies, driven by the profit motive, are the most efficient means of meeting human needs, including addressing climate change. This viewpoint underpins the promotion of CCS and other technological solutions, which are often developed and deployed by private corporations with government support.
Challenges to the Profit Motive:
Public Goods vs. Private Profits: Climate stability, clean air, water, and biodiversity are public goods that benefit everyone. However, privatizing the solutions (e.g., through CCS technologies) can result in the profits from public investment being captured by a few corporations, while the costs are borne by taxpayers and the public.
Social Equity: Companies driven by profit may focus on solutions that maximize returns rather than those that provide the greatest social or environmental benefit. This can lead to inequitable access to climate solutions, leaving marginalized communities without the benefits.
Alternative Models: Publicly funded, community-driven initiatives, such as community-based rewilding or cooperative agroforestry, may offer more equitable and sustainable solutions. These models emphasize collective ownership, local decision-making, and shared benefits, which align with the goals of degrowth and nature-positive solutions.
4. Alternative Perspectives: Balanced View
While the degrowth agenda and critiques of the profit motive provide important insights, it is also necessary to consider alternative views that acknowledge the role of technology, private sector innovation, and economic growth in addressing global challenges.
Technological Innovation: Technological advances have historically improved human well-being by reducing labor, increasing food security, and expanding access to healthcare and education. Many argue that green technologies like CCS, renewable energy, and electric transportation are essential for decarbonizing the economy without sacrificing the benefits of modern life.
Mixed-Economy Approaches: Some argue for a mixed-economy approach, where governments invest in both nature-based and technological solutions. By balancing public investment in green technologies with local, community-based nature restoration projects, societies can decarbonize while ensuring that climate policies benefit a broad spectrum of society.
Global South Development: For developing nations, economic growth remains essential for lifting people out of poverty and improving quality of life. The degrowth agenda may be more applicable to affluent nations, where overconsumption is a problem, but it needs to account for the development needs of the Global South. A balanced approach would emphasize climate justice, ensuring that wealthier nations take on the burden of reducing consumption and emissions while supporting sustainable growth in less affluent countries.
5. Comparative Analysis: Integrating Degrowth, Profit Motive Critiques, and Mixed Economies
Conclusion: Balancing Economic Growth, Nature, and Human Well-being
The comparative analysis reveals that while CCS technologies offer high carbon capture potential, they do so without providing broader ecological or social benefits. Nature-based solutions like rewilding, agroforestry, and food forests deliver substantial benefits to biodiversity, soil health, water quality, and community well-being but may have lower short-term carbon sequestration potential compared to CCS.
Exploring the degrowth agenda offers a powerful critique of the infinite growth paradigm, suggesting that human well-being, not GDP, should be the measure of success. It also highlights the need to reduce consumption and reimagine how economies meet human needs. However, a balanced perspective that integrates both technological and nature-based approaches, prioritizing social equity and ecological well-being, may provide the most comprehensive path forward.
Ultimately, the future of climate solutions must address not just the technical aspects of carbon capture but also the underlying assumptions about economic growth, equity, and the relationship between human well-being and nature.