Between April and June this year, non-profit organisations in Italy, Austria, Denmark and Ireland took the initiative to follow the footsteps of the 2023 European Parliament’s Beyond Growth Conference, for some the highlight of the 2019-2024 legislature. The European Environmental Bureau (EEB), in collaboration with the Wellbeing Economy Alliance, Friends of the Earth Europe and the European Youth Forum, facilitated the Europe-wide collaboration to strengthen the movement and its impact.

Here are some personal impressions from those events:

Ireland – Rethinking Growth Conference

Digging into our values

There was a really beautiful session called ‘Decolonising the Social Imaginary: how can we do Economics in the Fifth Province’ (NB. Ireland has only four provinces but province in Irish language means ‘fifth’).  It was all about the specificities of Ireland’s socio-cultural heritage and how these can be harnessed toward a post-growth transition. This discussion was very different from all the other ones as it reconnected us, participants, with our sense of humanity and made us think about which values we want to celebrate in a post-growth society. It made me reflect deeply on how crucial it is to honour these aspects in the economic policy and campaigning work we do, which can sometimes be quite dry and lack the more spiritual and philosophical aspects which are so central to building a different kind of society.

A provocative star speaker

Saoirse Exton, a youth climate activist, who has led the climate strikes in Ireland, was asked to do a closing speech at the event. She expressed her anger at how youth’s voices were not present throughout, how the issue of Palestine was not brought up to the forefront and how she was overall disappointed by the lack of radicality in the discussions she followed. Despite her provocation, the audience was fully on-board with the issues she raised and it made me think how much appetite there is to be radical in the ways we are holding these spaces – so that we can get to the crux of the issues we want to change. To me, this also reflected the need to put youth, working class, as well as black and brown voices front and centre of these discussions rather than adding them in an effort to increase diversity. The de- or post-growth movement still has a long way to go to honour this but is also well placed to do so.

Contribution by: Emilie Tricarico

Denmark – Wellbeing Economy Conference

Speeches and satire

My prize for best speakers is shared between anthropologist Jason Hickel and performance artist Mette Riise. The former got a standing ovation after talking about the macro transformation needed to make the degrowth transition globally just. The latter presented a brilliant satiric performance about “Denmark as a corporation”, valuing profits from armaments sales and business-as-usual rather than people and planet. It was especially outstanding since a wide range of politicians were sitting there forced to listen.

Not radical enough?

Many felt that the conference was not radical enough and some of the sessions were still dominated by green growth narratives. I believe this trade-off comes from the deliberative attempt to unite stakeholders across the green spectrum and beyond. It was a pity not seeing any labour unions representatives.

Contribution by: Linda Luciani 

Italy – Beyond Growth Italia

Walking the talk

I appreciated that organisers pledged to follow up with concrete actions, including:
General States of Degrowth (Stati Generali della Decrescita) 2025: organising a future major event that brings more of these bottom-up initiatives together in a space where they can elaborate on their joint demands and strategies.
A letter to the Italian MEPs: a joint letter about the urgency for degrowth policy action, like the one sent to the EU commission and signed by scholars and organisations after the Beyond Growth conference in Brussels in May 2023.

Contribution by: Linda Luciani 

Austria – Beyond Growth Austria

Creating spaces for intersectional alliance

The event opened with speeches from several high-level politicians, including the president of Austria, all of whom emphasised the critical importance of a broad alliance and the need for a more holistic vision of the economy as part of society. In a new economic system based on human wellbeing and planetary health, a large number of groups needs to support each other, including civil society and workers in the health sector, environmental organisations, trade unions, anti-colonial and anti-imperial movements, people affected by poverty, anti-racism collectives, feminist initiatives, trade experts and academics. Beyond Growth Austria demonstrated very clearly the benefit of inclusive spaces which empower these groups to have explicit discussions on an economy beyond growth.

Social acceptance of degrowth ideas

Sustainability researcher Halliki Kreinin inspired me with her arguments on social acceptance of beyond growth policies. She hit the audience with a sharp conclusion: the awareness around ecological and social crises is definitely present among the broader public, but so is the fear that a transition would (continue to) happen on the backs of those who are already exploited. To avoid this injustice, we  need more radical policy proposals and narratives. For example, acknowledging the social and environmental harm of luxury products could quickly become a social norm and have a transformative effect.

Pro-social behaviour in an (AI-assisted) image

At the event, I spotted “Glimpses of Flourishing”, an exhibition from the Flourishing Society, who translated sociological research into memorable AI-assisted images. As they write: “one key step to shape a successful and sustainable future is to imagine it”.

The Flourishing Society explains:

“In our picture, we have depicted a monument in which the everyday prosocial behaviour of people is honoured. […] It was found that people often act prosocially without considering a benefit for themselves (‘uncalculating cooperation’). Furthermore, people who do this are perceived as more trustworthy than people who cooperate in a calculating manner. […] These findings stand in stark contrast to the observation that materialistic influences reduce well-being […]. Nevertheless, materialistic influences dominate our public space and exert a strong influence on how we construct our reality – and how we make political decisions.”

Contribution from: Boon Breyne

The post A wave of Beyond Growth economics rolls across Europe appeared first on New Leaf.

A few months before the European Green Deal was published by Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen, the Brussels-Capital Region Government published its own climate roadmap, the “Brussels Green Deal,” in a way, where the Government committed to put all its public policies at the service of its ambitious climate objectives.

Against this backdrop, I was honoured to become responsible for the economic portfolio and hastened to rename it the economic transition portfolio. By doing so, I wanted to signify the need for the Brussels economy to fundamentally transform itself so that it could become a partner in the coalition for ambitious climate goals rather than an obstacle.

But how do you do that? How do you transform a field so fundamentally entrenched with growth objectives based on exploiting environmental and human resources and embodied by the infamous Gross Domestic Product? How to make the outside world understand this willingness to change the paradigm? How do you do it appealingly? And how do we create enthusiasm and desire for transformation?

At approximately that time, I learned about the Doughnut Economics theory by Oxford economist Kate Raworth and became inspired. I started to dream about the potential of this concept for a territory such as the Brussels Region and how it could provide us with alternative economic instruments, which would help us embody the economic transition I knew was so desperately needed and made it tangible to Brussels economic actors.

Despite Covid, the stars aligned as a consortium of Brussels researchers and co-creation experts, as well as Kate Raworth and her crew, teamed up to downscale the doughnut at the Brussels region level.

We co-created several methodologies through this experience and the participation of more than 200 regional and local public administrations, businesses, civil society, and citizens. By experimenting with these techniques, the Brussels economic operators got tools to apply the concept of Doughnut Economics at their scale, be it the public policies they draught and implemented, the products they sold, or the economic choices they made and the way they interacted with their ecosystem.

But the doughnut experience didn’t only help us guide the others in their transformation; it also helped us advance and deepen the economic transition of the Brussels-Capital Region. It lent us the fundamentals upon which we could draught Shifting Economy, the Brussels regional strategy for the economic transition, by demonstrating that the ecological ceilings and the social foundation—considered “negative externalities” by mainstream economists—represent the base upon which the Brussels economy could thrive. Thanks to the Doughnut experience, we decided to anchor into Shifting Economy the notion of “social and environmental exemplarity” and use it as the criteria to define whether an economic activity could be financially supported by public money.

This is a massive paradigm shift in economic policies—in Brussels and beyond. Should the European institutions adopt the notion of social and environmental exemplarity, many economic instruments and public policies could be reoriented to serve the European Green Deal’s objectives genuinely. Think about state aid and industrial policy, for instance: at a time when the EU is searching for a better way of helping its industry cope with external challenges and to ensure that it follows the green way, opening the aid only to the environmental and social exemplary business models would give a clear signal to which business models are needed to reach the 2050 goal of net zero. This doesn’t need a treaty change or a big revolution. This only requires the will to identify the economic activities that will be helpful in the transition and to be ambitious about them.

At the Brussels level, to this date, we keep unrolling the doughnut because we want to raise awareness among all the economic actors about their need to shift from doing nothing or “doing less harm” to “doing truly good” for the planet and its people. We are convinced that it is only if we can count on the action and goodwill of ALL that our impact will be sufficient to achieve the objective of thriving within a decarbonized, regenerative, circular, and inclusive economy. We will not transition with a few frontrunners. We will succeed with everybody united around a common objective. To the sceptics, we are not saying that growth is passé. We would instead emphasise what needs to be done to prosper within the “dough” of the doughnut, or, in other words, what should be done to thrive within an ecologically safe and socially just space. Working on social and environmental exemplarity is an excellent place to start. And I hope you will join us!

The post Shifting the Brussels Economy – A Doughnut Story appeared first on New Leaf.

The vote. The weekend. Paid holidays. Paid sick leave. Publicly funded healthcare and schooling. The right to free assembly and to go on strike.

Such rights might sometimes be considered permanent and inalienable. But it’s worth remembering they’ve neither always existed, nor are they guaranteed in perpetuity. Indeed, most of them have been won through the determination and solidarity of people united in protest. But what do we mean by protest, why is it so relevant for addressing the climate and biodiversity crises, and why is it at stake today? Ben Snelson reports.

In healthy democracies, peaceful protest is a fundamental cog in the wheel of politics. A means of expressing and empowering the voices of people and civil society, it is a vehicle through which to drive change on issues – be they social, economic, or environmental – that affect us all. When those in power choose to bypass and act against the interests of the very people they are supposed to represent, protest is drawn upon as a vital instrument of popular leverage to vent dissatisfaction with, correct the errors of, or demand action from, policymakers.

As anyone who has taken part in a public demonstration will know, protest is often characterised by noise, creativity, humour, music, physical occupation of space, and a sense of collective wellbeing. Indeed, large- and small-scale protests can all serve as invaluable reminders of the immense power of cohesive society and of our close connection with total strangers assembled around a common rejection of the status quo and a shared desire to change things for the better. Together, we are infinitely more than the sum of our parts.

If not now, when? 

In line with the ever-growing scale of the climate and biodiversity crises, people are increasingly alive to the consequences of this existential threat – and of the urgent need for real action to mitigate it. Evidence of climate catastrophe surrounds us. Indeed, for hundreds of millions of people, particularly in the Global South, but increasingly also in Europe, violent climate-related disasters such as extreme wildfires, droughts, floods and hurricanes are becoming punishingly frequent. By 2050, more than one billion people may be forced to leave their homes due to climate change.

In 2015, a sense of hope on climate action was awakened by historic commitments made at the Paris Climate Conference, a landmark summit at which the world’s governments pledged major reductions in emissions to limit global heating to 1.5 degrees in an effort to prevent irreversible climate and biodiversity collapse. 

Yet, despite the fanfare and self-congratulation that marked that momentous occasion, eight years on action still falls woefully short of the promises made. With the dawning realisation that the Paris Agreement was a masterclass in hot air, and that governments were not implementing the necessary policies to honour environmental commitments, people turned to Plan B. 

Plan B was centred on the grassroots organisation and mobilisation of local communities, which led to a series of movements across the world no longer requesting, but rather insisting on, government action commensurate with the scale of the crisis. 

This sea-change was vividly embodied by Fridays for Future (FFF) and Extinction Rebellion (XR) – organisations identifiable for their innovative, inclusive, peaceful, direct, no-nonsense approach to sounding the alarm and demanding action on climate breakdown. Buoyed by mass popular support, their activities snowballed across Europe and the world, with city centres and country towns alike becoming public theatres for major demonstrations. 

The FFF movement, powered by children skipping school every Friday, emphasises the irrelevance of education if those in power disregard scientific evidence and ignore expert counsel on the urgent need for action. Founded in 2018 by then-solo activist Greta Thunberg, the movement – backed by teachers, academics, parents and grandparents – has established national chapters across the world. This growth has spawned new youth leadership, for instance in Vanessa Nakate in Uganda and Disha Ravi in India – two among many who have campaigned fearlessly to elevate awareness of the climate emergency, and have given relatable meaning to alarming statistics with real human stories. In 2019, FFF led a ‘Global Climate Strike’ – the first ever truly worldwide protest. This coordinated action involved four million people joining demonstrations in 163 countries across all seven continents. One of the greatest achievements of the millions of children fuelling the FFF movement has been their ability, despite their young age, to inspire older generations to rally to their cause. 

Extinction Rebellion – following its success in raising awareness and mainstreaming the discussion on climate change in the UK (by forcing the media to address something it could no longer ignore) – has amassed 1,265 local chapters across 79 countries. In the same way that FFF has produced new young leaders, XR has also provided a platform for such talent, for instance in South African Othembele Dyantyi who at age 11 was already an inspiration for pan-African youth activism. 

Far from being organisations driven by fringe self-interest, FFF, XR and others have demonstrated the importance and power of protest in opening fora for public participation on environmental issues and holding governments to account on their own climate promises. 

Fox in the henhouse

The UNFCCC’s annual Conference of the Parties (COP) reunions dedicated to discussions on climate change should inspire not only hope, but real action. Attended by virtually all of the world’s governments, the most influential companies on the planet, and an army of grassroots and civil society organisations, COP’s potential to deliver meaningful and lasting solutions is unmatched. But unfortunately, given an alarming lack of political will and leadership among the most powerful, this unique potential faces endemic obstruction. 

The main global, publicly funded institution devoted to climate action has become an unabashed forum for pontification, standing ovations, ribbon-cutting and handshakes. A growing body of evidence also indicates that it’s being used by private sector entities to advance extensive greenwashing. Indeed, given the high number of fossil fuel lobbyists present at COP events, some are giving a new meaning to the acronym: Conference of Polluters.

For illustration, the vast majority of the COP27 (Egypt, 2022) sponsors had direct ties to fossil fuels – the greatest greenhouse gas-emitting industry. Coca-Cola, the “world’s top polluter” was a key sponsor for the same event. Emboldened by this low bar, in a perverse and almost surreal turn, the UAE has nominated the head of its main state oil company to lead the COP28 summit this year. The World Health Organisation doesn’t consult the views of Big Tobacco to inform its operations – for obvious reasons. So why should the climate-wrecking fossil fuel industry wield such influence over the UNFCCC? Is it unreasonable to suggest that this is a screaming contradiction? 

Greenwashing has become ingrained across the private sector, now constituting a cornerstone of business and marketing strategies that capitalise on people’s environmental concerns. This is shown by ubiquitous misleading – and often simply untrue – claims plastered across food and consumer goods. In the absence of effective regulation, baseless green claims are running rampant. 

While greenwashing is the prevailing modus operandi of the private sector, in the public realm too, many policymakers keen to appear serious on climate subscribe to a similar strategy: ‘citizenwashing’. When we hear our leaders or public officials declaring that “citizens have been consulted, and…”, “the citizens have spoken”, and “what citizens want is…”, we should be careful. While of course not always the case, these sweeping assertions may sometimes ignore the inconvenient reality that engagement with these “citizens” has been late in the process, superficial at best, or purely symbolic.

Without the corresponding action to match leaders’ words, and with major polluters usurping institutions specifically created to address climate change, it should come as no surprise that many people’s faith in existing architecture for climate diplomacy is fading, and patience is wearing thin. 

Right to protest threatened

People can influence political and policymaking processes in various ways. On the environment, this might be through signing petitions, writing letters to policymakers, supporting social media campaigns, engaging in open debates, giving press and media interviews, or contributing to public consultations. These are fundamental tools that can facilitate citizens’ involvement in making decisions on serious issues that affect us all. Indeed, the international Aarhus Convention – signed by 46 parties including all EU member states and the EU itself – stipulates the right of all individuals to access information regarding the environment, as well as promoting public participation in environmental decision-making, and offering public recourse to accessing justice when governments fail to ensure it.

But what happens when civil engagement initiatives – to which concerned people devote significant time and effort, mostly on an unpaid basis – amount to nothing, or are ignored by those in power? In these scenarios, with all conventional avenues of informing policy exhausted, people are left with a ‘last resort’: protest. 

Citizens’ rights to safe assembly, association, and freedom of expression are protected in international charters and European jurisprudence, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 20), the European Convention of Human Rights (Article 11) and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 12). Indeed, there are many instances where, when these rights have been infringed upon by European governments, the European Court of Human Rights has upheld them, often leading to stronger protections within national legislation.

Whether or not you support the means employed by XR, Just Stop Oil, Last Generation and similar organisations, one can only accept that their actions have had far-reaching effects in igniting a widespread public conversation on the climate emergency, and the action it demands. However, given their embrace of direct action, they have also contributed to a hardening of political attitudes which, in turn, has led to repressive legislation and rendered much public protest unlawful. 

But one thing is clear: law is not to be equated with justice. When discussing activism outside the law, let’s remember that Emmeline Pankhurst, Sophie Scholl, Rosa Parks, Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr. – to name a few – sit among many who engaged in civil disobedience, but who are rightly honoured in the canon of history for resisting systemic injustice. While campaigns based around civil disobedience often differ, they are inherently bound by one connecting thread: the pursuit of justice.

The hard-won and long-held right to protest is under attack the world over. To take one example, in the United Kingdom – a country with a well-worn history of popular demonstration – the government has passed, among other legislation designed to corrode the civic space, the ‘Police, Crime and Sentencing Bill’. This bill outlaws public protest considered a “nuisance”, while extending unprecedented powers to law enforcement officers to decide for themselves what they deem to constitute such “nuisance”. Civil injunctions sought by private enterprises, including across the fossil fuel sector, are also rising in the face of increasingly effective disruption triggered by peaceful environmental protest. 

But the UK’s case is symptomatic of a global trend in democratic backsliding. This is seen in the vilification of environmental activism across Europe. In Germany, climate activists have been put in preventive detention using an anti-terrorism law. In France, discourse used against environmental activists has also become ever-more extreme, with “eco-terrorists” – a term first heard by a government official – now regularly parroted in media debate on climate. Similar language is on the rise elsewhere too, as increasingly authoritarian governments and powerful enterprises seek to intimidate and silence environmental defenders by branding them “enemies of the state”. 

But the criminalisation of environmental activists has given rise to ever more sophisticated legal arguments, where those in the dock use litigation – or “movement lawyering” – to resist executive overreach and exercise freedom of speech. This involves the exploration of legal justification for acts of civil disobedience, where the accused claim the legal defence of climate necessity. So while law and justice should not be conflated, the need for justice through the questioning of the law and its application is growing in frequency – and often bearing fruit. 

Solidarity with environmental activists and the wider climate cause is increasingly demonstrated by legal practitioners as well. In the UK, 120 leading barristers have breached bar rules by vowing not to prosecute peaceful protesters and to withhold their services from new fossil fuel projects. The justification being that the current application of the law overwhelmingly favours the fossil fuel industry while disregarding threats posed by that industry to people’s lives, livelihoods and property.

An independent judiciary, now under real threat across the world, has proven its importance in other ways too – notably in acting as a check on executive power, and upholding government accountability. In the UK, France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany, people have literally taken their governments to court for climate inaction – and won! A fundamental pillar of democratic integrity, the independence of our courts must be safeguarded. 

The bigger picture

Global environmental struggles are inherently connected, so what is out of sight must not be out of mind; our ambition to act on climate must be comprehensive and unified. Though the current scale and importance of environmental protest might appear relatively new to many of us in the ‘industrialised Global North’, for millions – particularly in the Global South – the need to defend nature has long been indivisibly tied to the struggle for existence. 

In this age of ‘Great Acceleration’, as the world’s population burgeons, current levels of natural resource consumption far outstrip Earth’s capacity to satisfy it. But there are alternative models not driven by insatiable extractivism that would allow us to meet the needs of growing populations while still remaining within the inherent physical limits of a planet with finite resources. This model is neatly captured by ‘Doughnut economics’, which emphasises the need to abandon our incessant and unsustainable focus on GDP ‘growth’, and instead embrace new ‘postgrowth’ metrics that consider human and social wellbeing, as well as the biophysical boundaries of our Earth. 

The rate of natural resource consumption by the EU is so vast that 2.8 Earths would be required to extend it to all the people in the world. As deforestation and polluting extractivism continue apace, those bearing the brunt are marginalised, often Indigenous communities. It is these increasingly frequent face-downs that demonstrate how intimately connected environmental and human rights are. With many living in natural spaces targeted by unscrupulous and bullish industry (whose destructive activities routinely violate international environmental and human rights law), Indigenous people and other marginalised communities such as rural landworkers are the first, and often final, line of defence. In the last decade, over 1,700 people have been killed defending their land and the environment from violent extractivism. It is their courageous resistance that ensures the natural world lives to fight another day. They need and deserve our support. 

Taking a stance on climate action

As a body founded on democracy and the rule of law – and keen to be perceived as a champion of such principles – the EU must reverse the decline in public participation to avoid warranted accusations of hypocrisy on democratic standards and environmental justice. This can be done most effectively by following the clear provisions laid out in the Aarhus Convention and by developing environmental democracy and upholding communities’ Right to Say No.

Our collective environmental goals can only be achieved by working together. That means involving people through inclusive and accessible participatory processes in line with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (Goal 16). 

If governments and policymakers are serious about climate, and if they’d appreciate fewer disruptive protests, the solution is simple: commit resources to the policies necessary to facilitate equitable and inclusive participation. The movements mentioned above have been clear on their calls: open the door sincerely to, and implement the rational demands of, NGOs, civil society and grassroots groups that represent the interests of ordinary people and the environment. We deserve nothing less. 

But until such time, protests will continue, and we will support them. The EEB stands with those protesting on environmental and human rights issues, here in Europe and beyond. We stand with Indigenous defenders of our natural world. We stand with peaceful protesters behind bars. And we stand with those facing prosecution for expressing the truth about the state of our environment. 

Collective resistance is power. We’ve seen time and again when, against all the odds, environmental campaigners have won for us all: the halting of plans for the Conga copper mine following unrelenting resistance by locals (Peru, 2016); the ‘Brave Women of Kruščica’ who, following a 500-day long protest, blocked the construction of new hydropower dams along the Kruščica river (Bosnia & Herzegovina, 2017); Nemonte Nenquimo’s historic legal victory to protect 500,000 acres of Amazonian rainforest from oil extraction (Ecuador, 2019); the cancellation of the XL Keystone oil pipeline following immense resistance from Indigenous communities (Canada, 2021); a community-led campaign that closed a major fishmeal plant polluting coastal waters (The Gambia, 2021); class action brought by citizens of Jakarta leading to a District Court ordering the President and government to take action on air quality (Indonesia, 2021), and the weeks-long mass protest by environmental groups that forced the cancellation of a $2.4 billion lithium mine project (Serbia, 2022). And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

United we win, for our planet, and the future of all life on it.

The post Eleventh hour climate action: in defence of protest appeared first on New Leaf.

Overconsumption is so last year.

With growing evidence of the close link between environmental degradation and social injustice with consumption and production, systemic overconsumption must cease to achieve greener and fairer societies. This does not only mean individual overconsumption of things like clothes and phones, but society-wide overconsumption relating to infrastructure, transport, buildings, energy systems, the military, etc.

Tackling this, Austria has been the latest country to take concrete steps towards reducing their resource use in absolute terms as a part of the country’s new Circular Economy strategy published in December 2022. 

Much-needed makeover

With the fifth largest material footprint in the EU, Austria currently consumes a whopping 33 tonnes of resources per capita, 19 tonnes above the bloc’s average and around five times more than what is considered sustainable. 

The intensive use of resources in Austria, and in Europe at large, is a strain on planetary boundaries and social justice alike. In order to fuel growth-dependent economies, a small number of countries are carving away a disproportionate amount of Earth’s finite resources through endless extraction, production, consumption, and waste, at a speed beyond our planet’s regenerative capacity. In fact, for the global population to live the average European lifestyle, we would need 2.8 Earths.

Tackling this unfair and unsustainable use of resources takes strong and urgent commitments to shift away from the current consumption pattern. 

Austria paving the way

With this in mind, Austria’s new targets are a new year’s resolution worth imitating. The targets, welcomed by the Austrian umbrella environmental NGO Umweltdachverband, set out to slash the country’s material footprint per capita by 80% by 2050 to maximum seven tonnes per capita, which is considered within a sustainable and just level by leading research. Furthermore, Domestic Material Consumption (DMC) must drop from 19 to 14 tonnes per capita by 2030. In addition, the strategy also sets targets for an increase in circularity rate and reduction of private household consumption.

A reduction target is the new black

Austria is the third EU country (joining the Netherlands and Finland) to set a resource use reduction target, and it’s the most ambitious and complete one yet. By setting such objectives, these governments are tackling systemic overconsumption and setting a clear direction for the economy to consume less resources in absolute terms. With a strong commitment to a circular economy, these policies recognise the limits and dangers of our current linear model of resource use, ensure a fairer green transition and address the climate crisis at its roots. 

Unlike the Dutch and Finnish objectives, the Austrian target will also set reduction target for biomass, which addresses the pressing matters of food waste and deforestation to produce substitutes to fossil fuel products (e.g. bioplastics, bioenergy).

Austria has also upped the level of ambition. Compared to Finland, which aims to reduce domestic primary raw materials in 2035 to 2015 levels, Austria is aiming for an 80% slash in material footprint by 2050. 

EU needs to catch up with the trend

Despite having overshot in many planetary boundaries, EU Member States and the EU Commission have stalled in addressing the matter of material footprints, with resource use reduction targets not included in the European Green Deal and national climate and energy strategies. 

Europe’s unsustainable resource dependency has never been more evident than in 2022, where inflation and war in Ukraine stifled access to critical resources. Designing a circular economy based on sufficiency and sustainable use of materials is the only long-term solution for tackling any of the climate, social, or security crises. Essentially, setting these targets is key in transitioning towards a wellbeing economy.

Austria’s targets are the latest signal from a Member State for a concrete commitment and joint action at the EU level. The call echoes European Parliament demands for the Commission to adopt resource use reduction targets in its report on the Circular Economy Action Plan.

In fact, there are winds of change in the air. Recent developments in EU policies are nudging towards the right direction. In recent months, the newly released packaging law and the finalisation of the battery regulation are both pushing for waste reduction, reuse and recycling of resources, while the discussions on food waste reduction targets have been set in motion. In 2023, the Commission is expected to add material footprint as an indicator to the Circular Economy Monitoring Framework, making it an official indicator for Member States and a first step towards an EU-wide target. 

Austria may have started 2023 on the right foot, it is now up to the remaining Member States and the EU to keep up the sprint towards ensuring our wellbeing without breaking planetary boundaries.

Who’s joining for the next lap?

The post <strong>Austria</strong><strong>’s </strong><strong>new year</strong><strong>’s</strong><strong> resolution: </strong><strong>wellbeing within planetary boundaries</strong> appeared first on New Leaf.

The orientation paper on EU economic governance proposes some welcome reforms focusing on simplification and stronger enforcement of fiscal rules. It flags country-specific debt reduction pathways and slashes the 1/20th rule (the need for countries to reduce debt by 5% to GDP when exceeding 60% debt to GDP), highlighting the urgency for the EU to agree on new rules before the general escape clause is deactivated. These reforms are positive steps in the right direction, but at the same time, they are just mere updates of the existing rules. Our communities and planet need a more radical step forward, as the converging crises, we are currently facing show us. This new reality demands meaningful, transformational change, hence the need for a new set of rules altogether. It is past time to replace the SGP with a Sustainability and Well-Being Pact. 

A framework of the past  

The EU economic governance framework has been contested since its inception in the 1990s and has also been reformed several times. Its focus is based on the old paradigm of indiscriminate economic growth, failing to be receptive to social and environmental challenges, and fostering systemic transformation. Assumptions and reference values such as the 60% debt and 3% deficit limit have been challenged and disproved by both theory and empirical evidence. Among other things, the framework fails to achieve countercyclical economic stabilisation and is further unconcerned about the quality of spending, completely ignoring long-term fiscal risks arising from climate and environmental crises (read more about its shortcomings here).  

In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, policymakers did take steps that were unimaginable before the pandemic. The debt and deficit rules were suspended, and the Recovery and Resilience Facility was established to jointly finance recovery measures. This allowed governments to increase investment and support their economies through these challenging times. In response to the economic impact of the war on Ukraine, the Commission decided to further extend the suspension of the fiscal rules until the end of 2023.  

Furthermore, acknowledging that these measures are only temporary, the EC relaunched its review of the European Economic Governance framework which includes the SGP and fiscal rules in 2021. Almost one year later, today, it released an orientation paper which sets out the direction of potential reforms to the framework for further discussion before presenting a legislative proposal in 2023. This is important as any return to the rules would be a shot in the foot for the EU, as it would immediately trigger austerity policies, with devastating impacts on livelihoods as experienced after the financial crises in 2008.  

The SGP needs to be replaced 

The proposed plans offer more flexibility, but the arbitrary debt and deficit rules of 60% and 3% remain untouched. The new orientation paper suggests country-specific debt reduction pathways that counteract the current debt rules, with its one-size fits all solution and the unrealistic debt reduction plans for the many member states. The idea is that the member states would follow the EU’s proposed four-year plans to reduce debt. These plans can be extended to up to three years if member states commit to undergoing reforms and the so-called ‘’growth-enhancing’’ investments, as was done during the Covid-19 crisis. The EC mentions that, as a criteria to determine if investments justify a slower debt pathway, they should contribute to achieving EU-agreed goals such as National Energy and Climate Plans and the European Pillar of Social Rights. This links to the quality of much-needed investments. However, there is no mention of preferential treatment of green investment and a ban on environmentally harmful subsidies (especially fossil fuels). There is also no mention of strong measures against corruption and misuse of public money, which should be a precondition.  

The EC highlights the need to increase national ownership and dialogue through e.g. adoption of medium-term plans by the Council. However, it will be important to increase the role of national and European parliaments in the decision-making processes as it is rather limited right now and also hinders effectiveness.  

To see if an EU country is on track with the multi-annual plan, EC would annually check progress in the context of the European Semester using an expenditure benchmark instead of using complex indicators that have been long contested. However, just implementing an expenditure rule is not enough to stimulate the investments and green spending that Europe needs. ‘Beyond GDP’ indicators are needed to unleash a paradigm shift and guide investments and public spending towards social and environmental goals. In general, the high number of references to green growth is concerning. Recent scientific evidence shows that green growth has not occurred at anywhere near the scale required to stay below 1.5° C and is considered extremely unlikely to be achieved in the future. 

Overall, these reform tweaks will be not sufficient to introduce a paradigm shift. The low debt targets still apply, which were a driving force behind the austerity after the financial crisis of 2008, effectively hampering transition towards a wellbeing economy. It further heavily relies on the heavily contested green growth.

In general, reform proposals may enhance short-term fiscal resilience and flexibility, but they are not enough to address the need to transform the economy and tackle systemic social and environmental challenges.  

Changing the direction 

For years, the EEB has supported the public dialogue on the necessary economic reforms. In 2018, we led a petition written by 243 academics and signed by nearly 100,000 Europeans, demanding a deep transformation of the SGP. Our Secretary General Patrick ten Brink handed the petition to Executive Vice-President for the European Green Deal Frans Timmermans in November that year. The latter promised to take the petition into account in future reform processes. 

In the short-term, we need to: 

• Put environmental, social and intersectional justice goals at the heart of EU economic governance enabling people and nature to thrive together.   
• Agree on new rules before the general escape clause is deactivated to avoid austerity and increase the flexibility of the use of the escape clause to facilitate the transition and to manage crises better.  
• Exempt green and social investment from the rules of the SGP to ensure a socially just transition and ban support of environmentally harmful activities, paired with stronger policies on anti-corruption and misuse of public money. 
• Make economic governance more transparent and democratic to increase accountability and enhance the inclusion of the European Parliament and other stakeholders. 

More importantly, we need a more profound transformation the EU economic governance framework through treaty change in the long-term. In the most immediate term, we must urgently act to enable the establishment of a Sustainability and Wellbeing Pact. The EU must replace the arbitrary numerical values of 3% and 60% with fiscal standards as opposed to the rigid but never-respected rules. Such standards should be based on country-specific assessments using debt sustainability analysis led by independent fiscal councils.  

In parallel, we demand EU Institutions and member states to move from words to action on ambitious and inclusive green fiscal reform programmes. Environmental tax reforms, shifting the burden from labour to pollution and resource-use, must become a priority if we want to tackle the climate and environmental crises, while creating fiscal space to finance the just transition and ensure no one is left behind.  

Recognising that the failure to adequately price pollution, emissions and resource-use is a key driver of the mounting environmental and social challenges, it is also crucial to rapidly remove any remaining environmentally harmful subsidies. By creating false price signals that incentivise pollution, wasteful use of resources and exploitative practices, the subsidies are slowing the green transition and increasing its overall costs for society. Fixing the way public money is collected and used to transition to an inclusive green economy must therefore be at the core of the EU’s reform of its economic governance rules. 

The vision for an economic governance framework for people and nature in the EU to thrive together and the feasibility of those measures are elaborated in the EEB position on the EU Economic Governance Framework and the Manifesto for a green, just and democratic European economy. 

The future is at stake 

If climate breakdown is not given the highest priority the EU will burn in summer fires and drown in spring rain. And if citizens lose hope in public services and in the security of well-paid jobs in green industries, they will push for change. 

To this end, the Fiscal Matters coalition of civil society organisations, academics, think tanks, and trade union leaders have published an open letter addressing our concerns and inviting like-minded organisations and individuals to sign and circulate the letter.  

We cannot solve the challenges of the future with a framework based on the current economic system which is based on dated principles that no longer fit our present or future challenges. Say no to SGP 2.0, say yes to a Sustainability and Wellbeing Pact. 

The post Enabling the EU wellbeing economy: we need a new pact, not a rule tweak appeared first on New Leaf.

Nick Meynen and Andreas Budiman report.

Giving people more freedom from work helps them live lifestyles that support limiting global warming. With extra time, people could go to community farms for food; walk, cycle or use public transport rather than drive a private car; and repair their broken possessions instead of buying new ones. A 20% increase in extra time would be enough to trigger the type of behaviour change that various institutions have long been seeking through awareness-raising efforts.

There’s a whole body of scientific study behind all of this. A German study was very clear about what would really improve our wellbeing today: less work, less consumption and less economic growth. And the New Economic Foundation long ago calculated that if a 21-hour work week were the norm, it could nearly eradicate unemployment, improve physical and mental health, reduce overconsumption and, yes, cut down on harm to the environment.

Like the rules on sustainable levels of debt or deficits, the number of hours people work in a formal wage-economy is based on an arbitrary political arrangement that was made a long time ago. But what if a nine-to-five, five-day work week in paid employment is based on outdated assumptions rooted in a time long before humanity crossed both social and ecological limits?

This will be discussed in depth at ETUI’s “A just transition beyond growth” conference on 8 and 9 December, where the EEB will launch a policy brief called “Reimaging work for a just transition”. The EEB wants other environmental organisations to rally behind this cause. 

What do we mean by “working time reduction”?

Working time reduction (WTR) refers to a collectively agreed upon reduction of time spent in employment. Aside from shorter working weeks, this can also be include things like an increased number of paid holidays or early retirement. Whether it is implemented nationally, sectorally or at company level, the key issue is that real WTR is not based on a voluntary proposition by employees brave enough to propose them. It’s a collective agreement, with no cut in pay and with compensatory staff recruitment. An inspiring pilot project called the 4 Day Week Campaign has brought together 70 UK companies (representing 3,300 workers) to trial a four-day, 32-hour working week with no loss of pay. Preliminary results have been very positive for productivity, wellbeing and tackling the cost-of-living crisis.

Key players have embraced this solution too: IndustriAll promoted it as a viable piece of the puzzle for COVID recovery and a Bosch factory in Vénisseux (France) has had this work policy in place since 1998. The Greens in the European Parliament see it as a way to create a ‘new production model’ and MEP Pierre Larrouturou wrote five books and a multitude of policy proposals for it. National and regional experiments exist, but a well-coordinated European approach is still lacking and needed to achieve the just transition and EGD goals.

WTR for achieving EGD goals

Households with a heavy time burden of paid work tend to have a heavier and broader ecological footprint, encompassing the purchase ready-made meals, online shopping and private car use, whereas working less has led to a reduction in energy consumption and carbon-intensive commuting. Huge energy savings can be made in the workplace too by reducing office lighting, elevator operating and heating or air conditioning, all of which is essential to reaching a 55% reduction of emissions by 2030. WTR also frees time to pursue meaningful activities for leisure, redistribute unpaid care work, improve community services and increase political participation.

WTR for achieving a just transition

More GDP growth in Europe is not compatible with an economy that falls within planetary boundaries. WTR is, as it decreases our dependence on GDP growth to create jobs, redistributing work more evenly. WTR creates the time and space to support the green industry, too (e.g. solar technologies and heat pump installers). 

Where WTR is introduced and results in additional jobs being created, giving women priority would reduce gender gaps both in employment and income. To ensure that this does not deepen the sectoral gender gap, it would be helpful to apply this to sectors affected by the just transition where women are often underrepresented, such as the energy sector. This also requires equitable parental leave when a child is born, as that is when care work patterns are established. WTR could be a powerful instrument for the just transition and the EGD as it responds to economic, social and environmental concerns.

Conclusion

Of course, implementing WTR alone will not do the trick. It is crucial to consider it part of a package. To ensure that environmental and social justice are always part of the design of such a package, the close and binding involvement of civil society organisations and labour unions is an indispensable element. But it is hard to find a single policy intervention that would neatly solve as many issues as a four-days-work-week does, both for working people and for humankind and the living world.

Working time reduction will be integrated into the model under the LOCOMOTION project, which is attempting to create a next-generation integrated assessment model (IAM) called WILIAM. Read the Escaping the growth and jobs treadmill report to learn more about our vision for revolutionising the future of work, including universal basic incomes, shorter working weeks, job sharing, job guarantees, and economic democracy.

The post It’s high time to reduce working time appeared first on New Leaf.

Our core ecological problem is not climate change. It is overconsumption, with climate change and its social inequalities as the symptoms. Our current system extracts, produces, consumes and wastes resources much faster than Earth can regenerate. Europe’s material footprint – the total amount of fossil fuels, biomass, metals and minerals consumed, including in imports – is double the sustainable level.

Yet, absolute reduction of resource demand and consumption remains a blind spot in the European Green Deal and national climate and energy strategies. Demand-side measures that seek to address and remedy the inequitable overconsumption of natural resources are the elephant in the EU-policy room.

Reacting to the cost of living and energy crisis, French President Emmanuel Macron announced in August “the end of abundance”. However, EU citizens are understandably frustrated as they struggle to pay to heat and eat, while fossil fuel companies continue to rake in obscene profits, a World Cup is organised in air-conditioned outdoor stadiums in Qatar, and even a Winter Games has been proposed in the deserts of Saudi Arabia… So how can policies step up to address the new challenges faced by society, reduce inequalities, and permit us to thrive without breaking the boundaries of our planet? 

At a hybrid workshop organised on 26 September in Brussels by the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Friends of the Earth Europe, the European Youth Forum and the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), campaigners, researchers and policy makers met to discuss this complex topic.

In her opening, Agata Meysner from the IEEP underlined that the European Green Deal has yet to take on the issue of overconsumption seriously. However, she also acknowledged that there were some promising developments, such as the inclusion of material footprint and consumption footprint as indicators to the EU’s circular economy monitoring framework. Positive changes can also be seen among the member states, with Austria expected to follow the Netherlands and Finland to set national targets to reduce its resource use. 

In a powerful speech, UN International Resources Panel (IRP) chair and former Environment Commissioner Janez Potočnik emphasised the pressing need for developed nations to reduce their resource use in absolute terms and set up the necessary targets to achieve this. The bottom line is, we need to rethink how we operate as a society to achieve this and move away from the mainstream take-make-dispose model. For example, meeting basic needs and wellbeing through “usership” of products and services, not ownership. Janez also recently co-authored an IRP paper calling absolute resource reduction as the missing link in climate policies.

A representative from the Belgium federal Ministry of Health and Environment also explained that although the country has begun to tackle issues such as circular economy, repair and obsolescence, it was more politically challenging to bring forward measures to reduce overall resource consumption.

Monika Diettrich, a researcher for the German Institute for Energy and Environmental Research supporting Eurostat’s resource flow analysis, stressed that her findings suggested that material use in Europe was far too high, but measures to reduce it by as much as 50-60% in the EU were technically feasible.

In discussions regarding resource use reduction and delivering resource justice in Europe, one message rings clear: circular economy measures alone would not be sufficient to reduce resource use. We need more systemic measures, including overall targets on resource reduction, and politicians and society need to urgently put these targets in place with clear plans on how to achieve the reduction. Strong emphasis was placed on the need for distributary measures such as focusing on the largest overconsumers including the super rich and big industries, as well as a focus on new metrics for societal progress including wellbeing instead of relying on GDP growth. 

The organisers are planning a follow up event on this topic at the forthcoming World Circular Economy Forum later this year. If you are interested in resource justice please contact: Meadhbh Bolger, Jan Mayrhofer, Agata Meysner, and Jean-Pierre Schweitzer.

The post The time is ripe for resource use reduction targets appeared first on New Leaf.

It’s been fifty years since governments gathered in 1972 to discuss the environment at the Stockholm Conference, and since the famous Limits to Growth report was published. But the Stockholm+50 meeting— held by the United Nations from 2-3 June, 2022 —wasn’t exactly like a golden wedding celebration. Aside from the fact that humanity now faces even bigger environmental challenges, we also have less time today to face up to them.

Though there was no negotiation, the meeting offered opportunities to nudge pioneering governments towards action. We also created an opportunity by organising a high-level political side event called Wellbeing Economies: A new economic approach for human and planetary health. The EU’s environment commissioner, government representatives from Finland, Wales and Bhutan, and civil society representatives from all over the world took part in our debate. The side event was rooted in messages central to a new policy briefing by the EEB, the Wellbeing Economy Alliance (WEAll), and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) called “This is the moment to go beyond GDP”, which is also tied to our doughnut economy campaign.

Our briefing’s message was felt throughout the Stockholm+50 meeting. During our side event, the briefing was handed over directly to environment ministers from Belgium, Argentina, Germany and other countries. Later that day, after the UN Secretary-General António Guterres declared a message in alignment with our briefing, the UN organisers featured our message on top of their wrap-up newsletter. Three days after the meeting, Guterres showed strong support for our call to get better metrics for progress. Finland also brought our narrative on doughnut economics and a wellbeing economy right to the leadership dialogue. Our demands for better metrics were also reflected in the official recommendations from the Leadership Dialogues.

Additionally, we also brought cutting-edge science to decision-makers by introducing LOCOMOTION, our H2020 research project, at UNEP’s side-event on Data-Driven Environmental Solutions. 

The co-organising partners of the high-level side-event on wellbeing economies —the EEB, WEAll, WWF, The Club of Rome, and SSNC— formulated three transformative actions:

1. Better metrics for economic progress: To get beyond the “development as catching-up paradigm” and adopt a better progress indicator than GDP, action at UN level is possible, needed and timely. In the coming year or two and in the context of the UN’s Beyond GDP process, wellbeing economy governments, the EU, and regional and international organisations should push for an Intergovernmental Panel on Wellbeing, Inclusion, Sustainability and the Economy (IP-WISE).
2. A high ambition coalition for wellbeing economies: The wellbeing economy government partnership of Scotland, Iceland, New Zealand, Finland, Wales and Canada should grow with countries like Bhutan and Costa Rica. In our side event, Bhutan explained how they were able to transition to a middle-income-country without exploiting their natural resources or disregarding their cultural heritage. There’s added value in learning from Bhutan about how to achieve that outcome in government coalitions that extend beyond the high income countries.
3. Redefining prosperity and enshrining wellbeing in national legislation: The Wellbeing of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 is a successful and innovative piece of legislation that leads to transformative policy and decision-making processes. It requires public bodies to consider the long-term impacts of their decisions and meaningfully include communities in their planning processes. This means long-term goals are not just policy aspirations but are enshrined in law, with institutions required to meet them.

More details on the side event and these transformative actions are available here.

Video recording of the event is available here. You can also see some of the photos from the event here.

The post Three transformative actions from Stockholm+50 appeared first on New Leaf.

Heavy footprints

In a recently released webpage in collaboration with Friends of the Earth Europe and the European Youth Forum, the European Environmental Bureau explores the scale of the overconsumption crisis and how policymakers can address it.

The European Union’s growth-based economy is driving the depletion of Earth’s finite resources, pushing for non-stop extraction, production, consumption, and waste, at a speed much faster than Earth’s resources and nature can regenerate. In fact, we would need 2.8 Earths if the global population adopted an average European lifestyle. Despite this, EU climate policies have failed to directly address the overconsumption epidemic, and have instead focused on fixing the problems caused by overconsumption, with yet more materials and resources. 

Using automobiles as an example, instead of better public transport and biking infrastructure, we are on track to effectively replace dependency on fossil fuels with dependency on critical raw materials. Batteries for electric vehicles and energy storage would mean that the EU will need almost 60 times more lithium and 15 times more cobalt by 2050. In the case of lithium, this means yet more EU import dependence, with 100% reliance on Chile, USA, and Russia for supply.

Monitoring and targeting for better

Currently, there is a lack of proper indicators and targets when it comes to resource use reduction at the EU level – something that Members of European Parliament have formally called for in plenary and in three reports in 2021. 

In a recent consultation process for the Commission’s Circular Economy Monitoring Framework, the EEB called for the addition of key indicators on material footprint and on consumption footprint. 

Moreover, the EEB called for a more operational usage of the framework, transforming it from a mere reporting tool to an ‘action-triggering’ dashboard that links to progressive objectives. Notably, these will be building towards binding targets at EU and national levels on headline indicators: material footprint reduction, the increase in the usage rate of circular material, waste generation decrease, food waste generation decrease, and the uptake of green public procurement. 

The addition of material footprint and consumption footprint as official indicators to the EU’s monitoring framework nevertheless represents a step towards establishing measures to reduce consumption and its impacts in absolute terms in the future.

Growing pain

While we need to set resource use reduction targets, overconsumption must be addressed through moving away from our growth-oriented economy and shift towards a wellbeing economy.

For decades, we have been holding up GDP as the main economic yardstick. This locks us into a mindset where any reform or change must be measured against past, current, or future economic growth. The environment, equality, and social cohesion have been regularly sacrificed for the sake of extra GDP. 

Wellbeing economic models such as the doughnut economy prioritise our social foundations, ensuring the wellbeing of all within the planetary boundaries. Such models remind us that we need better indicators with a much broader set of goals to guide us through the main problems of our time and unleash the potential of environmental policies.

The post Resource dependency crisis may set the scene for sufficiency measures appeared first on New Leaf.

The European Environmental Bureau (EEB), Europe’s largest network of environmental NGOs, organised the event to draw attention to the limits of an economic system based on GDP growth, as well as the urgency of putting wellbeing and sustainability at the core of EU policies.

Campaigners welcomed policy makers and passers-by in front of the European Commission with free Earth-coloured doughnuts to raise awareness about doughnut economics, a model that allows for increased wellbeing for all while respecting the planet’s ecological limits.

Which recipe would you choose?

Our current economic model is based on GDP growth, which is widely regarded as the supreme indicator of wealth and progress. However, developing our society solely on the basis of GDP is like trying to bake a complex recipe with one ingredient only.

The pursuit of economic growth at any cost has pushed societies to extract more resources and produce and consume more goods than necessary, exploiting labour and nature far beyond their limits. This ‘Great Acceleration‘ has come with collateral damage, ranging from climate breakdown to growing inequalities, pollution, water scarcity, and deforestation.

The recipe for success requires different ingredients, including social equity, justice, health, clean air and water, a stable climate. The doughnut economics model, developed by economist Kate Raworth, is exactly about that: it highlights a range of minimum social criteria and maximum ecosystem limits that can guide decision makers toward a more equitable and more sustainable system. The sweet spot in between is the ‘doughnut’, a safe space where people and nature can thrive together across generations.

Doughnut economics for all

At the event, the EEB launched a campaign calling on the EU to embrace the doughnut model, starting with three key steps. First, EU institutions must shift their focus from GDP growth to wellbeing, and consider a broader range of dimensions and indicators as a compass to develop and evaluate their policies, as promised by the European Commission in the 8th Environment Action Programme (EAP). Environmental, social, and gender justice must become part of the EU decision making equation.

Second, the EEB calls on the EU to set binding reduction targets to reduce its material footprint by 30% by 2030 and by 50% by 2040, in addition to the existing greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.

Third, the EU must accelerate the transition towards energy efficiency, electrification, and renewables, as well as end the EU taxonomy’s greenwashing of fossil fuels and nuclear power as ‘sustainable investments’.

The appetite for a sweeter deals

As the limits of the growth economy become clearer, there is a growing appetite for a better economic system across the EU – including among institutions and decision makers.

Members of the European Parliament, EU Commission Directors and officials, European Environment Agency (EEA) staff and local politicians participated in the action and voiced their support for the EEB demands, which were also endorsed by a broad range of NGOs.

State Secretary Barbara Trachte, who has been implementing the doughnut model in the Brussels Capital Region, called on EU institutions to take action: “There is no time to waste. We have the tools to change. Brussels is already doing its part, it is possible, it’s time for the EU to do it too”.

The time is now

Over the past months, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the European Environment Agency (EEA) have upped their language on the urgent need for alternative economic models, with both mentioning doughnut economics as a viable alternative for sustainable development.

At the same time, 2022 appears to be the perfect year for the EU to make the transition to a wellbeing economy inspired by the doughnut approach, marking milestone anniversaries for two major publications at the core of sustainable developments: 50 years for the Club of Rome’s ‘The Limits to Growth’, which questioned the pursuit of infinite GDP growth, and will be celebrated with a United Nations’ global conference in Stockholm in June; and 35 years for the Brundtland Report, which called for a new model of development “that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

Meanwhile, the European Commission’s 8th Environment Action Programme, which was adopted last January, envisions a regenerative economy for the EU and must be implemented.

Nick Meynen, Senior Policy Officer for Systemic Change at the EEB, told META: “We need to end our dependence on endless economic growth and heal the double burnout of our society and planet. We have models and indicators to guide us towards a sustainable and fair economy, and there has never been a better time for the EU to take them on board”.

The post Doughnut economics: how to bake a better future appeared first on New Leaf.