Decoupling …… again

Posted on 16 December, 2025 by The Steady State Manchester team

If you’ve been reading our material for long you’ll have seen previous articles about the claim that GDP growth can happen without increasing greenhouse gas (chiefly carbon) pollution: the decoupling thesis.

Early work focused on debunking claims that were made without evidence.

Later on, evidence for some decoupling was provided and we reviewed its implications.  Briefly we questioned its scale, permanence, and the quality of the data underpinning it.

Elsewhere we’ve focused on the other ills that GDP growth brings – pollution by other compounds, resource depletion, waste, and the devastation of communities and environments where the necessary extraction takes place.

Last week another set of decoupling fans sallied forth.  The Guardian covered it with the hyperbolic and inaccurate headline “Economic growth no longer linked to carbon emissions in most of the world, study finds”.

In an article at our sister site, degrowthuk, I address that article and the report on which it is based.  Among other things, I look at the detail of the emission reductions.  In brief, the scale of the decoupling reported is too small to make a significant difference (global emissions continue to climb) and it is likely that greater emission reductions could have been made without the (actually sluggish) GDP growth in the decoupling countries.

The article begins,

“An article appeared in The Guardian on Thursday, December 11th, entitled “Economic growth no longer linked to carbon emissions in most of the world, study finds”.

“The Guardian appears to have a policy of not linking the reports it cites. It is from a London-based NGO, Energy and Climate Analysis Unit (ECAU). The report lacks a section on study limitations and cites few references. Nor does it present more than a summary of the data.

“The claim is bold but there are a number of problems with it. …….”
READ ON at DegrowthUK.

Posted in analysis, key concepts | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

‘Change Everything’, Natalie Bennett’s Green Philosophy, a review

Posted on 1 December, 2025 by Mark H Burton

Change Everything: How we can rethink, repair and rebuild society (second edition, 2025). by Natalie Bennett. Wilton Square Books, £10.99.

Former Green Party leader and peer, Natalie Bennett has outlined her political philosophy in this book whose first edition appeared last year. She argues that there is a distinctive Green political philosophy, distinct from but sharing many characteristics with socialism. I’ll return to that claim but, first, what does the book cover?

In the first, short section, she identifies some key problematic aspects of “the world we have made”. This is one where despite ‘abusive overproduction’ wrecking the climate and nature, the economic and political powers have failed to solve the problems of extreme inequality, poverty and ill health. She sees neoliberalism and social democracy (which since the cold war has been distinct from socialism) as sharing in three fallacies: the need for economic growth, the centrality of paid labour, and the promotion of competition.

In the rest of the book she covers a number of topics under the broad headings of, Active Freedom, True Prosperity, Healthy Life, and Shared Resilience.

There is much to agree with in the book. Bennett writes well, accessibly and with a strong ethical sensibility. Yet she is much better at outlining the nature of the problems to be overcome than suggesting feasible solutions. Where she does, I disagree with some of the few policy remedies she advocates. For instance, Universal Basic Income (on which she memorably came unstuck in an interview when party leader), and ‘helicopter money’, for example would both give money to those who don’t need it and tend among other things to have the effect of boosting reckless consumption. Theoretically the excess money could be taken back in taxation but I fear that is unlikely to happen in practice. Other proposals are sensible, land value tax, for example. However, there is little here that is very distinctive – much of what she says could have been said by someone like Tony Benn or John McDonnell.

This is where her thesis that she is outlining a distinctive, green political philosophy falls down. It is not enough to outline the problems and make some selective, and sketchy suggestions, and there is nothing that she says that could not be subsumed under eco-socialism, which, however, would normally have a more developed theoretical basis. A political philosophy needs to identify the problems it is concerned with and then go on to identify their causative mechanisms and ethical and feasible remedies. Bennett’s book lacks this – for example, although there are passing references to Tim Jackson and Kate Raworth’s books, there is no sustained treatment of the drivers of growthism, let alone capitalist accumulation. The claim that her green political philosophy is distinct from socialism is also problematic. Certainly socialism has been associated with ‘productivism’ and domination over nature, both in its Western European and Communist variants. But there is a strong alternative socialist tradition, that we would now term eco-socialist, found in a long line of thinkers from the English Diggers, via the Chartists, some of the writings of both Marx and Engels (especially the later Marx), William Morris, Clarion, Raymond Williams1 and prime movers of the late twentieth century environmental movement, such as Rachel Carson and Barry Commoner2, as well as ecologically orientated trade union figures such as Jack Mundey (an Australian communist) and Mike Cooley (a founding member of the CPB-ML, best known for his work on the Lucas plan and in the Greater London Social Enterprise Board)3, and further afield, Fidel Castro4 or Colombia’s Gustavo Petro5. What all of these share is the opposition to the commodification of people and of nature, and a vision of an alternative civilisation, glimpses of which are certainly to be found in Natalie Bennett’s book.

Maybe there is a distinctively green political philosophy, but it isn’t really to be found here. For that, I’d suggest reading one of the burgeoning collection of books on degrowth6 (in Natalie’s blog she recently reviewed Tim Parrique’s ‘Slow Down or Die’ – she demurs at the term ‘degrowth’ though), which go into more detail while presenting an articulated political philosophy. For an articulated green-left policy portfolio, though, you would have to look elsewhere, and I’d not so humbly commend our own Getting Real collection.

The book comes at an interesting time for her (and my) party, with a new, self-proclaimed eco-populist leadership, articulating a left wing message, and a surge of members, many of them coming from the socialist wing of the Labour Party. Perhaps paradoxically, I fear that there is insufficient emphasis on the existential crisis of ecosystem overshoot and collapse, surely a defining axiom of green politics – but then I’m a degrowth Marxist. However, notwithstanding my criticisms, the green left is the place to be, and where an adequate political praxis (unified theory and practice) could come from.

Mark Burton

1 I explored this tradition in this article: Burton, M. (2019). Degrowth: The realistic alternative for Labour. Renewal, 27(2), 88–95. https://www.lwbooks.co.uk/renewal/27/degrowth-the-realistic-alternative-for-labour, as did Hilary Wainwright, (1999). Raymond Williams and Contemporary Political Ecology. Keywords, 2, 81–93. https://raymondwilliamssociety.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/keywords2.pdf

2 John Bellamy Foster explores the lineage from Marx and Engels to the modern environmental movement Bellamy Foster, J. (2020). The return of nature: Socialism and ecology. Monthly Review Press.

3 For Mike Cooley, see https://revsoc21.uk/2020/10/03/obituary-mike-cooley-architect-and-bee/ and for Jack Mundey, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Mundey. Mundey has been credited with the introduction of the term ‘Green’ as a political category.

6 There is quite a choice.
Kallis, G. (2018). Degrowth. Agenda Publishing.
Liegey, V., & Nelson, A. (2020). Exploring degrowth: A critical guide. Pluto Press.
Schmelzer, M., Vetter, A., & Vansintjan, A. (2022). The future is degrowth: A guide to a world beyond capitalism. Verso.
Hickel, J. (2022). Less is more: How degrowth will save the world. Penguin Books.
Parrique, T. (2025). Slow down or die: The economics of degrowth (C. Benoit, Trans.; First publication 2025 by Europa Editions). Europa Editions.

Posted in analysis, Politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Manchester’s Local Plan – responding to the consultation

Posted on 27 October, 2025 by The Steady State Manchester team

UPDATE!  11 Nov.  We have now submitted a revised version.  It adds some answers to questions we didn’t address in the previously published draft, and has some additions to some of the other answers. READ IT HERE (pdf)

Local Plans are what guide the pattern of a land use and and Cover of Manchester's local plan: skyscrapers, tram, brutalist block and greenspacebuilding across a council area.  In the case of Greater Manchester (excluding Stockport), the Joint Strategic Plan, Places for Everyone sets the scene, as does the government’s National Planning Policy Framework.  That means that there are some very real constraints on what can be put into a so-called Local Plan (not very local – in the case of Manchester it covers the whole city).

Manchester’s Draft Local Plan has been published and is out for consultation until 17 November.  This page on the council website  has all the links you need to read the plan, comment on it, and (much further down the page) check the supporting documents: https://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/200074/planning/6572/local_plan/2 (opens in a new tab).

We have written our draft response – it might change somewhat before submission but we think it worth sharing it as you might find it helpful in making your own submission.

You can respond to the consultation using the online form or by sending a response by email – all the information you need is on that council page.

Our draft response notes some glaring problems.  They include the underlying model of continued economic growth and the continuing building frenzy; unsubstantiated housing targets (handed down by central government), although we do support the emphasis on social housing for those homes that do need to be provided; an acceptance that aviation will continue to grow and the wager of economic prosperity on the back of this poisoned chalice; expansion of aviation, and no consultation question on this!!; an overemphasis on functional zoning instead of a more locality focus such as the 20 minute neighbourhood model; flawed assumptions on compensating for damage to nature and biodiversity…. and more.  Do take a look at our thoughts.  We don’t answer every question, and you don’t need to either.  And then do put your own response in (links above) however brief.

Posted in analysis, Manchester, Manchester City Council, Planning | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Games for Degrowth and a Viable Future

Posted on 20 September, 2025 by The Steady State Manchester team

by Carolyn Kagan

Games as a tool for Awareness-raising

Two men in historical Indian dress playing board and tile games.

From the Sougandhika Parinaya Manuscript (1821 CE); Krishnaraja Wadiyar III, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Naomi Klein1 asks the question How do you change a world-view, an unquestioned ideology? Much of what we do in Steady State Manchester is to endeavour to change world-views, unquestioned ideologies about economic growth and the exploitation of environmental resources. We seek to enable people to discuss, challenge and develop their ideas and thinking; to help others see that their interests coincide with tackling climate change and securing a viable economic future; to offer hope and possibilities for living better within planetary boundaries; to share practical ways of doing things differently; to provide critiques of current practices but at the same time offer alternatives2.

Games and simulations have been used in training and development arenas for some time and across many different places and groups. They include table top games; video games, educational games, small or large scale role play or simulation games.

In September 2025 we explored the role that games might play in helping to change world-views. We invited people attending our AGM to:

Bring along a game, almost any game will do. The idea is that most games could be adapted around the ideas of Degrowth. So there’s the challenge: bring a game and ideas about how it might be adapted or used to inspire a new game that explores or promotes Degrowth.

Ideas for games

The ideas we came up with were mostly small in scale, table top games.

Adaptations of existing games:

Degrowth Pictionary: Aim: to understand and explore concepts underpinning Degrowth. Following the format of the well known game of Pictionary, cards are prepared with Degrowth concepts written on them – anything will do for example, anti-capitalism; climate change; collapse; cooperation; commons; fair shares; Limits to Growth; planetary boundaries; tipping points, overshoot; carbon emissions, simplicity. Participants take a card and without speaking draw the concept related to Degrowth, while others guess what it might be. No words are allowed during the drawing, but discussion after each concept is revealed, or after two or three concepts, will help to clarify understanding of the concepts and may identify strategies for change. The challenge is for the sketcher to capture the essence of the concept and for the guessers to articulate what that concept might be.

Versions of Monopoly3, products of mind games. The aim would be to develop a deep understanding and help move toward collective intelligence and wisdom. Proposed versions of Monopoly included Civil-opoly; Techn-opoly; Polit-opoly; Plent-opoly; Co-opoly – each version emphasises a theme relevant to Degrowth and build on the idea of telling different stories (each shown via clever and captivating graphics in the text).

Degrowth Snakes and Ladders: Aim: particularly for younger players, to understand the hazards and actions that can be taken in achieving a viable economy or the green transition. Snakes and ladders boards can be prepared, with short messages on the squares rather than just numbers. Ladders represent actions towards a viable economy and snakes the hazards that detract from a viable economy. The Board could be labelled in terms of general Degrowth (e.g. ladders: waste is recycled; government funds adaptations to homes for insulation and electric heating; a neighbourhood has all it needs for local people; public transport is good; e.g. snakes: you fly several times a year to go on holiday; you buy new shoes and chuck out the old ones which are still good etc.). Alternatively boards could reflect a Degrowth theme: for example inequality; climate change; biodiversity. Discussion takes place throughout so all players explore why the ladders make progress and the snakes do not.

Patience: the well known card game, known in the USA as Solitaire, embodies in and of itself many features of a Degrowth future. The aim of playing Patience is to help players appreciate a move towards a slower, way of life, with intrinsic satisfaction in playing the game itself. Patience is slow, with no particular end point. There is no element of competition and players have to accept they cannot win, but just call an end to the game whenever they like.

Degrowth draughts: in conventional draughts (North America, ‘chequers’) the aim is to eliminate all your opponent’s pieces. In Degrowth draughts, the aim could be to jointly reach a pre-defined, right-size complement of pieces. However, each player has to move in turn and if an opponent’s pieces can be taken, they must be, as in the original game, or you will be ‘huffed’. The game would introduce the ideas of degrowth to a steady state and of co-operative action to correct the bloated economy.

Existing games that feature (some) aspects of Degrowth

Carbon City Zero: a board game to get people talking (and learning) about the choices our towns and cities needed to make in order to take action on climate change. available to buy. https://www.wearepossible.org/carbon-city-zero

Daybreak: Daybreak is a cooperative boardgame about stopping climate change. It presents a hopeful vision of the near future, where you get to build the mind-blowing technologies and resilient societies we need to save the planet. The game requires players to work collaboratively. Available to buy https://www.daybreakgame.org/

Class Struggle: The Workers move around a board while trying to survive against the Capitalist player who controls everything. As the Workers unite they take power from the Capitalist player but if they do not succeed in uniting the Capitalist will win. Out of production but it might be possible to find second hand copies.

Computer or App-based games: It would be possible to build an App to feature a Regional focus of Degrowth, highlighting decision making and trade-offs. There are many existing computer games4 about climate change if not about Degrowth in particular. For example,

In addition there are simulations that attempt to explore complex systems change – for example, https://socialsimulations.org/

What makes a game a game?

Games are only one vehicle through which Degrowth and a Viable Economy can be communicated and world-views challenged. So what are the features of games?

  • are fun to play

  • not boring

  • challenging

  • involve element of jeopardy

  • usually include an element of competition and winning, although a challenge is to adapt these kinds of games to require collaboration on order to win, and to move from ‘winner takes all’ to ‘all are winners’ 6

  • Are non-hierarchical

  • Can involve any number of players

  • build relationships as they are played

  • transcend age and background and provide a common basis for difficult discussions

  • stimulate ideas across professional and life course boundaries

  • provide a safe environment in which it is possible to experiment with ideas

As long as the rules are easy to understand, and not too many group members harbour desires always to win at all costs, games engage players but also, in creative and effective ways. As tools for engagement they build on everyday cultural practices of games and include familiar everyday formats that seem to have widespread applicability, although it must be remembered that these cultural practices are not universal.

To be most useful, any game used to communicate or explore elements of Degrowth and the Viable Economy would need to be clear about:

  • Target group of players

  • Aim and intended outcome

  • Rules

Conclusion

Through games (and simulations), reality is demythologised through dialogue between players: players begin to understand the current social order and sets of social relations that sustain it, as well as the ideology supporting the status quo7 and possibilities for alternative realities. This emerging critical consciousness is what Paulo Freire8 called ‘conscientisation’ and is seen as a necessary foundation for taking action. As such, games are important tools for communicating about, and moving towards a Viable Future9.

Notes

1 Klein N (2015) This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, Penguin, London

2 Emanuel, J. and Kagan, C. (2018). Communicating Climate Change in the Greater Manchester region: A whole systems approach to climate change. In Walter Leal Filho, Ulisses Azeiteiro, Evangelos Manolas, and Anabela Mariza Azul, (eds) Handbook of Climate Change Communication Vol. 2. New York, Springer pp 401-419. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-69838-0

3 These examples of some mind games are part of a much longer set of arguments. See J. Ravetz (2020) Mind Games in Deeper City: Collective intelligence and the Pathways from Smart to Wise. Routledge ISBN 978-0-415-63897-6

4 Unsurprisingly many of these are USA in origin. There are more than those listed here, and some simulations can involve many players from different parts of the world, over long periods of time

5 MMT is a framework that some degrowthers advocate as an alternative approach to fiscal policy.

6 See https://woodcraft.org.uk/resources/games/ for examples of alternative, co-operative games.

7 Kagan, C. and Duggan, K.(2013) Games for participation and conscientisation. Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, 3 (4), 279-285

Kagan, C. and Duggan, K. (2011). Creating Community Cohesion. The power of using innovative methods to facilitate engagement and genuine partnership. Social Policy and Society, 10 (3), 393-404

8 See for example, Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth, Penguin. Freire, P. and Faundez, A. (1989). Learning to Question: A Pedagogy of Liberation. Geneva, World Council of Churches.
For an introduction, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_consciousness

9 Burton, M., Kagan, C., Vandeventer, J. and Riddle, M. (2022) A Viable Future? Explorations in post-growth from Steady State Manchester. Manchester, Steady State Manchester. Reprinted 2023 with new Introduction.

Posted in conviviality, degrowth, education, event reports | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Event: Games for degrowth

Posted on 8 September, 2025 by The Steady State Manchester team

Come to our AGM, help design games, and learn about our work

Steady State Manchester

Notice of Annual General Meeting

Date: 17 September, 2025

Time: 7:00pm

Venue: Methodist Central Hall, Oldham Street, Manchester, M1 1JQ

Map: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/682527494

Part 1.

Formal business.

All may observe but only paid-up members may participate.

We aim to keep this part of the meeting as brief as possible.]

Our AGM is governed by our constitution.

1) Welcome, introductions, apologies

2) Minutes of last year’s AGM (March, 2024) available here

3) SSM Annual Report

4) SSM Finance report

5) Election of officers

6) Subscription rates

7) Any other business

If you would like to nominate someone for one of the officer roles, please do so in writing  by 6pm, Wed 10th Sept.

If you have a business item to add, please do so in writing by by 6pm, Wed 10th Sept.

____________________________________________________________________

Part 2:

After the formal business,

Degrowth games: a participative activity, open to all

We are always keen to explore effective ways of communicating about the degrowth alternative. At previous AGMs we have shared material objects that exemplify aspects of our philosophy and books, films etc that have inspired us. Last year, at the GM Green Summit, we used an activity on ‘green growth’ to demonstrate how, if you wanted to grow even a clean part of the economy, you’d need to reduce another part – we are in overshoot, after all.

For the AGM, we will do something quite simple that everyone can join in with. Bring along a game, almost any game will do. The idea is that most games could be adapted around the ideas of degrowth. So there’s a challenge for you: bring a game and ideas about how it might be adapted, or used to inspire a new game that explores or promotes degrowth. Be prepared to speak for a couple of minutes (no more) about it. For information about degrowth, see our FAQ

If coming, please be there at 7.00pm as we don’t know exactly when this part of the meeting will start.

We will also be available to answer questions about Steady State Manchester and how you might get involved.

Please book HERE.

___________________________________

Posted in degrowth, events | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Renewables, carbon and the energy crisis

Posted on 1 August, 2025 by The Steady State Manchester team

Article originally published at North West Bylines, 31 July, 2025, and republished at Resilience.org
Based on a longer, fully referenced pamphlet, jointly published by Steady State Manchester and DegrowthUK
available HERE as pdf or HERE as html (webview – opens in another site)

Renewables, carbon and the energy crisis

The road towards a viable net-zero world is long and full of obstacles, but all economies need to reduce their carbon footprint

by Mark H Burton

Net zero, that is the government plan to reduce climate An oil rig, topped with a wind turbine to illustrate the dependence of renewable capture systems on fossil fuels. it is the cover of the pamphlet, "Renewables, carbon and the energy crisis".damaging emissions, is increasingly a politically divisive issue. The vocal right-wing critics are largely denying the impact of fossil fuels on emissions, and therefore on the future prospects for humanity, but the net zero lobby is pursuing strategies that are inadequate and simplistic. If we truly want net zero, then the only way forward is down, with far less overall energy use and less complex technology.

Net zero by 2050?

The UK signed up to the Paris Agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050, following a trajectory that, when the agreement was made in 2015, was supposed to give a fair chance of avoiding a 1.5 degree rise in global temperatures above the pre-industrial average.. The situation has worsened considerably since then and we are close to exceeding 1.5 degrees. The UK’s Nationally Determined Contribution commits to an 81% reduction by 2035 and relies on a number of technological solutions including tripling renewable energy capacity and doubling the average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements.

Allocation to the Warm Homes Plan of £13.2Bn is dwarfed by what could be seen as a reckless new commitment to military spending, in which the UK, despite being an originator of the non-proliferation treaty, will spend £99Bn “upgrading” the nuclear arsenal over the next decade. Moreover, the government is wasting at least £9.4Bn on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS, unproven at scale) and £19.7Bn for nuclear power (betting on unproven technology and ignoring the unresolved problem of radioactive waste), which would come on stream too late anyway. Seriously improving home warmth, with an emphasis on passive measures to reduce heat loss, would significantly reduce the third of emissions attributable to buildings. Unlike CCS and nuclear, this is the kind of low tech, low risk, labour intensive solution that would yield benefits for local economies and their communities.

Carbon capture

That emphasis on Carbon Capture can be understood given that, despite becoming carbon neutral by 2050, what matters is the cumulative emissions before then. The carbon budget, set in law, could well be exceeded, hence the desperation to pull back the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The principal means proposed involve capturing carbon emissions from power plants (whether burning fossil fuels or biomass) and burying them underground, or locking up carbon in rocks or crystals. However, in addition to the technology so far not yet credibly existing, it would consume vast amounts of energy, and would not necessarily be secure from leakage, while the irreversibility of climate change, once tipping points are passed, means it wouldn’t work anyway in mitigating climate chaos.

That carbon budget has been set too high. According to the Committee on Climate Change, the UK’s share of global emissions is approximately 1 per cent. However, the carbon budgets they have recommended, up to 2043, are equivalent to 1.79% of what they acknowledge to be the available global budget for only a 50% chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees. Britain is setting too large a carbon budget for itself, taking nearly twice its fair share, and the government has not yet agreed the proposed budget for 2038 to 2042, nor even identified the budget for the remaining years, 2043-2050. That’s us, a country with a historically enormous contribution to cumulative global emissions.

That 50% chance is hardly good odds anyway, and as we know, the notion of keeping warming below 1.5% by 2050 is pure fantasy. We are already at, or on the threshold of that much warming. So, the government’s legislated advisors are giving flawed advice.

For the UK to get to net zero emissions by 2050, it would need to reduce emissions by at least an average 10% per year (nearly 5% more than the reduction during the Covid crisis), but that would actually still emit 1.71 times the minimum fair share of the global carbon budget. Moreover, it is emissions made within the UK that are counted in the carbon budget. If we include emissions caused by manufacture of the goods and services we consume, then the figure is more than 50% higher.

UK should lead the way in emission control

The far right (Reform UK and their followers) assert that the UK controlling its emissions will have no impact on the global picture, but of course every tonne of emitted carbon matters. As the CCC tells us, “Over a quarter of global emissions are produced by countries with a share of global emissions less than 1%”. On this Ed Miliband is right: the UK has the responsibility to show climate leadership. We also have a historical responsibility and have not seriously considered the need for reparations for the cumulative damage caused – worse, we are cutting overseas aid, which includes climate-related projects, to fund more military expenditure. Even over the period 1970 to 2023, the UK was still the seventh largest emitter.

The far right typically has what seems like visceral hatred of renewable energy. They point to the problem of intermittency, and that is a problem, with the UK still projecting reliance on ‘unabated gas’, for electricity generation to fill the gap, once the huge projected increase in renewable capacity is in place. What the right-wing critics don’t mention is a more fundamental problem with what are perhaps better termed ‘renewable energy capture systems’.

Fossil fuels needed to make wind turbines and solar panels

Building and installing wind turbines and solar panels is dependent on fossil fuels. Wind turbines use large amounts of steel and concrete. Solar photovoltaic (PV) panels use the very common element, silicon. However, it requires intensive processing to yield the crystalline form used in the panels. This smelting process uses coal or oil derivatives and, surprisingly, large amounts of hardwood chips. There is no large scale renewable energy technology that can be produced without the burning of fossil fuels.

The relevant question though is whether the energy captured justifies this input: can we grit our teeth and splurge on fossil fuels to get a return of abundant clean power? The evidence is not good. When the whole lifecycle of these technologies is taken into account, from mining of the minerals through manufacture, transportation, deployment, servicing and eventual disposal, the average ratio of energy in to energy out is around 2.9 for onshore wind, 2.3 for offshore wind, and 1.6 for solar PV. However, in the climatic conditions of the UK, the ratio for solar PV is worse, only about 1.0.

In its Clean Power Plan, The Department of Energy and Net Zero optimistically projects that 37% of generation capacity will be from solar by 2030, but if the research on the energy return on energy invested is correct, that 37% share, under current manufacturing conditions will still entail an equivalent burning of fossil fuels and hence greenhouse gas emissions. For wind, we could be looking at 23% of the generation capacity entailing equivalent fossil fuel burning. For the UK mix in 2030 as a whole, that would be some 60% of the renewable capacity compromised in that way.

These figures will improve as the producing economies (predominantly China for PV) decarbonise, but that will only be relative without a miraculous transformation of the way in which silicon is refined, panels are constructed, and vast tonnages of raw materials, final products and waste, are transported. At the same time, if the increasingly scarce critical minerals (a further problem whose extraction causes dire impacts) that are used in generators, panels and associated technology, are substituted with more abundant ones with lower performance , then the energy produced per unit invested would decline further.

We need to decarbonise our lifestyle

This puts us in a very difficult position. On the one hand we need to decarbonise rapidly, far more rapidly than the government plans to. On the other hand, the available renewable technologies will only deliver relative decarbonisation. The implications are twofold.

Firstly, there needs to be an emphasis on greatly reducing the energy the country uses. That means more than just improved efficiency, a major and very challenging transformation in the way we live, with less consumption, less mobility, fewer imports, and a more collective culture of sharing, what has been called private sufficiency and public luxury.

Secondly, it means a change in technology, from high tech solutions, highly reliant on electricity, to the mass deployment of passive and lower tech solutions. Examples include: use of passive solar warming and cooling for buildings, direct transformation of wind energy to mechanical power for industrial purposes. Regenerative, low impact cultivation, less reliant on diesel and artificial chemicals yet producing a much greater proportion of our food.

Frugal abundance

This is not a return to the dark ages, but if we get it right, an advance to what the pioneering degrowth thinker Serge Latouche called a ‘frugal abundance’. I find it attractive, but how do you sell that to the population at large, told at every hour of the day that happiness lies in the ability to consume what we like at will – not that this is in any case a realistic prospect for large sectors of the population. The answer must lie in the re-vindication of fairness, equality, solidarity and community.

This article is based on a longer, fully referenced study being published jointly by
Steady State Manchester, download here, and
DegrowthUK, download here.

Added 2 September, 2025:
An article from Kevin Anderson and colleagues at the University of Manchester Tyndall Centre appeared three weeks after ours.  It makes a similar point about the CCC’s setting of a carbon budget that takes a bigger share than is fair.  However, they use a more recent estimate of the remaining global carbon budget, 160 gigatonnes for a 50/50 chance of not exceeding 1.5°C. The CCC is using a budget almost 50% higher, at 235 gigatonnes. They point out that the,

CCC disregards the UN principle that wealthy nations, whose prosperity was built on fossil fuels, must shoulder greater responsibility to rapidly cut emissions.

With just 0.84% of the global population, the UK’s equal share of the remaining 1.5°C carbon budget (160 GtCO₂) would be 1.34 GtCO₂. The CCC allocates it 3.7 GtCO₂ – nearly three times its equal per person share. However, even an equal share allocation would fall far short of the UN’s equity framework. Past CCC analyses have likewise embedded significant inequities.

Such misappropriation of the carbon budget shifts the burdens of climate change on to more vulnerable communities globally, prioritising the UK’s high-carbon norms over the right of low-income nations to sustainable development. The CCC’s departure from the UN’s core equity principle reveals how colonial norms remain deeply embedded in climate policy.”

Our point still stands but the Tyndall authors indicate that the situation is even worse than our comparison suggested.  They add,

“The UK’s net zero 2050 framing isn’t just delaying urgent action, it normalises ecological breakdown while maintaining the illusion of responsible stewardship. It worsens climate impacts and undermines preparedness by presenting inadequate measures as 1.5°C compatible. A fundamental rethink of the UK’s climate policy requires a consensus that is grounded in equity, scientific integrity and transformative ambition.”

 

Posted in Climate Change, economics, energy, explainers | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

The right wing threat and a viable future

Posted on 13 May, 2025 by The Steady State Manchester team

A statement from Steady State Manchester

Composite of Farage caricature on podium against the fire started by Southport race rioters, 2024.

Composite of Farage against fire at the Southport race riot (2024). by MB from source under a CC licence.

Introduction

With horror we see the electoral success of POX, The party of Xenophobes and Fascists (which, without irony, actually calls itself Reform UK1). In the May election round they gained 677 more councillors, took control of 8 councils, landed a regional Mayor and gained another MP, in a formerly safe Labour seat. Some caution is needed; while their vote share was 31%, on this occasion, the first past the post system yielded a disproportionately greater level of representation, 41% of contested council seats. Nevertheless, should this be repeated at a General Election, then they could form the next government, some 80 years after the great war against fascism. In what follows we will identify why POX is such a threat, explore the basis for their success, and review strategies, flawed and promising, to fight back.

What is POX and why is it such a threat?

POX has multiple roots. Its leadership is largely from the property owning class, Nigel Farage (or should it be ‘Falange’?)2 himself is a stockbroker, while their largest funder Aaron Banks is a businessman whose wealth was estimated to be about £250,000,000 in 20173. Their token Asian chair, Zia Yusuf, is even richer4. Among their membership are a large faction from the Little Englanders from the far right of the Conservative Party, well represented in the cohort of new councillors. There is also a sizeable contingent of out and out fascists, former members of the various fringe fascist groups, BNP, NF etc., and Farage himself appears to have flirted with such politics in his youth5. No doubt there are also others who naively see POX as offering answers and potential roles for them in changing the country. While they are beginning to make inroads into Labour heartlands, they certainly do not represent working class interests.

The party’s limited policy statements threaten all kinds of minorities, sustainability and especially decarbonisation, and public spending6. It promotes authoritarianism and is characterised by a callousness – exemplified by the newly elected mayor Andrea ’finger’ Jenkyns saying migrants should be housed in tents (that would be in the cold and wet British winter). As a right wing populist party7, POX pretends an alliance between the working class and sections of the elite and property owning class: needless to say, what they have in store is the antithesis of working class interest. These multiple dimensions of the right wing threat imperil any moves to an economy and society that is both sustainable and just – what we call the Viable Economy and Society.

Pillars of their success

The POX vote mirrored that 10 years ago for leaving the European Union. In council wards where more than 65% voted Leave in 2016, the POX got an average 45% vote share. In contrast, in places where a majority voted to stay in the EU, just 19% voted POX. However, being anti-European is not the explanation; both vote results reflect a deeper problem. The psephologist John Curtice noted8 that POX “won 39% of the vote in heavily working-class wards but only 19% in the most middle-class ones”. ‘Middle-’ and ‘working-class’ are misleading terms here9, but he goes on to note that “support for the party averaged 43% in wards where more than half of adults have few, if any, educational qualifications. In contrast, it polled just 19% where more than two in five have a degree”.

Curtice notes that “…on average the party only polled 22% in wards where more than one in five identify as other than ‘white’, compared with a tally of 33% in places where more than 95% told the 2021 Census that they were ‘white’.” This reflects the established social scientific finding that familiarity breeds tolerance and understanding. It is noteworthy here though since on television news reports, the majority of POX voters who were interviewed stressed immigration, and particularly so-called illegal immigration, as chief reasons for their support. As we know Farage bangs on endlessly about immigration generally and ‘the boats’ in particular, and has succeeded in shifting the terrain of political discourse, at least for the Tory and Labour leaderships.

While the POX vote could, then, be characterised as that of those with little education and little direct experience of diversity – of the ignorant – we need to look at what is behind this. Curtice again: “[POX] did best in what has sometimes been characterised in the wake of the Brexit referendum as ‘left-behind’ Britain – places that have profited less from globalisation and university expansion”. Casting the view further afield, this is not a uniquely English or British phenomenon. The German neo-fascists, AfD do best in the east of the country, in the areas that de-industrialised and lost much of the previous socialist safety net heavily after unification. Trump’s vote similarly reflected economic woes. In all these cases, though, the vote was also the result of the lack of a credible progressive alternative (although the renewed Die Linke in Germany is proving something of an exception10): Labour, Social Democrat, and Democrat voters stayed at home.

Demographics only goes some way to explain POX’s success. We also have to look at how their appeal is manufactured. In Mr Farage, POX clearly has a valuable asset. Paradoxically, given his class affiliation, he is able to project an image of the common sense rebel, who likes a pint and a cigarette. He is very adept at putting forward plausible arguments, their strength being their foundation on half-truths. So, there has been an increase in the numbers of desperate people trying to reach the UK in small boats: he doesn’t mention that this is caused by the successive blockage of safe routes, nor that the majority of asylum claims are successful – people flee for a reason. Of course there is no mention of the fundamental reasons why people become refugees, the damage caused by Western imperialism to their countries and by climate and ecological devastation to their livelihoods. He says decarbonisation is costly. It is, although the continued burning of fossil fuels will have a greater cost, and the cost of ‘renewable’11 electricity is artificially high due to it being tied to the price of that expensive fuel, gas. Other arguments appeal to self interest, or selfishness: the UK’s carbon emissions are small compared to the global total, so we shouldn’t worry about our carbon pollution – rather like justifying dumping an old refrigerator in a beauty spot because rogue waste disposal operators are fly tipping there.

POX’s argumentative skills would count for nothing, however, were there not open and supportive platforms for them. This is all very well documented, whether in terms of the disproportionate number of appearances of Farage on the BBC’s news and current affairs programmes, or the right wing mainstream press in this country. As an example, BBC presenter Nick Robinson, on the flagship Today radio programme, 23rd April, interviewed Adrian Ramsey (Greens) and Nigel Farage (POX). For Ramsey he just repeated the same simplistic question (about gender identity), interrupting when Ramsey tried to give a nuanced answer. Ramsey didn’t get to talk about Green policies at all, and this in the lead-in to local elections. When it came to Farage, in contrast, he mostly just let him talk on his preferred, divisive themes, with the usual lack of persistent questioning.

Countering the threat

How should the POX threat be countered? What the Labour leadership is doing is very much not the way. Under the influence of the socially conservative ‘Blue Labour’ and right wing Blairite factions, pronouncements so far have been on the terrain established by POX and the Tory right. Starmer and those around him are signalling to voters that they will take action on the POX hobby horses, making destructive assaults on the rights of migrants, and increasing military expenditure12 13. As George Eaton has written: “expect an increasing number of MPs to demand a ‘reset’ – greater action to reduce immigration (one of the defining issues in Runcorn) and an avoidance of further austerity measures.” But as Simon Wren-Lewis points out14, “…any Labour MP should know reducing immigration will increase the need for austerity measures given Labour’s fiscal rules, or do these MPs believe the Reform party politicians who falsely say the opposite?“.

It really does appear that Labour’s socialist humanitarianism is proving less durable than the social liberalism of the Liberal Democrats, who have been far more reliable in countering POX’s immigration rhetoric15. So what is the alternative? We can split this into two parts.

Fair Distribution, Environmental Wins and Basic Decency

Firstly, making appropriate policy demands – to both pressure the Labour government and also strengthen the emergent alternative platform in the form of the disaffected Labour activists and rebel MPs (and possibly some local government leaders like the supposed Prince in Waiting in the North), the Greens, Plaid Cymru, the SDLP, and a number of social movements and NGOs. These need to centre on fair distribution, via adequate benefits – the winter fuel payment and the 2-child cap being likely easy wins, an adequate Living Wage, Trade Union rights and progressive taxation on income and on wealth so the richer sections and big capitalists pay16.

It means seeking environmental win-wins in terms of shock hardening, green jobs, adequate public transport, amenity and liveability of communities. It means resisting militarisation and authoritarian legislation on protest. It means not seeking easy answers (e.g. Labour’s flawed green industrial revolution with its unrealisable short term goals on electric power and failure to recognise the deep nature of the energy and minerals crisis).

Above all it means espousing and modelling basic decency, humanitarian values and kindness – much more than trying to make economistic justifications for immigration, as some soft critics in and allied to Labour, and the Lib Dems, are doing.. We don’t support immigration because it boosts the economy but because we believe in the social value brought by a diverse population, and of course, the rights of people to flee persecution and reach a safe haven, like Farage’s Huguenot ancestor. For we know that the expansion of the economy (the establishment’s magical but elusive ‘growth’) will, by damaging the livelihoods and environments of those at the wrong end of global supply chains, lead to further migration anyway as ecosystems and food production collapse and armed conflicts spread.

Allied to that is the need to consistently and clearly call out lies, half truths and hate wherever we encounter it.

Building an informed political culture

Beyond all that, though, there is a greater need, and this perhaps goes to what’s really at the root of POX’s success. Britain has a truly abysmal political culture. Politics has become the province of parties that seem little more than electoral machines, with the politicians, at national level typically being those who have always specialised in politics as a profession, coming up through policy units, think tanks, and so on. Gone are the days, for example, when the Labour Party was the political voice of the trade union movement and its leadership included those who’d come up from the shop floor. But there is more to it than that. Again, looking at the labour and socialist movement, there was a time when its lifeblood was in the various community organisations that gave members a grounding in political education – it taught them to read the world, and it did that through their participation. That was the case for the renowned Manchester Hall of Science, that so impressed William Morris for the quality of the debate, there were the Clarion clubs, the socialist churches and clubs, and the Workers Educational Association (which still exists)17. Without romanticising all this excessively, the contrast is stark with today’s culture of passive consumption of ideology manufactured by the political and media machine, although something of the possibilities were glimpsed in the period of political awakening north of the border around the last independence referendum.

There needs to be the recreation of a movement of political education fit for these present times of climate and ecological emergency, continued austerity, social division and conflict, and the renewed threat from the right. That does imply building a culture of civic discourse within our communities, a culture that would realise the idea of active political and cultural citizenship, rather than the pale, peculiarly British identity of ‘subject’.

The key processes in such political educative work are what is called in the jargon conscientisation – the developing of an understanding through critical reflection on the realities that face participants, and de-ideologisation, where the process of active engagement in this exploration enables participants to penetrate the smog of received and distorting ideology; ideology that is manufactured in the interests of the elite and property owning class. Only something like this has any chance of making a dent in the dominance of the mass media and the algorithmic propaganda found on the main social media platforms. For it to happen would mean the combination of local initiatives and its dedicated facilitation by radical parties and movements. We invite you to do that work!

The Steady State Manchester collective, May 2025

1 As a party, it has a very strange structure. It is both a political party and a limited company. “As of 2025, ownership of the party was transferred from Farage to a new business legally constituted as Reform 2025 Limited, a company limited by guarantee, replacing the original company which was controlled by Farage as majority shareholder. The directors and guarantors of the new company are Farage and Ziauddin Yusuf, who will effectively control the new company Ltd.”.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_UK#Funding_and_structure So it is far from democratic.

2 The surname ‘Farage’, is probably of French Hugenot origin; he also has distant German ancestry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage . The similar sounding ‘Falange’.was the Spanish fascist party of democracy-overturning dictator Francisco Franco – the Phalange are a Christian fascist movement in Lebanon, that conducted in the Sabra and Shatila massacres in Palestinian refugee camps.

9 Class, as an analytic category, is properly defined by relation to the means of production, not in terms of the resulting occupational and cultural characteristics.

11 We put ‘renewable’ in quotes since there are real limits to the renewability of the new wind and solar generation plant: but that is an issue that neither POX nor the net-zero, green growth lobby appreciate.

15 The Labour party had a number of ideological roots, including socialist humanism, Marxism, Christian socialism, and trade union sectional interests. Those became allied with a largely ameliorative economic approach concerned with managing capitalism more efficiently. A similar contradiction is present in the Liberal (Democratic) Party, and in liberalism more generally. Social liberalism, going back to writers like John Stuart Mill, is about human rights, fair representation, and political and social freedom. Economic liberalism (going back to Adam Smith, John Locke and others is concerned with allowing the supposedly free market of commodities, including labour, to operate freely and efficiently. In both parties, this contradiction between social philosophy and economic ideology is what keeps fundamental change to the system off the agenda.

16 For an example programme, adequate to the social, economic and ecological challenges, including taxation proposals, see http://gettingreal.org.uk.

17 For more on this history and its relevance to alternatives to growthism, see our In Place of Growth, 2012, page 39 Box: Historical memory and lived culture.

 

Posted in analysis, Politics, UKpolitics | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Prospects for Degrowth

Posted on 17 April, 2025 by The Steady State Manchester team

The DegrowthUK network is mounting a series on Prospects for Degrowth.

See the articles in this series

Call for articles - Prospects for degrowth (snail image) “As much of the world takes a sinister turn on several fronts, not least in the UK with the re-vindication of GDP growth and militarism, DegrowthUK is inviting timely submissions on the topic ‘Prospects for Degrowth’. This will create a series, and to start it, we publish a short piece ‘Prospects for Degrowth’. Contributions could respond to that or focus on other related questions.

“The series could include pieces related to topics such as:

  • Implications of the accelerating climate and ecological crisis.
  • Political openings and closures in the present conjuncture.
  • Economic strains and their implications for the degrowth agenda.
  • Confronting renewed growth-fetishism and militarism.
  • Taking care of ourselves and others in the context of collapsing ecological and social systems and repressive politics.

“DegrowthUK also welcomes submissions on other topics that fall within the scope of the overall theme of prospects for degrowth.

“We welcome publications by researchers and activists based in the UK and beyond.”  read more

As of 17 April, two articles have been posted, by Mark Burton and by Vincent Liegey. with 4 more in the pipeline.

Read the articles and the CALL in full on the degrowthuk site.

 

Posted in analysis, degrowth, Politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment