LiFE, degrowth and SDGs: Some epistemological concerns

PM Modi’s call for a global mass movement for protecting the natural environment was most succinctly summarised through his introduction of the concept of ‘Lifestyle for the Environment’ (LiFE) at COP26 in Glasgow in November 2021. His speech made an ardent appeal to the global community of individuals and institutions to drive such lifestyle change as a mass movement at a time when the planet is at the tipping point of destruction through the perils brought about by global warming and climate change. It is amply clear that while the success of such a movement is contingent upon the most micro-level unit in our social system, i.e., the individual, it calls for collective action for bringing about the much-needed change at a global scale. To interpret this in other terms, “modernity”, the pursuit of which entails unbridled human development ambitions, is definitely not the accepted pathway in which civilisation can proceed further. Rather, the modernity that has promoted the present unrestrained consumption patterns needs to be retracted; the social metabolic processes that entail human extraction of materials and energy from nature cannot afford to exceed the velocity of nature's regenerative capacity; and human lifestyle needs to align itself to the biophysical processes from where life has emerged.

The modernity that has promoted the present unrestrained consumption patterns needs to be retracted.

While the call for LiFE is now being accepted globally as one of the foremost epistemological positions to combat climate change, it has found several interpretations. Many find that it not only puts forward the cause of SDG 13, i.e., climate action, but it furthers the cause of many SDGs and rather sustainable development as a whole. Even within climate action, it can be interpreted as a step towards lifestyle-induced mitigation as it talks of sustainable production and consumption processes that involve low energy use and emissions. On the other hand, it can also be interpreted as an adaptation as the LiFE philosophy entails adapting to a low-energy, low-consumption lifestyle that is more aligned with the natural ecosystem’s needs. As such, if one notes, LiFE is inherently intertwined with all the SDGs directly or indirectly. Climate change can modify the ecosystem structure and functions, and eventually, deplete or degrade the ecosystem services (or services provided by the ecosystem organically and for free), which are often called the “GDP of the poor”. LiFE, therefore, can help in achieving SDG 1 (No Poverty) through better provisioning of ecosystem services. By helping the cause of ecosystem health, LiFE can help increase soil and water productivity, thereby, increasing crop yields and helping the cause of SDG 2 (Zero Hunger). With a lifestyle more aligned with nature, LiFE can help combat the adverse climatic impacts on health (SDG 3). The disruption in educational systems brought about by extreme weather events can also be combated through a more environment-friendly lifestyle, thereby, affecting the achievement of SDG 4, particularly in regions that are vulnerable to extreme weather events or changes in environmental conditions. While women and girls are often more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, particularly in regions where they have limited access to resources and decision-making power, the changes in value systems brought about through the adoption of LiFE will help women and girls avoid such adverse impacts (SDG 5). The linkages of LiFE with the attainment of SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) are much more direct: an environment-friendly lifestyle is more congenial for maintaining cleanliness due to less pollution. This also helps with health-related goals and ensures better water management, and natural resource management at various scales. The association of LiFE and SDG7 (affordable and clean energy) hardly needs any explanation: climate mitigation efforts through green transition help in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

By helping the cause of ecosystem health, LiFE can help increase soil and water productivity, thereby, increasing crop yields and helping the cause of SDG 2 (Zero Hunger).

Adoption of LiFE, as a philosophy, can increase economic productivity by addressing causes of human and physical capitals. Again, such environment-friendly lifestyles have positive impacts on work conditions, business environment and economic growth. In the process, this helps the cause of SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth). SDG 9 (Innovation and Infrastructure) which aims to “build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialisation and foster innovation”, will therefore be achieved through green energy. This enables SDG 13 as well. Therefore, though SDGs 9 and 13, apparently seem to be inimical for each other, adoption of the LiFE philosophy reverses the trade-off. While the impacts of climate change are iniquitous across income groups, with the poor being more vulnerable as they are bereft of the means of resilience, such aggravated inequality can be countered by LiFE (helping the cause of SDG10). In fact, as far as SDG 11 is concerned, cities need to develop adaptation and mitigation strategies to combat the forces of climate change that increase the risks of flooding, pollution and heat. This is where LiFE helps SDG 11. Life further propagates changes in consumption and production patterns, including reducing waste and promoting sustainable practices (SDG 12). As such, LiFE is entirely for SDGs 14 and 15 (life on earth and underwater) and neither needs an explanation, nor any further iteration. The blue economy again is a major carbon sink. On a similar note, while climate change acts as a stressor and impedes the achievement of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Inclusion), which again is a critical ‘enabler’ for achieving other SDGs, LiFE can help promote SDG16 by minimising the climatic and environmental problems. LiFE can help in the cooperative governance of natural resources thereby minimising the possibility of natural resource conflicts due to scarcity and depletion, which may even lead to the exclusion of vulnerable communities. Finally, when SDG 17 talks of global partnerships for the goals, LiFE is also about global collective action for a new nature-aligned lifestyle that can help in combating climate change.

Such environment-friendly lifestyles have positive impacts on work conditions, business environment and economic growth.

Bringing degrowth in the discourse

While the essay has so far talked of the alignment of LiFE with SDGs, it is important that from an epistemological perspective, degrowth is brought into the discussion. Degrowth is a radical philosophy that has taken the shape of a movement in certain parts of the world, especially the West, though it has hardly found traction in the developing world. This is despite a few activists of the developing world advocating the cause of degrowth as the solution for the world. Degrowth calls for retraction in our business-as-usual ways of living thereby bringing about a significant reduction in global consumption and production (social metabolism) levels. The movement discards GDP as the parameter of progress and emphatically advocates the need for a socially just and ecologically sustainable social system, where human well-being parameters are delineated through social and environmental goals. Therefore, degrowth calls for social change that reorganises social metabolism. Doesn’t this seem to have an uncanny similarity with the LiFE philosophy? This is more so because this school of thought has not only been inspired by the occidental thinkers like Leo Tolstoy but has also been influenced by writings of Indian thinkers like Gandhi and J.C. Kumarappa. As such, all the three paradigms, namely, SDGs, LiFE, and degrowth concur on one issue: the importance of biodiversity conservation, protecting the natural ecosystem in which human life and livelihood are embedded, and the transition to renewable energy.  However, interestingly, degrowth proponents oppose the notion of sustainable development in the same way in which they oppose “green growth”. From the degrowth perspective, sustainable development is an oxymoron. The sustainable development philosophy believes in pursuance of growth while promoting conservation goals, while degrowth opposes any form of productivism, that delineates the role of human society through economic productivity and growth. Much in contrast to this productivism philosophy, the degrowth thesis believes in sustaining the very fundamental basis of life that rests in nature, thereby advocating a receding wave of progression in human endeavours.

LiFE can help in the cooperative governance of natural resources thereby minimising the possibility of natural resource conflicts due to scarcity and depletion, which may even lead to the exclusion of vulnerable communities.

Given this, where does LiFE stand? At this point, there are no hard principles or canons that can delineate LiFE. LiFE appears to be a much broader philosophy that is apparently much more accommodative than most of the developmental philosophies and is still emerging. Because of its amorphous nature, its more concrete delineation will have to depend on the concerned society that adopts it. While it definitely advocates human living to be aligned with nature, it does not ask societies to sacrifice their own visions and aspirations. Therefore, unlike “degrowth” or any other development paradigm, it apparently seems that LiFE should not be construed as a “one-size-fits-all” paradigm. Global North and South have distinctly different ambitions, but LiFE helps draw a common thread somewhere between the two without asking each to move away from their aspirations: It only asks them to align their lifestyle to the environment; which will help sustain life on Earth. The pathways are told, but the methods need to be defined by the adopters.

---

Nilanjan Ghosh heads the Centre for New Economic Diplomacy (CNED) and the Kolkata Centre at ORF.

• Climate Change
• India
• Clean water and sanitation
• Degrowth
• Ecosystem Services
• gender equality
• LiFE
• Low-energy lifestyle
• POVERTY ERADICATION
• SDGs

The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.