UBI and the Environmental Cost of Overemployment

Imagine for a moment that we paused all economic growth. The pie isn’t getting bigger, but it isn’t getting smaller either.

Now, imagine we invent an efficiency improvement—some new technology. This means the same amount of goods and services can be produced with less employment of natural resources.

Since growth is off the table, consumption stays exactly where it is. But resource use goes down. There are fewer factories, fewer waste byproducts, and fewer workers needing to be employed.

In this thought experiment, people can enjoy exactly the same amount of suburbs, red meat, clothing, and electronics that they do today. Nevertheless, our economy’s footprint on the environment has improved because the employment of resources in the production of those goods has been reduced overall.

There’s just one conceptual problem: Since people are less employed, how are they still paying for goods and services? How can non-working people buy what our leaner, less polluting economy is producing?

There’s a simple answer: Universal Basic Income (UBI). A job-free income can sustain people’s access to wealth even as employment—and its impact on our environment—shrinks.

While UBI is most often discussed in the context of welfare or automation, this policy has profound implications for our economy’s relationship to the environment—implications that few economists, environmental conservationists, or degrowth activists are aware of.

In the absence of UBI, consumption can generally only be supported through higher employment: the very thing that uses up natural resources and generates waste products.

So, is our global economy really over-consuming the planet to death? Are human beings’ desires to improve their living standards and lifestyles the root cause of climate change and other environmental ills?

Or have we unwittingly been overemploying ourselves and overworking our economy, incurring costs to markets and our environment, yet receiving fewer benefits in return?

If some amount of UBI can replace some amount of waged employment while supporting consumption and production as well or better, this implies the possibility of environmental savings right now. We can do this without de-growing anyone’s income or lifestyle. Instead, we can remove superfluous jobs and superfluous firms. This is a savings we are currently leaving on the table.

If only our society were prepared to envision a world of fewer firms and fewer workers—relying on technology to produce as many goods as we enjoy today—a more efficient, more prosperous, and more sustainable economy would be within our reach.

Whether the economy is growing, de-growing, or staying exactly the same size, it never makes sense to use up more natural resources (including labor) than is necessary for any given level of consumption. Even if we set aside the costs of overemployment to our time and dignity, we must still consider the impact on our environment.

I would like to see more discussion from both economists and degrowth advocates of the costs of overemployment and the implications of UBI. Some costs to our environment might be easier to address than we realize.