Public Opinions on Degrowth in Montréal Samantha Mailhot Prévost
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Running out of time: Public opinions on degrowth in Montréal Samantha Mailhot Prévost A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science (Geography, Planning and Environment) in the Faculty of Arts and Science at Concordia University Montréal, Québec, Canada September 2020 © Samantha Mailhot Prévost 2020 CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY School of Graduate Studies This is to certify that the thesis prepared By: Samantha Mailhot Prévost Entitled: Running out of time: Public opinions on degrowth in Montréal and submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science (Geography, Urban and Environmental Studies) complies with the regulations of the University and meets the accepted standards with respect to originality and quality. Signed by the final Examining Committee: _________________________________________ Chair Dr. Norma Rantisi _________________________________________ Internal Examiner Dr. Kevin Gould _________________________________________ External Examiner Dr. Geoffrey Garver _________________________________________ Supervisor Dr. H. Damon Matthews _________________________________________ Co-Supervisor Dr. Bengi Akbulut Approved by _________________________________________ Dr. Craig Townsend Chair of Department _________________________________________ Dr. Pascale Sicotte Dean of Faculty of Arts and Science Date: __________________ II ABSTRACT Running out of time: Public opinions on growth and degrowth in Montreal Samantha Mailhot Prévost As every nation in the world continues its pursuit for everlasting economic growth, global temperatures are increasing at an alarming rate. For decades, scholars have warned about human impacts on the environment, cautioning us on our exhaustive use of resources and the implications of our seemingly innate need to grow economically. It has been asserted that economic growth is not sustainable, and its contraction is unavoidable due to natural limits, therefore any research on managing and prospering without growth is of great value. Degrowth has been put forth as an alternative paradigm, and as the movement is required to be democratic and collective, public opinions are crucial for its mobilization. Accordingly, public opinions on the matter need to be evaluated in order to assess the potential for implementing degrowth policies. Public opinion studies on degrowth are scarce, especially in North America. This study aims to contribute to the literature by assessing public opinions on degrowth in Montréal, by collecting data on support for 6 degrowth policy proposals (limiting trade distances and volume, creating a moratorium on new infrastructure, taxing resource use, progressive taxation, implementing a basic income and reducing work hours), and support for a societal degrowth transition. I find that the majority of respondents support 4 out of 6 policy proposals, and the majority also support a degrowth transition. This study shows Montréal to be a promising city for experimenting with degrowth politics. Establishing concrete strategies for its implementation that address public concerns could prove degrowth to be a promising avenue for achieving social-environmental sustainability. III ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To my supervisor Damon Matthews, Thank you for believing in me. Your support throughout the several years we worked together has been substantial and has given me the confidence I needed in my abilities as an academic. Importantly, I thank you for your patience as I navigated through my research interests. Throughout these changes, you have driven me to deepen my understanding and think critically about the topics embedded in this thesis. To my co-supervisor Bengi Akbulut, Your fiery passion for achieving social change has been deeply inspiring. This, along with your knowledge about ecological economics, degrowth, and so much more has been integral to this project. I am extremely grateful for having met you when I did, because this work wouldn’t have been possible without your guidance. To Étienne Guertin, Mathieu Blais, Mitch Dickau and Donny Seto, Thank you for the time you spent helping me with statistics and programming. There would have been many more tears if it weren’t for you. To my friends, Leila Variri and Jancie Creaney, thank you for proofreading my work, and for so much more. A big thank you to Jen Gobby for your immense support this past year. To my dear CSIM lab mates and the rest of my cohort, You have made my time at Concordia special. I thank you for the thought-provoking and insightful conversations, the laughs, and the valuable comments that ameliorated this project. I will sincerely miss seeing you every day. To my parents and friends, I appreciate everything you have done for me over the past two years. I can’t really put into words how much your various forms of support have helped me move through some of the most challenging times in my life. I thank you, deeply. IV CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... VII LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. VIII LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................. IX CHAPTER 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1 A state of emergency .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Degrowth as a possible solution .............................................................................................................. 3 1.3 Degrowth in Québec ..................................................................................................................................... 5 1.4 Research objectives and thesis structure ............................................................................................ 6 CHAPTER 2 Literature Review .................................................................................................. 8 2.1 Background: Economic growth and sustainability ........................................................................... 8 2.3 Degrowth ....................................................................................................................................................... 14 2.4 Proposals of degrowth ............................................................................................................................. 19 2.4.1 Reduce the environmental impact of human activities .................................................................................................... 20 2.4.2 Redistribute income and wealth both within and between countries ......................................................................... 22 2.4.3 Promote the transition from a materialistic to a convivial and participatory society ............................................ 23 2.5 Addressing barriers to degrowth ......................................................................................................... 26 2.6 Public opinions on the term degrowth ............................................................................................... 30 2.7 Public opinions on growth versus the environment ..................................................................... 31 2.8 Public opinions on degrowth-related policies ................................................................................ 33 2.9 Determinants of environmental values ............................................................................................. 34 2.9.1 Age .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 35 2.9.2 Education ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 35 2.9.3 Income .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 36 2.9.4 Employment status ....................................................................................................................................................................... 37 2.9.5 Gender .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 37 2.9.6 Political orientation ...................................................................................................................................................................... 37 2.9 Social rationality ........................................................................................................................................ 38 2.10 Gaps in knowledge .................................................................................................................................. 39 CHAPTER 3 Manuscript ........................................................................................................... 40 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................