What is "growth" ? We are accustomed to using this term very often, but do we know exactely what is behind these words ? Actually, "growth" desigantes something precise : the increase, a given year compared to the previous one, of an accounting notion which is the Gross Interior Product. This notion is defined, in national accounting systems (at least in France !) as "the final result of the production activity of the production units located on the national ground". It is therefore an agregate representing the monetary value (the price) of all that is produced on the national ground and available for a final use, which means that consumers can buy it and use it.

A larger notion is also used sometimes : the Gross National Product, which is the sum of the GIP, plus the value of the public services, the value of financial services, and the balance of exterior exchanges of services.

Though, looking at the good shape of a country uniquely through its GIP, it's a bit like measuring the good shape of a company uniquely through its turnover, without taking in consideration its profit (or without looking at its net assets, which is another way of saying the same thing). If the profit, in spite of an ever rising turnover, are constantly negative, our company will eventually go bankrupt, because its patrimony will eventually vanish.

The same reasoning can be applied to the GIP : if, in spite of a perpetual growth of this notion, our activity generates future expenses - but not accounted for - that are superior to the production of the year, our growth is only apparent. Can we try to link this to climate change ?

The Gross Interior Product of France amounted to 1,400 billion euros in 2001 (from INSEE). In order to get to this production of goods and services, we have put in the atmosphere about 150 millions tonnes carbon equivalent of greenhouse gases.

For the time being, the future damages that we cause to the environment are not accounted for in the GIP, in the way that no restriction to "final use" is linked to greenhouse gases emissions. If we passed a law forbidding to emit greenhouse gases, for example, most our GIP would suddently vanish !

This being said, it is true that if we want to deduct "something" for greenhouse gases emissions, it is impossible to reach an amount starting from an estimation of a damage cost : such a cost is potentially infinite. But on the other hand, we can ask ourselves the following question : starting from what value of the tonne of carbon equivalent is our country "in the red", which means that the "hidden liability" represented by the value of the emissions is superior to the turnover represented by the GIP ?

It will be easy for the reader to see that this value is a little over 9,000 euros per tonne carbon equivalent (which is the result of dividing 1400 billion euros of GIP by 150 millions tonnes carbon equivalent). 9.000 euros per ton of carbon equivalent corresponds roughly to a multiplication by 7 of the price of gasoline in France (now 1 euro per liter, that is 3,7 euros per US gallon), or brings the price of gasoline (not renewable) to the price of good wine (renewable).

Most certainly, this is a value that would be considered high given the figures that we are accustomed to handle, but if we consider the magnitude of the possible consequences of climate change, and the fact that fossil fuels is only available in finite quantities, who can assert that such an amount is necessarily absurd ?

This reasonning can also be applied on a local scale, with a conclusion that might surprise the reader : if any company that emits greenhouse gases (which is any company in fact, because any company has at least a heated office, or uses a transportation means, if only for employees to come to work) had to include a liability for "future restoring of the climate system" in its accounting, as there is no theorical limit to such a liability, it is easy to see that with an appropriate level - high, but not absurd - not a single company would make a profit any more. As setting such a level is equivalent to introducing a new tax, or a new law, any profit whatsoever is, in a way, conventionnal : it is valid only with the present set of rules, laws and usages that we have, but with an hypothesis not more stupid that anything else all the Dow Jones companies become permanent loss makers.

In addition, we have just discussed greenhouse gases here. If we want to give also a monetary counterpart to the depletion of all non renewable resources that we use today to "fuel the economy" (ores of all kind, fossil fuels in general and oil in particular, limited ability of the environment to eliminate our various waste, fossil water resources that will be depleted someday if we prolongate the trends, etc), and if we decide to associate a "little something" to all these factors, then we "burden" the accounting af about any human activity, even with a much lower value for the greenhouse gases emissions alone.

Knowing that the result of a company increases or decreases, depending on the fact that it is a profit or a loss, its previous capital, saying that with an additional hypothesis on future liabilities we turn any human industrial activity into a loss machine is equivalent to saying that with this additional hypothesis we decrease the overall capital detained by humanity - that includes natural assets as well as artificial assets - instead of increasing it.

Said differently, a non absurd monetary value attributed to future damages caused by greenhouse gases emissions and, more generally, to all waste that we produce (and we produce more and more), changes the paradigm : the more we believe we are enriching ourselves, and the more we are in fact getting poorer.