Editor’s note: This commentary is part of an ongoing series, “Green Briefs,” appearing in The Beachcomber through a partnership with the Whole Vashon Project. Find out more at wholevashonproject.org.

There are two main schools of thought concerning how to approach the crises of climate change, resource depletion, and biodiversity loss: 1) advocating for a Green Growth economy or 2) for a Degrowth economy.

And, of course, there are many people who aren’t thinking about it at all.

Green Growthers (Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz are two) would like to carry forward as much of the benign status quo as possible and the mandate for economic growth. They would mostly utilize new technologies to mitigate all our crises.

Their main strategy is decoupling — reducing or eliminating the environmental impact of each dollar of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The optimists in this group think that we will be able to move into a future with exclusively renewable energy and with minimal changes in our lifestyles.

Degrowth realists agree that we must decouple the environmental impact from our investment dollars. However, they see this becoming much more difficult with a growing economy, requiring us to decouple faster and faster.

A moderate growth of 2 percent will double our consumption in 35 years. How will we double our consumer production with finite resources? This begs the question; do we need increased consumption?

Degrowthers in the developed world (Yanis Varoufakis, Giogios Kallis and Noam Chomsky are three) do not believe that our current lifestyles can be sustainable in a renewable energy/limited resource future. They prioritize welfare of all species and the planet over economic growth.

They see a future in which we must learn to live with not only no growth but negative growth, not with a recession but a controlled reduction of energy and resource use, coupled with equitable distribution of goods and services.

Both schools advocate using indices of wellness and equity instead of the GDP, which measures only economic activity, be it constructive or destructive.

Green Growther realists understand that much of our current predicament can be attributed to uncontrolled economic growth — maximizing production and consumption.

The capitalist drive for profit and power provides the human impetus, and fossil fuels provided the means. This has resulted in ecological disaster and a chaotic world with huge income, power, and resource disparities.

All the same, Growthers believe that our capitalist tendencies can be controlled and channeled for health and equity for our world and all its inhabitants.

Many Degrowthers are not opposed to capitalism, per se, but believe that expecting human nature to rise above greed and avarice in a system that rewards it is asking a lot.

They are also very wary of placing such ambitious expectations on the promise of technology to save us. We may be an extremely resourceful species, but they see it as dangerous to put all our eggs in that one basket.

Green Growthers want to scale up or at least maintain goods and services but recognize that it must be done in an environmentally sound and resource-efficient manner, while avoiding the “rebound effect” (using more of an efficiently produced resource, thereby neutralizing the intended savings).

Growthers should consider that we may need resource caps, taxes, regulations, and, very possibly, rationing to both avoid the rebound effect and ensure that all people and all life have access to existing resources, not just the rich.

Green Growth is the easier, more familiar path, and is supported, with reservations, by most prominent progressive economists. Degrowth is the more difficult path because it requires more change. However, it is more likely to succeed because it leaves behind practices that got us into trouble in the first place.

Regardless of which theory prevails, both schools know they will have to address income, power, and resource disparities not only among humans but in our relationship with all other life as well.

Both schools are serious about solving our crises. Think of them as coaches without teams. We are the teams. We can make our future, or it will make ours.

Anything is possible if our values prioritize life and equity over wealth accumulation.

Terry Sullivan is an island writer and activist.