Sometimes things really look good. Then I find myself among investors who are incredibly enthusiastic about the energy transition. Who are fully prepared to finance large wind farms or invest in high-tech, innovative solutions, such as hydrogen, nuclear fusion, silicon batteries, nature restoration through the sale of carbon credits, or the underground storage of CO₂. Or I attend a conference focused on climate adaptation: how can we better protect the Netherlands, what can we build, relocate, elevate, or deepen.

There is a clear common thread in all of this: when it comes to ‘more’, everyone joins in. More economic activity, more new projects to finance, that's the essence of capitalism. And, of course, it’s great if sustainability also generates a profit.

This is the age-old principle of our capitalist system. Capitalism has three ‘coping mechanisms’ to continually seek more, even when it’s truly not sustainable. The first, and traditional, is to find cheap ways to increase profits – whether through slavery in the past, or today through cheap labour, inexpensive raw materials, or outsourcing production to countries where working conditions are less regulated and environmental standards not so strict. This perpetuates a form of neocolonialism in our global economy.

The second coping mechanism is pushing forward by mortgaging the future. Global debt has never been higher, and the amount of untouched nature never smaller. This is how our system has operated for centuries: the more we can do and use now, the more we exploit in the present, regardless of long-term consequences.

The last mechanism is technology: if a technological solution appears to address a problem, we will adopt it without hesitation. Even if it eventually proves not to be the dreamed solution to the problem (think air scrubbers and magic floors in stables, think electric bicycles and perhaps electric cars too, think hydrogen, CO₂ storage), it doesn’t really matter for the economy. Production was completed, profits made, and the rest is history.

But what if the real challenge is about reduction? Reducing CO₂ emissions, reducing land use, reducing resource use. And what if technology alone won’t get us there? So far, there is little to no evidence that suggests otherwise.

Then the big question is how to harness capitalism’s inherent drive for more, more, more to achieve reduction. We need to explore the business model of ‘less economic growth’. I know, it sounds like a contradiction, but it shouldn’t be unthinkable. Imagine we quantify all the negative impacts on the environment and subtract them from the profits of the biggest polluters: then it is crystal clear that on balance Tata Steel, Shell and Exxon are already contributing to ‘less’. Meanwhile, an organic farmer or a circular company, on balance, more. So, if we redefine what ‘more’ means, act on that definition, and impose limits, we can create ‘less’ destruction while generating more total or integral value. Are you still with me?

The power of ‘more’ is at the heart of capitalism and that’s our escape hatch. If we want to remain capitalists we need to redefine ‘more’ -- not just in financial terms, but in natural and social terms as well. By maximising total value, we can close the loop. After all, this economy we live in is just a story, with rules we made up ourselves, long ago.

This is a translation of Hans' column published by Vrij Nederland.