DEGROWTH: Destroying the Economy to Save the Planet?

Summary

The European Parliament's discussion on economic degrowth as a response to climate change is critiqued in this video. It argues that degrowth, which entails reducing consumption and economic activity, could disproportionately impact the poor and is politically unfeasible. Instead, the video suggests intensive growth, which involves using resources more efficiently, recycling, and focusing on intangible growth, as a more viable strategy. It concludes that economic growth, when clean and resource-efficient, is essential for technological advancements necessary to overcome global challenges and long-term survival.

Takeaways

• 🌍 The European Parliament held a meeting to promote economic degrowth, aiming to combat climate change by intentionally reducing economic growth.
• 📉 The concept of degrowth suggests that by becoming poorer, we will consume less, use fewer resources, and emit less CO2, potentially saving the planet.
• 🗣️ Statements in favor of degrowth are not from fringe environmentalists but are being discussed seriously within the European Parliament.
• 💸 The European Union is financing research projects to study methods of economic degrowth, indicating a serious consideration of this approach.
• 🤔 The script questions whether becoming poor is necessary to save the planet and what the consequences of degrowth might be on our lives.
• 🌳 The theory of degrowth faces a significant challenge in that poor countries, which are growing rapidly, are often the biggest polluters.
• 🌿 Degrowth could theoretically be viable if wealth were distributed equally among all countries, but this would require drastic reductions in production and consumption in the West.
• 🚫 The idea of convincing people to accept a lower standard of living for the sake of the environment is politically unfeasible and faces significant opposition.
• 📊 GDP, while not a perfect measure of happiness, is strongly correlated with well-being, and reducing it could lead to decreased life expectancy and education levels.
• ♻️ An alternative to degrowth is intensive growth, which involves using resources more efficiently, recycling, and creating wealth through intangibles like technology and innovation.

Q & A

What was the objective of the meeting held at the European Parliament on 15 May 2023?

The objective was to promote economic degrowth, which means intentionally aiming for a decrease in economic activity to reverse climate change.

What is the theory behind economic degrowth as a solution to climate change?

The theory suggests that by reducing economic growth, people will have less money, consume less, use fewer resources, emit less CO2, and thus help save the planet.

How does the script suggest that economic degrowth would affect poor countries?

The script implies that economic degrowth would be detrimental to poor countries, as it would condemn them to perpetual poverty by halting their economic growth and development.

What is the counterargument presented in the script regarding the pollution levels of poor versus rich countries?

The script argues that contrary to common belief, poor countries are often the biggest polluters because as they develop, their emissions increase significantly, and they often rely on dirtier energy sources.

How much would Western countries have to reduce their production according to the script to achieve an equal distribution of wealth globally?

Western countries would have to reduce their production by about two-thirds to allow poor countries to increase their wealth up to a level that matches them.

What are the three reasons presented in the script for intensive growth, which allows economic growth without increased resource consumption?

The three reasons are efficiency, recycling, and growth through intangibles such as patents, education, and digital content.

What is the main criticism of intensive growth as presented in the script?

The main criticism is that the decoupling of growth and resource consumption is happening too slowly and may not be sufficient or sustained over time to address the climate emergency.

How does the script suggest that poor countries could grow without causing environmental harm?

The script suggests that because rich countries have already made progress in clean technologies, poor countries can leapfrog to cleaner growth by directly adopting renewable energy and efficient technologies.

What is the script's stance on the necessity of economic growth for humanity's long-term survival?

The script argues that economic growth is necessary for humanity's survival and progress, as it funds the research and development needed to overcome future cosmic and environmental threats.

What alternative solutions to degrowth does the script propose?

The script proposes intensive growth, reforestation, development of carbon cleaning technologies, and boosting circular economies as alternative solutions to degrowth.

Outlines

00:00

🌱 Economic Degrowth: A Controversial Proposal

The video script begins by addressing a meeting at the European Parliament on May 15, 2023, where the concept of economic degrowth was discussed. The idea is to intentionally reduce economic growth to combat climate change, suggesting that less wealth and consumption would lead to lower CO2 emissions. The script cites statements from Professor Dan O'Neill and climate activist Adelaïde Charlier, emphasizing the seriousness with which these ideas are being considered. It also mentions that the European Union is funding research into how to achieve degrowth. The video aims to explore the necessity and feasibility of degrowth, questioning if poverty is the only solution to environmental issues and what the consequences might be.

05:01

🌐 The Global Impact of Degrowth

Paragraph 2 delves into the global implications of economic degrowth, highlighting the stark contrast between the living standards of developed countries and the majority of the world's population who live in poverty. It points out that economic degrowth could perpetuate poverty for the world's poor, as it would mean no improvement in their current conditions. The script challenges the notion that only developed countries are significant polluters, citing data showing that developing countries contribute a large portion of current carbon emissions. It suggests that degrowth could only be viable if poor countries agree to remain poor or if there is a significant redistribution of wealth, which would require developed countries to reduce their production and consumption dramatically.

10:02

🚀 Intensive Growth as an Alternative to Degrowth

The final paragraph presented in the script argues against the degrowth theory, proposing intensive growth as a more viable alternative. It explains that economic growth does not necessarily equate to increased resource consumption, as advanced economies can grow using fewer resources through efficiency, recycling, and intangible growth. The script acknowledges the challenges of achieving decoupling between growth and resource consumption but suggests that intensive growth, with its focus on better utilization of resources, is a more promising path. It also raises the point that to safeguard humanity against existential threats, economic and technological progress is essential, and degrowth could hinder our ability to develop the necessary advanced technologies.

Keywords

💡Economic Degrowth

Economic degrowth is the concept of intentionally reducing the scale of economic activity to minimize resource use and environmental impact. In the video, this is discussed as a potential solution to climate change, where promoting degrowth aims to reverse climate change by having less money, consuming less, and emitting less CO2.

💡Climate Change

Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns, primarily caused by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. The video addresses climate change as the central problem that economic degrowth is proposed to combat, emphasizing the urgency of reversing these changes to save the planet.

💡CO2 Emissions

CO2 emissions, or carbon dioxide emissions, are a major contributor to global warming and climate change. The video script mentions reducing CO2 emissions as a key goal of economic degrowth, highlighting the need for less consumption and resource use to decrease these emissions.

💡Sustainable Economic Growth

Sustainable economic growth implies economic development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The video challenges this concept by presenting viewpoints from experts who argue that it is not possible to achieve on a finite planet, thus advocating for degrowth.

💡Wealth Distribution

Wealth distribution refers to how wealth is shared among different individuals or social classes within an economy. The script discusses wealth distribution as a potential solution to environmental problems, suggesting that equal distribution could allow for degrowth in rich countries while enabling poor countries to improve their standards of living.

💡Intensive Growth

Intensive growth is a form of economic growth that focuses on increasing the efficiency and productivity of existing resources rather than increasing the total amount of resources used. The video presents intensive growth as an alternative to degrowth, suggesting that it allows for economic expansion without exacerbating resource depletion and environmental degradation.

💡Resource Efficiency

Resource efficiency involves using fewer resources to produce the same or more output. In the context of the video, resource efficiency is key to intensive growth, where advancements in technology and design enable more production with less material, aligning with the goal of reducing environmental impact.

💡Circular Economy

A circular economy is an economic system aimed at minimizing waste and making the most of resources by recycling and reusing them. The video suggests that promoting circular economies can be part of the solution to environmental challenges, allowing for continuous use of resources without depleting them.

💡Renewable Energy

Renewable energy refers to energy sources that are naturally replenishing and can be utilized without depleting the environment. The script points to the adoption of renewable energy as a critical step in reducing pollution and achieving intensive growth, exemplified by countries like India making strides in solar power.

💡Political Feasibility

Political feasibility considers whether a policy or course of action can be successfully implemented within the existing political climate and constraints. The video discusses the political unfeasibility of economic degrowth, noting the challenges of convincing populations to accept reduced living standards and the potential for political turmoil.

💡Environmental Calamity

Environmental calamity refers to catastrophic events or conditions resulting from environmental degradation. The video uses the term to describe the potential consequences of unsustainable growth, emphasizing the need for urgent action to prevent such disasters.

Highlights

A meeting at the European Parliament on 15 May 2023 discussed promoting economic degrowth to reverse climate change.

The theory suggests that by becoming poorer, we would consume less, use fewer resources, and emit less CO2, potentially saving the planet.

Dan O'Neill, a Professor at the University of Leeds, stated that sustainable economic growth on a finite planet is not possible.

Adelaïde Charlier, a climate activist, also spoke against the detrimental effects of economic growth beyond a certain point.

The European Union is financing research projects to study how to impoverish the population to fight climate change.

Economic degrowth could condemn poor countries to eternal poverty, halting their development.

Developing countries are responsible for a significant portion of current carbon emissions, challenging the degrowth theory's effectiveness.

China's CO2 emissions from consumption exceed those of the US, Japan, and the EU combined, due to its large population and reliance on coal.

For degrowth to be viable, it would require either convincing poor countries to remain poor or significantly reducing wealth in rich countries.

Western countries would have to reduce their production by about two-thirds to achieve an equal distribution of wealth globally.

The process of degrowth would likely involve significant economic recessions and political challenges.

GDP is strongly correlated with well-being measures like life expectancy and education rates, despite not being a perfect happiness indicator.

Economic growth does not necessarily equate to increased resource consumption; intensive growth uses resources more efficiently.

Recycling and growth through intangibles like patents and digital content allow for economic growth without increased resource use.

The poorest countries waste more resources due to the need for extensive infrastructure development compared to wealthy countries.

Intensive growth and decoupling of growth from resource consumption are seen as a better alternative to degrowth.

Degrowth could be slower than intensive growth due to political difficulties and the need for rich countries to become poorer.

Investing in economic growth is essential for developing technologies to address not only climate change but also other existential threats.

The universe's vast resources could be harnessed through economic growth, making degrowth an unviable long-term option for humanity's survival.

Transcripts

It seems VisualEconomik community,  the European Union, and perhaps the  

entire world, is under threat of a major  economic change at a historic level.  

On 15 May 2023, a meeting was held at the European  Parliament with a never-before-seen objective:  

to promote economic degrowth. In other words, to promote that  

we all become poorer and poorer, in  order to reverse climate change.  

The theory is that by doing this, we will all have  less money, consume less, use up fewer resources,  

emit less CO2, and thus the planet can be saved. You don't believe me? Well, check this out: 

("Let me be clear. It is not possible to achieve  sustainable economic growth on a finite planet" 

Dan O'Neill, Professor at the University  of Leeds in the European Parliament) 

( "Beyond this point, economic  growth is detrimental".  

Speech by Adelaïde Charlier, climate  activist, at the European Parliament)  

These statements you have just heard  are not just statements from a couple of  

environmentalists at a hippie conference. Here we are talking about how the European  

Parliament, and many of its politicians, have  welcomed these ideas with applause and cheers.  

In fact, it was not just a simple meeting, rather  the European Union itself is already financing  

research projects to study how to impoverish  the population and thus fight climate change.  

(The European Research Council is providing 10  million euros for a project that will study how  

to escape from a growth economy – UAB) Yes, I know this all sounds  

like a joke, but it's not. And precisely because it's not a joke, we're going  

to use this video to answer a few questions: Is it really necessary for us all to become  

poor in order to save the planet? What consequences could economic  

degrowth have on our lives? Is all this really a viable project?  

Today, on VisualEconomik, we will answer all  these questions. So... Let's get started.  

Those of you who are watching this video were  most likely born in relatively developed countries  

with your basic needs reasonably covered. You all  have access to the internet, you all eat, and I'm  

pretty sure you all have access to clean water. However, your reality is an exception. Most of  

the world's population remains poor. Think  of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa,  

and countries like India, Pakistan,  the Philippines, Bangladesh....  

We think the most normal thing in this world is  having a sofa to sit on and plenty of food on  

the table. But what is normal for the majority  is not having access to many basic services.  

To give you an idea, even today, 50% of  the population lives on less than $240  

a month. And the poorest 10% do not even  have more than $2.15 a day to survive.  

So let me ask you: How would you go  with only $2.15 a day? Not much, is it?  

Well, the first thing we have to take into account  with degrowth is that if global economic growth  

slowed down tomorrow, all the people who  are poor today would remain poor forever.  

Economic degrowth is a pain for everyone, but  an absolute condemnation for poor countries.  

If the economy does not grow, they  will be miserable for eternity.  

Now, having said that, many of you may  think that an exception could be made  

for poor countries. At the end of the day, the  richest of us, the ones who pollute the most,  

are the developed countries. So we could apply degrowth only  

to ourselves, and let poor countries grow  until they catch up with us, couldn't we?  

Well, the truth is that no, in reality, poor  countries are the biggest polluters of all: 

(Developing Countries Are Responsible for  63 Percent of Current Carbon Emissions – 

CGD) Even if CO2 emissions in  

developed countries were reduced to zero. That is,  even if Europe, the US, and the entire West were  

to sink under the ocean and disappear, the carbon  emissions problem would not be solved at all.  

As poor countries escape poverty,  their gas emissions will skyrocket. 

Without going any further, China currently  generates more CO2 emissions linked to  

consumption than the United States, Japan, and  the countries of the European Union combined.  

This is explained by the fact that  China has a larger population,  

and also because, being a poorer  country, it uses much dirtier  

energy sources such as coal burning. Faced with such a scenario, the theory  

of degrowth could only be viable in two ways: The first: Convincing poor countries that they  

have to remain poor. [Which, I can  tell you now, simply won’t happen].  

And the second one: By distributing wealth  equally among all countries. That is,  

making the rich countries much poorer than  they are now, in exchange for increasing the  

wealth of the poor countries up to a limit. ("Rich countries urgently need to reduce  

their excess energy and resource use to  sustainable levels so our sisters and  

brothers in the global South can live well too," Jason Hickel, academic promoter of Degrowth)  

To achieve an equal distribution of the world's  wealth, Western countries would have to reduce  

their production by about two-thirds to  give the poor the "margin" to match them.  

Here we are talking about the fact that in places  like Europe, factories, trains, airports and  

schools would have to run one third of the normal  time. The consumption of water, electricity and  

heating could only be available 8 hours a day. We could buy one third of the cars, cell phones,  

food and clothes we buy now, and we could only  work 13 hours a week to limit our level of  

economic production. [maybe this working  fewer hours part doesn’t sound so bad].  

Joking aside, the fact is that the process of  degrowth would be marked by significant and costly  

economic recessions. And beyond the fact that the  objective of degrowth may seem well-intentioned,  

the truth is that everything indicates  that it would be politically unfeasible.  

Frankly, it would be very difficult to convince  the population to reduce their living standards so  

drastically. Not to mention the political turmoil,  fraud, and corruption that would be involved.  

Countries already have enormous problems  in trying to achieve 1 to 2% reductions  

in inequality. Imagine if they had to eliminate  all inequality at the global level: [Insane].  

The point is that it’s likely that if degrowth  were to be achieved, it would take decades to  

reach the targets, there would be infinite delays.  And think about it, if the objective is to combat  

an imminent climate emergency, and to do it  quickly, that delay would simply be unbearable.  

It would render the whole process useless. In the face of all of what we have just told  

you, the supporters of degrowth have an  argument that could solve the problem.  

According to them, it would be possible to  convince people that economic degrowth would be  

a good thing. From their point of view, reducing  production, reducing GDP, would not necessarily  

imply a worsening of living standards. This is already, from the outset, a bit strange.  

Okay, it is true that GDP is not a perfect  measurement of happiness or well-being.  

But let's be clear, GDP is very strongly  correlated with other measures of well-being  

such as life expectancy, infant mortality,  education rates, and happiness levels. 

And yes, sometimes there are exceptions. For  example, Cuba is an extremely poor country,  

yet it has a relatively good life expectancy. Even so, exceptions do not imply that  

they form a rule: If tomorrow we slashed  

the GDP of all rich countries, we would most  likely not be happier, nor live longer, nor  

have better education levels: quite the contrary. Be that as it may, even if the degrowth movement  

were to succeed in convincing the entire  population, or at least the politicians,  

and the West were to start getting poorer, there  would still be a major additional problem.  

The reality is that nothing prevents countries  that are now poor from continuing to grow and  

growing well above the limits set in the future.  The West could become poorer for nothing,  

and the rest of the countries could take the  lead and send all this degrowth down the drain.

In any case, there is one question  that begs to be asked here:  

It is true that degrowth is difficult,  but is there an alternative? 

("Perpetual growth on a finite planet leads  inexorably to environmental calamity. Green growth  

is an illusion." – British writer George Monbiot) Is unlimited economic growth a possibility  

when the planet has finite resources?  Resources that will one day run out?  

Well, let's take a look: (THE BASKET OF RESOURCES)  

At first glance, it seems logical that  if the planet has finite resources,  

then the economy cannot grow forever. However, there is a problem with this reasoning:  

It is not true that economic growth necessarily  equates to increased resource consumption.

Put simply, advanced economies  are able to grow economically  

using fewer and fewer resources, and  therefore polluting less and less.

This is because economic growth does  not always mean producing more things,  

in greater quantity. It can simply mean using  the same amount of things, but much better.  

This form of growth, where  things are better utilized,  

is known as intensive growth, and  can happen for three reasons:  

The first and most obvious of all is efficiency. For example, in the past, soda cans required a lot  

of metal in their construction. However,  thanks to improved design, many more cans  

can be made using the same amount of metal. In the same fashion, another way to increase  

efficiency is to substitute scarce  materials for abundant materials.  

So going back to the soda cans, years ago, they  were made from tin, which is a relatively scarce  

resource. But these days they are made from  aluminum, which is a much more abundant mineral. 

The second reason for  intensive growth is recycling.  

Yes, it is true that many resources such  as oil are depleted and do not resurface.  

Meanwhile many other resources such as gold,  copper, and fresh water can be recycled,  

either by natural means or by circular economies. That is: although the planet has finite resources,  

those resources can be used  and recombined indefinitely. 

Beyond that, the third reason that allows  the economy to grow without using more  

resources is growth through intangibles. Think for example of patents, science, YouTube  

videos, educational courses or video games.  All of them are ways of creating wealth, which,  

beyond some electricity that can be obtained in  a renewable way... consume almost no resources.  

In fact, this is something that partly  explains why the poorest countries are  

the ones that waste the most resources. Think about it. Wealthy countries already have  

their cities, their roads, their railways,  all built. But developing countries are,  

by definition, expanding countries. They  need to use a lot of physical resources to  

catch up building basic infrastructure. In rich countries, we are consuming more  

and more services and intangible  goods that do not require the use  

of as many resources or harmful emissions. In short, intensive growth is allowing countries  

to grow without spending many more resources. Even so, as good as this type of growth sounds,  

the degrowthists have one important  argument against this theory. Take a look: 

("The decoupling between growth and resource  consumption is neither rapid nor sufficient, and  

there is no guarantee that it will be sustained  over time. Intensive growth is to climate change  

what celebrating a diet is for losing 200 grams" Timothée Parrique, Researcher at Lund University,  

adapted transcript) Apparently, the big  

problem with the decoupling of growth and resource  consumption is that it is happening very slowly,  

and that to stop the climate emergency it  needs to be happening much faster than it is.  

What’s more, in order for all poor  countries to reach a decoupling point,  

they would have to become very rich, so that  they could then invest in expensive, clean and  

environmentally friendly renewable technologies. And let's see, the truth is that this argument  

may make sense, but as we have seen, it does  not seem that the real solution is degrowth.  

On top of everything, degrowth could be even  slower given its political difficulties.  

On the other hand, because rich countries  have made a lot of progress, poor countries  

will be able to grow cleanly much faster. Without going any further, locations as poor  

and polluting as India are already beginning  to make huge strides in renewable energy: 

(India is on 'cusp of a  solar-powered revolution'.)  

Clearly, just because intensive growth  and decoupling are a possibility does not  

mean that they will be an easy task. But they  certainly seem the best alternative available.  

In any case, in this whole story, one  last consideration is still needed. 

(IS THE ROAD TO HELL DEGROWTH?) The goal of the degrowthists is to save  

the planet. To save the human race from climate  change. However, climate change is not the only  

element that threatens life as we know it. For instance: think of an asteroid,  

a volcanic mega-eruption or a pandemic...  These are all events that could wipe us out.  

And they are not even the biggest risk of all: You see, in five billion years the life of our  

sun will be over. When the sun runs out  of fuel, it will begin to grow and grow,  

its flames will engulf the earth, and there  will be no trace of life left on earth.  

This is simply something that is going  to happen. Whether we like it or not.  

And at this point, we have to ask ourselves a  question: If we really want to save the human  

race... How are we going to protect  ourselves from all these scenarios?  

That is, how are we going to escape from  the solar system when the flames of the sun  

catch us. How are we going to resist a deadly  pandemic without ultra-advanced medicines to  

fight it. How are we going to deflect an asteroid  or save ourselves from a super volcanic eruption,  

if we keep our economic and technological  progress at the level it is at now.  

In the very long term, humans will need  technologies that we cannot even imagine now,  

intergalactic spacecraft, advanced space  mining, Dyson spheres capable of tapping  

the energy resources of entire stars. Without all this, we will not be able  

to survive the calamities of the cosmos. So the point is that in order to achieve  

these breakthroughs, we first need to advance  economically. We need to invest, undertake  

research, innovate, develop robots, artificial  intelligence devices more skilled than ourselves,  

and who knows how far we could go. To condemn our societies to poverty is  

simply to condemn them to death. Perhaps the  problem of the planet's finite resources is  

simply that we are unable to see beyond them. Yes, the planet may have limited resources,  

but the universe goes far beyond that, and our  way to conquer it will be to grow economically.  

Perhaps we need to grow in a  cleaner way, perhaps we need  

to put efforts into reforestation or to  develop carbon cleaning technologies,  

just as we will need to boost circular  economies to take advantage of resources.  

But everything indicates that degrowth, and  keeping us in poverty until the end of our days,  

seems anything but a viable option.  Rather, it seems to be an option  

that would end up dooming us all. Be that as it may, and at this point,  

it’s your turn: What do you think of  

the theory of degrowth and do you think that  the European Parliament will try to push for  

measures towards degrowth? How do we manage  to push for intensive growth and decoupling?  

As always, you can leave your answers in  the comments. And naturally, subscribe to  

VisualEconomik if you haven't already done  so and activate the little bell so you don't  

miss any of the following videos. All the best and see you next time!