DEGROWTH: Destroying the Economy to Save the Planet?
Summary
TLDRThe 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
🌱 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.
🌐 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.
🚀 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.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Economic Degrowth
💡Climate Change
💡CO2 Emissions
💡Sustainable Economic Growth
💡Wealth Distribution
💡Intensive Growth
💡Resource Efficiency
💡Circular Economy
💡Renewable Energy
💡Political Feasibility
💡Environmental Calamity
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!
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)