Thread by @BjornLomborg

Silly: 238 academics claim we need to embrace no-growth economies, because of environmental limits and declining productivity gains
This is incorrect, as is their claim that degrowth can improve our quality of life
theguardian.com/politics/2018/…

The claim of running out of ecological space or earth (e.g. ecological footprint) is simply wrong
forbes.com/sites/bjornlom…

Yes, there are environmental problems, but these are mostly fixed when societies get richer:
stop worrying about basic challenges (no food)
and afford to worry about the environment (air pollution, deforestation)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznets_c…

Indoor air pollution – the world's biggest environmental killer – kills much less, when you get richer
ourworldindata.org/indoor-air-pol…

Outdoor air pollution first kills more (as you focus on getting out of poverty) and then less – as you get richer
india.uitp.org/articles/the-c…

Deforestation declines as you get richer, and once you get rich enough you start buying *more* forest (reforestation)
sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

They claim declining productivity could lead to no growth in Europe within a decade. Maybe we should try to fix that with better education and regulation?

The claim that no-growth or de-growth would be good for us is simply wrong. Both within and between countries, life satisfaction *increases* with higher income
sole-jole.org/12513.pdf
Published here: aeaweb.org/articles?id=10…

The claim that no-growth or de-growth would be good for us is simply wrong. 4 of 6 good life indicators increase with higher incomes
sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

Oh, and all of these researchers will fly to Bruxelles with their laptops to tell the rest of us we need to cut back on flights and luxuries like laptops.
Hypocrisy, much?