Last year I wrote an open letter to Steven Pinker, questioning his triumphalist narrative about global poverty reduction. I never received an answer. But I've worked on this issue a bit more since then... jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/2/3/…
Here, elaborating the argument further and connecting it to the problem of inequality: newint.org/features/2019/…
Finally, it's important to keep in mind what's happened this year, with an additional 400 to 500 million people pushed into poverty by the pandemic: reliefweb.int/sites/reliefwe…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
People mistakenly assume that the World Bank's poverty line ($1.90 PPP per day) represents what an American might be able to buy with $1.90 in poor countries abroad. But in fact the opposite is true: it represents what $1.90 can buy in the US. In other words, virtually nothing.
To put this in perspective, $1.90 can just about buy a loaf of bread in the US, or a can of tuna. To say nothing of actual nutrition, much less shelter, clothing, energy and transportation.
A minimum wage job in the US earns you about $60 per day. So living on $1.90 would be like 30 people trying to survive on a single minimum wage... with no begging, scavenging, or welfare systems to draw on, since all of these are counted as "income" by the World Bank.
The Managua Declaration is a radical statement against climate breakdown that recognizes and addresses the structural drivers of this crisis. It was drafted by La Via Campesina, representing 200 million peasant families and Indigenous people worldwide. viacampesina.org/en/managua-dec…
"We are conscious that it is the capitalist system that causes predatory actions against the environment, causing severe damage to our planet. It destroys our lands, forests and seas, pillages our territories and criminalizes our struggles – all for the benefit of the few."
"The planet cannot be saved if we do not commit ourselves to leaving capitalism behind. Our struggle is for the life and the survival of Mother Earth, which is the sum of all of our lives."
The Red Deal, drafted by Indigenous revolutionaries, insists that our response to climate breakdown must be attentive to the colonial roots of this crisis, or it misses the point. Follow them at @The_Red_Nation and read the document here: therednation.org/wp-content/upl…
"We will build a new world from the ashes of empire, a world where many worlds fit."
"There is no hope for restoring the planet’s fragile and dying ecosystems without Indigenous liberation. This isn’t an exaggeration; it’s simply the truth. Indigenous people understand the choice that confronts us: decolonization or
extinction."
First, there's lots to like: Paris commitment; zero-carbon public transportation in all cities; sustainable housing; retrofit buildings; union jobs; renewable energy; transition to EVs; environmental justice (although this is *extremely* vague). But there are also big problems:
1. Why does this plan need to be framed in the language of "growth"? The US economy does not need more GDP. And in any case, "sustainable growth" is not a thing.
The UN has published a new report on "Harmony with Nature", which outlines the remarkable steps that some countries and cities have been taking away from growth-based economics. It's an inspiring list, starting on page 4. undocs.org/en/A/75/266
The report also mentions degrowth, postgrowth and @KateRaworth's doughnut economics. Plus an interesting fact I didn't know: "The origin of the term degrowth, found in décroissance in French, refers to a river going back to its normal flow after a disastrous flood."
Section 5 documents recent gains in Earth jurisprudence. "A first step to recognizing the rights of Nature is the recognition that non-human beings are sentient, not mere property, and must be afforded respect and legal recognition."
"We cannot reverse ecological breakdown while at the same time pursuing growth; but we *can* reverse ecological breakdown while at the same time ensuring flourishing lives for all. That’s the story we need to be telling. That is where hope lies." jasonhickel.org/blog/2020/10/1…
"We need a Green New Deal, yes. But if we want our GND to be technologically feasible, ecologically coherent, and socially just, it needs to be a GND without growth. It needs to be a GND that actively scales down excess resource and energy use, in a safe, just and equitable way."
"Progressives have been pulled into a debate about whether a GND will be good or bad for growth. This is exactly the wrong question to ask. The real question is: do we need growth in the first place? And the answer to that is no."