Imagine a world where labour and resources in the global South were available to provide for local human needs, rather than appropriated for the sake of excess consumption in the global North.
For reference, the scale of net appropriation from South to North is staggering:
-10.1 billion tons of raw materials
-379 billion hours of human labour
-22.7 quintillion joules of energy
-800 million hectares of land
That's for a single year, 2015. All for Northern excess.
To clarify, the labour appropriation represented here is not migratory labour. It is Southern labour mobilized within global commodity chains to produce goods consumed in the North.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This month US Americans got a small glimpse of what a coup might feel like, and they are rightly outraged. One might hope this would provoke some reflection on the *actual* coups that the US itself has perpetrated around the world. Here are some of them:
1953: Mohammed Mossadegh, the progressive, democratically elected leader of Iran, was deposed in a US- and British-backed coup because he sought to restore national control over Iran's oil reserves.
1954: Jacobo Árbenz, the progressive, democratically elected leader of Guatemala, was deposed in a US-backed coup because he sought to restore land to small farmers and Indigenous communities that had been dispossessed by US fruit companies.
Economists and politicians lean heavily on the promise of "green growth" as a last-ditch defense of capitalism. But is green growth possible? This year brought a lot of new research to bear on this question. Here's a summary:
1. In this 2020 NPE review, we found that it is not feasible to reduce emissions fast enough stay under 1.5C while growing the global economy at the same time. Why? Because growth requires more energy use, which makes decarbonization much more difficult. tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108…
2. To be clear: absolute decoupling of GDP from emissions is possible (renewables!), and some nations are already doing it. The question is whether we can do it fast enough to remain within safe carbon budgets, while pursuing growth at the same time. And the answer to that is no.
The right have attacked the Green New Deal on the grounds that it will hurt economic growth. In response, the left have defended it by saying it will *increase* growth. And maybe it will. But taking this approach is a bad strategy for a number of reasons:
1. If the GND *does* generate growth, that will drive aggregate resource use and energy demand up, and therefore make it paradoxically more difficult (and probably unfeasible) to decarbonize the economy in the short time we have left.
2. Clean energy infrastructure requires material extraction (for solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, etc). More energy demand means more extractivism, which will have significant social and ecological impacts - on global South communities in particular.
Global South countries, led by South Africa and India, have requested a suspension of the WTO's patent rules to enable them to manufacture or import affordable generic versions of the COVID-19 vaccine. Shockingly, Britain and other rich countries have refused.
This decision could be a death sentence to hundreds of thousands of people. All to enable pharma corporations to profiteer, in the middle of a pandemic, from vaccines that have been developed overwhelmingly with public funds.
Here's more on the new mitigation scenario for 1.5C. How does it work? What would society look like? Are we willing to do what's required to stop climate breakdown? See thread.
1. Most models assume we need to keep growing the economy indefinitely. The problem is this makes it impossible to transition to zero emissions quickly enough; so they speculate on geoengineering and negative-emissions technologies to save us. Scientists reject this as too risky.
2. By contrast, this scenario proposes that high-income countries don't *need* more growth, and can scale down unnecessary production and consumption. This reduces energy demand (from 140 EJ in 2020 to 40 EJ in 2050), and enables a rapid transition to renewable energy.
This is a powerful new intervention: a climate mitigation scenario for staying under 1.5C that does not rely on speculative negative emissions technologies. Check it out: boell.de/en/2020/12/09/…
How does it work? By scaling down excess resource and energy use in global North countries. In other words, it's a degrowth scenario. Less energy use enables a rapid transition to renewable energy. It also proposes a shift to regenerative farming to restore lands and soils.
The scenario shows that this can be accomplished while improving human well-being and providing a good life for all, in both the North and South, by reorganizing the economy around human needs rather than around capital accumulation.