Remarkably, Sri Lanka has a life expectancy that's similar to the USA (shy by a year and a half) with a staggering 88% less resource use and 94% less emissions on a per capita basis.
These metrics are consumption-based:
Raw material consumption:
USA: 32.36 tons per person
Sri Lanka: 3.88 tons per person
CO2 emissions:
USA: 18.35 tons per person
Sri Lanka: 1.03 tons per person
By the way, Sri Lanka has a free, universal public healthcare system.
This thread continued: "To put this in perspective, if the world were to converge to Sri Lanka, global average life expectancy would increase by 4.5 years, while global resource use would fall by 80%, and global emissions would fall by 70%." See below for more:
The purpose of this thread was to highlight what the people of Sri Lanka have managed to achieve in terms of human development, against extraordinary odds. Note: As of this year, life expectancy in Sri Lanka is higher than it is in the USA.
Scholars of international development have remarked on Sri Lanka's performance for decades, beginning with Amartya Sen in the 1980s: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12339005/
The tweet above was meant to illustrate this with reference to the global scale. Right-wing accounts used screenshots, out of context, to imply, without evidence, that Sri Lanka - which is presently suffering a brutal crisis - is some kind of degrowth ideal. This is absurd.
The thread does not state this, I don't believe this, and it's nowhere evident in my work. I deleted the tweet to prevent its misuse until I could write more. But of course this didn't dissuade these accounts, which are clearly uninterested in the scientific scholarship.
I have always been clear: no country meets human needs within planetary boundaries - including Sri Lanka. The existing economic system fails to achieve this basic goal. Our published research has demonstrated this several times. nature.com/articles/s4189…
So, we need to change the economic system. The present crisis in Sri Lanka urgently underscores the need for this - at the national level but also at the global level:
Sri Lanka's development has been impeded by an export dependency imposed by colonialism, several decades of neoliberal structural adjustment programmes imposed by the IMF and, tipping the scales into the present crisis, an authoritarian right-wing regime. theconversation.com/whats-happenin…
Furthermore, as a result of structural adjustment and other pressures imposed by the institutions that govern international finance and trade, Sri Lanka - like other global South countries - is subject to drain through unequal exchange: sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
I have been at pains to point out that Sri Lanka, and other nations like it, need to increase their use of energy and resources in order to achieve development objectives. Doing this requires breaking free from domination by foreign capital. newint.org/features/2021/…
The impulse among tweeters in the imperialist states to point mockingly to global South countries as "basket-cases" is really horrific. The people of Sri Lanka deserve our support and solidarity in calling for - and organizing to achieve - a more just economic system.
And for those who care to read about what degrowth and post-growth scholarship actually argues needs to happen in rich countries, here is one place to start (and here is a free PDF: jasonhickel.org/s/Hickel-et-al…): nature.com/articles/s4156…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
People often assume that capitalist globalization is closing the wage gap between workers in the global North and global South.
But it's not happening. In fact, the North-South wage gap is *increasing*.
And this is not due to sectoral differences. It is occurring across all sectors, even as the global South's share of industrial manufacturing and high-skilled labour in the world economy has increased dramatically over this very period.
This Bloomberg report is a stark reminder: we cannot rely on capital to achieve green transition. Capital is not investing enough in green energy because it's not as profitable as fossil fuels. The solution? We need a public finance strategy and fast.
Public finance, together with a credit guidance framework. Central banks have the power to force capital to stop making climate-destroying investments and direct investment instead in necessary activities: foreignpolicy.com/2024/08/16/cli…
People assumed that renewable energy development would increase once it became cheaper than fossil fuels. But capital doesn't care about cheapness. It cares about *profits*. Capital won't invest when the outlook is like this. You need to make the necessary investments directly.
I strongly disagree with these remarks. They are empirically incorrect, but also illustrate a terrible reactionary tendency among some environmentalists that must be rejected.
The claim is that ecological collapse will undermine industrial production, so we should not pursue development to meet needs in the South.
For instance, we should not ensure refrigerators for people b/c this would inhibit their ability to migrate away from uninhabitable zones!
Going further, the OP says instead of pursuing human development, we should be preparing for a world where we have no capacity to produce things like refrigerators and phones.
In this new paper we calculate the unequal exchange of labour between the global North and global South. The results are quite staggering. You'll want to look at this... 🧵
First, a crucial point. Workers in the global South contribute 90% of the labour that powers the world economy, and 91% of labour for international trade.
The South provides the majority of the world's labour in all sectors (including 93% of global manufacturing labour).
And a lot of this is high-skill labour.
The South now contributes more high-skilled labour to the world economy than all the high-, medium- and low-skilled labour contributions of the global North combined.
New paper: "How much growth is required to achieve good lives for all?"
Is it possible to realise this vision without exacerbating ecological breakdown? Yes! But it requires a totally different approach to the question of growth and development. 🧵 sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
Some narratives hold that ending poverty and achieving good lives for all will require every country to reach the GDP/cap of high-income countries. But this would have severe ecological consequences. It forces a brutal dilemma between poverty reduction and ecological stability.
Convergence along these lines is also not possible given the imperialist structure of the world economy. High consumption in the core of the world-system depends on massive net-appropriation from the periphery. This model cannot be universalized.
As usual, middle-income countries that have strong public provisioning systems tend to perform best. This model allows countries to deliver relatively high levels of human welfare with relatively low levels of resource use.
Latin America boasts eight of the ten best-performing countries.
Most high-income countries continue to decline. Norway and Iceland— often mistakenly regarded as sustainability leaders — have declined nearly to the level of the United States. aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/…