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
About Spain's tourism problem... it seems intractable but the solutions are actually quite straightforward.
First, we need to recognize that tourism is not a good allocation of real resources and labour. It means producing goods and services that do not themselves directly benefit the local population. In fact, they are actively harmful to locals... gobbling up public space, destroying neighbourhoods, driving housing prices up, worsening climate change, etc.
It is much more rational and beneficial to allocate all this labour toward creating things that people actually need, like public services, affordable housing, renewable energy, and so on.
So, why do tourism at all? Two main reasons.
One reason is to get foreign currency. In this sense, tourism is basically an export (but where the export factories are plunked disastrously right into the middle of your historic downtowns). Why do exports? To pay for imports.
The solution here is simple: reduce unnecessary imports. Reduce luxury goods imports (these only benefit the rich), reduce car/SUV imports (build up your public transit system instead), etc. There are many options here. This reduces pressure for obtaining foreign currency.
A second reason to do tourism is to create jobs. This one seems like a strong argument but in fact it's not.
The obvious solution here is to implement a public job guarantee. Not only does this solve unemployment (a major problem in Spain), it mobilizes labour around socially and ecologically useful things that benefit society, rather than allocating labour to useless things like serving tourists.
In other words, there are simple alternatives to the two main reasons people cite for needing tourism. Any political party that realises this can ride the current wave of popular discontent and translate that energy into real, practical social improvements.
This is not to say that tourism should be abolished, far from it. But it's clear to everyone that extreme dependency on tourism is socially and ecologically destructive and it has to stop.
And for anyone wondering how to go about the practical business of actually scaling down the tourism industry, the answer is the same as for reducing any damaging industry (eg, fossil fuels, luxury goods, SUVs, etc): credit guidance! jasonhickel.org/blog/2024/8/20…
And for the avoidance of all doubt, tourism is an absolute, unmitigated climate catastrophe: nature.com/articles/s4155…
I'm excited to announce this new paper we have in The Lancet Planetary Health.
We show that the world is not moving towards a just and ecological future for all. Growth in energy and material use is occurring primarily in countries that do not need it and is not occurring fast enough (or is declining) in countries that do need it.
The capitalist world economy is not delivering for human needs and ecology. A substantial redistribution of energy and material use is required—both within countries and between them.
1. Globally, we use *a lot* of energy and materials. In fact, we use at least 2.5x more than would be needed to ensure decent living standards (DLS) for all.
DLS includes universal healthcare, education, modern housing, nutritious food, sanitation systems, transit, fridge-freezers, phones, computers, etc.
2. And yet, billions of people are denied access to DLS.
We find that 50% of nations do not have access to enough energy to ensure DLS, given existing national distributions. And for 20 of these countries, their consumption is actually *declining*. This is an extremely bad situation.
Hi everyone, I'm excited to announce this new project: a website dedicated to research and data on imperialism and inequality. You're going to love this... (links in thread below):
It includes 14 topics and more than 100 interactive graphs, drawing on recent research published by our team and others, including on unequal exchange, gender, climate, military power, financial flows...
I did this interview for @rosaluxglobal with several brilliant colleagues. We talk about liberalism, socialism, strategy, and the urgent need to overcome the capitalist law of value. I think you'll like it: rosalux.de/en/news/id/535…
"We live in a world of immense productive potential, and yet we face deprivation and ecological breakdown. Why? Because under capitalism, production only happens when and where it’s profitable. Social and ecological needs are secondary to the returns to capital."
"The law of value explains why we experience shortages of socially and ecologically essential goods, even in an age of unprecedented productive capacity. If something isn’t profitable, it doesn’t get made — no matter how necessary it is."
US politicians commonly claim that the US has been a "beacon of democracy" for the past 250 years, at home and abroad. Let's have a look a the evidence. 🧵 Links at the end.
The US was an apartheid regime at its founding, and governed as an oligarchy.
US states generally limited voting to white males who owned property (about 6% of the population). Working class people, women, and people of colour overwhelmingly did not have the right to vote.
Virtually all Black people (some 20% of the US population) were subject to mass enslavement and had no rights whatsoever, and Indigenous Americans were targets of government-sponsored ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Social democracy is not a viable alternative to capitalism. It is a tempting prospect, but ultimately suffers from violent contradictions that cannot be sustained.
Social democracy tries to establish a compromise between (a) capitalism, and (b) socialist demands for fair wages, good public services, and environmental protections. But the latter represents a real problem for capital. It increases input prices, and increases workers’ bargaining power, and makes capital accumulation very difficult to achieve.
One way to resolve this tension is to abandon capital accumulation and transition to a post-capitalist economy where production is democratically organized around human well-being and ecology (in other words, socialism).
But social democracy, which is ultimately committed to capitalism, takes a different approach. It resolves the tension through imperialism. Social democratic states appropriate cheap labour and nature from the global South, from an external “outside”, thus allowing them to offer good wages and public services at home while also maintaining the conditions for capital accumulation.
Even states that may seem neutral or benevolent, like some of the Scandinavian countries, benefit from a massive net-appropriation of labour and resources from the global South through dynamics of unequal exchange, which enables them to sustain the social democratic compromise.
Crucially, while this option is available to states in the imperial core, it is generally not available to states in the periphery. In the periphery, when capitalists face progressive demands from unions and environmental defenders, they don’t have the option of conceding and then relying on imperialist appropriation to maintain accumulation. There is no “outside” for them. Their only option is to crush the progressive demands. Indeed they often do this with the direct support of the core states.
This is why so many capitalist states in the South are characterized by violence and repression. It is not because they are somehow intrinsically given to violence… it is because capitalism *requires* violence. By contrast, the core states can have nice human rights at home because they externalize the violence that capitalism requires.
Social democracy offers only the illusion of a solution. An illusion for some, that is. The Congolese coltan miners and Bangladeshi sweatshop workers that supply Western multinational firms are of course under no such illusion.
The only real solution is to overcome capitalism and achieve a post-capitalist economy. It is 100% possible to have a functioning economy that ensures human well-being and ecological stability *without* needing imperialism. But it requires abandoning capital accumulation.
"The North net-appropriated 12 billion tons of embodied raw materials, 822 million hectares of embodied land, 21 exajoules of embodied energy, and 188 million person-years of embodied labour from the global South in a single year": sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
"In 2021, the economies of the global North net-appropriated 826 billion hours of embodied labour from the global South, across all skill levels and sectors. The wage value of this labour was equivalent to €16.9 trillion in Northern prices." nature.com/articles/s4146…