Many scientists believe that the rise of novel viruses like SARS-CoV-2 is being driven by rising resource extraction. If that's the case, we will likely see many more pandemics in the years to come, until we flatten the resource use curve.
Look at the rate of resource use growth and ask yourself whether vaccinations are going to solve this problem. If we want to avoid living in pandemic misery for the rest of the century, we need degrowth.
We should think of degrowth as a public health intervention.
Sources: the graph is based on UN International Resource Panel data. The horizontal black line is what industrial ecologists consider to be the maximum sustainable level of resource use (50 bn tons per year).
For those asking about the underlying claim: resource use (timber, mining, industrial agricultural, which is captured in the material footprint data) drives deforestation, and deforestation is understood to be a driver of zoonoses. theconversation.com/how-deforestat…
It's worth noting that while most resource frontiers are in the global South, the extraction is driven primarily by consumer demand in the global North (resource use per capita in high-income nations is five to ten times higher than in low and middle-income nations).
"These transmissions between non-human and human animal species are not, necessarily, the result of chance. There is strong evidence that ecological changes have led to increased rates of emerging and re-emerging diseases" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. If you *know* your methodology is flawed (i.e., it ignores corporate corruption enabled by rich nations), why do you keep using it? Fix it, and until then stop publishing your misleading index. #CPI2020
2. You claim that "private sector corruption" is different from public sector corruption. But if private corruption is *enabled* by government policy (which you acknowledge), then why should governments not be held accountable in your index? #CPI2020
3. Are tax havens private entities or public? If they are public (which they are), then why are the biggest tax havens (i.e., the US, UK and their territories, plus Switzerland Luxembourg, etc.) not punished in your index accordingly? #CPI2020
Transparency International has just released its corruption report for 2020. Once again it paints rich nations as innocent, ignoring their role in illicit financial flows, secrecy jurisdictions, arms trading, covert interventions, and self-dealing at the WB and IMF. #CPI2020
Corporations and financial institutions in rich nations are responsible for the vast majority of money that's lost to corruption in the global economy each year. We need to set the record straight. I've written about this here: aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/…
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 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.
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.
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.