Tweet

Timothée Parrique

13 Jan, 12 tweets, 4 min read

@JefimVogel

This study by @JefimVogel et al. (2021) shows that it is possible to satisfy human needs within a sustainable level of energy use.

THREAD/

1/ Looking at 106 countries, it analyses how the relationship between energy use and need satisfaction varies with a range of socio-economic factors relevant to the provisioning of goods and services.

2/ It looks at 6 human needs and 12 provisioning factors.

3/ “Whereas at low levels of energy use, need satisfaction steeply increases with energy use, need satisfaction improvements with additional energy use quickly diminish at moderate levels of energy use and virtually vanish at high levels of energy use"

4/ Provisioning factors can either be “beneficial”, “insignificant”, or “detrimental” for need satisfaction.

5/ For example, countries with high quality public services reach higher levels of “healthy life expectancy” at a lower energy cost than the ones with poorer pubic services. On the other hand, extractivism always brings down life expectancy and brings up energy footprint.

6/ Other example: beyond moderate levels of affluence, economic growth becomes detrimental to socio-ecological performance.

7/ Finding n°1: Need satisfaction is not a matter of energy, but rather one of how a country organises its provision system.

8/ Finding n°2: It is theoretically possible to live well with a sustainable level of energy use.

9/ If that’s true, let’s stop organising our economies around the pursuit of economic growth (a provisioning factors that is actually detrimental to wellbeing and sustainability), and let’s focus on factors that matter.

10/ Here are a few policies recommended by the authors in order to maximise need satisfaction while minimising energy use.

11/ When you think “development,” don’t think “growth”; think “sustainable need satisfaction.”

sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

END THREAD/

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

More from @timparrique

Timothée Parrique

@timparrique

10 Jan

@yl_oswald

If you think inequality is only a matter of income, think again – and check this study on energy inequality by @yl_oswald, @dr_anneowen, and @JKSteinberger.

THREAD/

1/ The richer a country, the bigger its energy footprint.

2/ Failure in economic inclusion causes exclusion from energy provision. Also: when expenditure is highly unequal in a country, the corresponding inequality in energy footprints will tend to be even larger.

Read 11 tweets

Timothée Parrique

@timparrique

16 Dec 21

Six figures to understand carbon inequality from the World Inequality Report 2022.

THREAD/

1/ Close to half of all emissions are due to one tenth of the global population, and just one hundredth of the world population (77 million individuals) emits about 50% more than the entire bottom half of the population (3.8 billion individuals).

2/ The bottom half of the global population contributed only 16% of the growth in emissions observed since 1990, while the top 1% (77 million individuals) was responsible for 21% of emissions growth.

Read 7 tweets

Timothée Parrique

@timparrique

24 Nov 21

Is decoupling likely to happen? To find out, here is a thread summary of my third and final lecture for The Norwegian Society for the Conservation of Nature.
(Spoiler alert: the answer is no).

THREAD/

1/ The first limit to greening growth has to do with declining rates of Energy Returns on Energy Invested (EROI), meaning that it takes more and more energy to obtain energy.

2/ And for the economists out there who will argue that the energy sector is not that important because it’s only a small part of GDP, read this paper.

Read 15 tweets

Timothée Parrique

@timparrique

15 Nov 21

Here is a summary of my second lecture for The Norwegian Society for the Conservation of Nature on the topic of green growth. Question of the day: Is decoupling happening?

THREAD

The best way to answer this question is to read the systematic review of the literature conducted by Helmut Haberl and fifteen colleagues in 2020.

iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108…

The first finding of that review is that most studies focus on greenhouse gas emissions and energy use, leaving out all other environmental pressures. Also: only 8% of all decoupling studies use consumption-based indicators.

Read 11 tweets

Timothée Parrique

@timparrique

10 Feb 21

@g_kallis

Here is a thread to summarise the "Degrowth: Socialism without growth" paper I wrote with @g_kallis.

braveneweurope.com/timothee-parri…

/THREAD

1/ Claim 1: Any form of endless growth is ecologically unsustainable

Because: decoupling is limited

Implications: a sustainable socialism is a socialism without growth

2/ Claim 2: Growth requires accumulation and accumulation comes with exploitation

Because: the expansion of the market sphere puts pressure on reproductive activities

Implications: if socialism means the end of exploitation, it also means the end of endless accumulation

Read 5 tweets

Timothée Parrique

@timparrique

13 Jan 21

@fem_degrowth

What a year: 203 essays about degrowth in English since the beginning of March. Here is a selection of some of my favourites. Thank you @fem_degrowth, @beth_stratford, @thedownshifters, @corbinkbarthold, @degrowth_info for these brilliant texts.

THREAD/