This recent study by @C_Dorninger et al. shows that economic growth in high-income nations occurs at the expense of poorer countries.
THREAD
Across the embodied flows of materials, energy, land, and labor, rich countries (in purple) used more resources from a consumption perspective than they provided through production.
For example, high-income countries are the largest net appropriators of land (of approximately 0.8 billion hectares per year). Their land footprint correspond to 31% of total global land used.
Same situation for materials, energy, and labor.
While acting as a net appropriator of embodied resources, the group of high-income countries was able to accumulate a monetary trade surplus of approximately 1200 trillion USD over the 1990–2015.
The crucial variable de-termining access to resources and trade in value added for exports was economic power, i.e. per capita Gross National Income.
In standardized accountings of trade, money and materials flow in opposite directions. But when embodied resources are considered, net flows of money and resources goes in the same direction. Rich nations accomplish a net appropriation of materials, energy, land, and labor.
Implication: we cannot all grow. Since this growth-based model of development requires the appropriation of resources from poorer regions, it seems illusory for all poorer nations to be able to ‘catch-up.”
Another implication: further development in the global South requires #degrowth in rich countries who currently monopolise materials, energy, land, and labor.
Karma moment in science. Two weeks ago, @IvanVSavin & @ProfJeroenBergh published a (flawed) review of the degrowth literature arguing that there were « very few studies using formal modelling ». This week, Lauer et al. published a study showing that this is wrong. 🧵
Systematically reviewing the literature from 2000 to 2023, Arthur Lauer and his colleagues identify 75 modelling studies.
Savin and van den Bergh (2024) argue that « the fraction of studies undertaking modelling or data analysis fluctuates in the range of 0-15% over tiem shows no clear trend » (p.3). Wrong again.
Today is Black Friday, a nonsensical ritual invented by for-profit businesses for the sole sake of moneymaking. By shopping today, you are willingly enriching a small class of business-owning super-polluters who bath in ecosystem-killing profits.
The top 10% richest humans own 76% of world wealth and generate 50% of all carbon emissions. The footprint of the world top 1% equals the one of the poorest 66% of humanity.
We are told that consuming forever more is part of human nature. Bullshit. The seemingly inescapable rat-race for positional prestige is constructed by an army of influencers, growth hackers, and ads designers. Read it again: the destruction of life on Earth is designed.
Of course that's your contention. You're an economist who just heard about degrowth. You just got finished reading some quick-and-dirty critique – the latest piece in The Economist probably – and you’re convinced that degrowth is unnecessary because we can green growth.
You’re gonna be convinced of that ‘til next month when you read "Decoupling Debunked", then you’re going to admit that decoupling has never happened in the past but you’ll say that it could sure happen in the future.
That’s going to last until next year when you’ll be regurgitating Andrew McAfee, Sam Fankhauser, or Alessio Terzi about how price signals and technological progress can solve any environmental issue.
Summary of my talk at the #BeyondGrowth conference on the impossibility of green growth and the necessity of degrowth. 🧵
There is a rumour that is picking up speed in the media, affirming that it is possible to both produce more while polluting less. Some people call it “green growth.”
This rumour is not only a rumour, it is also a belief deeply embedded within our current environmental strategies. Problem: The idea of an economic growth fully decoupled from nature is scientifically baseless and it is distracting us from more effective transition strategies.