“As you mention, increases in efficiency tend to be followed by equal increases in consumption in society absent other incentives and policies. So it’s understandable that some people might think we need some limits on resource extraction.”>I think it is better to have limits on environmental impact. Price mechanisms such as a carbon tax can be used to counter rebound effects on environmental impacts.
“The 40 hour work week was once unthinkable. So were child labor laws. So was a ban on CFCs.”> Economic growth made these policies much more politically feasible.
“What if people had just given up?”>Anti-degrowth environmentalists are not saying we should give up. They say we should invest more in technological innovation.
“Technology does not develop in a political vacuum, and we would not have seen over 90% cost reductions in technologies like solar during the past 10 years without major investments and support from the Obama administration.”>These are points primarily used by anti-degrowth environmentalists to argue for the importance (effectiveness) of more government funding of clean tech innovation. Degrowth environmentalists, on the other hand, are more skeptical about the importance of such clean tech innovations: they prefer a shrinking economy, where we have less money available for technological research. Looking at degrowth thinkers, organizations, panels and declarations, you don’t see a promotion of increased clean tech innovation funding. It is definitely not a top policy proposal. What you do see, is an explicit rejection (proposal to ban) of some technologies such as genetic modification, nuclear power and nanotechnology, a moratorium on techno-scientific research, an orientation research toward low-tech research and convivial tools, raising awareness about “technological addiction”, opposing digital technologies in education. These are not really helping the acceleration of clean tech innovation.
“Reducing carbon emissions is an example of “degrowth” in one sector of the economy.”> The energy sector can still grow, even when decarbonizing.
“The wealthiest 10% of the world are responsible for over half of emissions in 2015.”> But they own 85% of the wealth. Hence, per unit of wealth, they emit less. Suppose you had a policy that annihilates 85% of global wealth, namely all the wealth owned by the richest 10%. The richest 10% can no longer consume anything. That would only reduce emissions with 50%. With clean tech innovation, we can reduce more than 50% of emissions, without such politically unfeasible policies as 85% wealth reduction.
“And we know that happiness barely increases above $75,000 a year,”>Environmental impact also shows such a diminishing marginal effect. Above a certain income, someone’s environmental footprint barely increases when income increases. Richer people have a higher propensity to save than to consume. In high income countries, we see that an increasing income over time even correlates with reduced CO2 emissions (absolute decoupling). Cfr environmental Kuznets curve.
“so is rising GDP really benefiting most people when it mainly goes to the top 10%?”> The rising CO2 emissions mainly go to the bottom 90%...
“For example, banning all new fossil fuel extraction and creating a carbon tax that is used to fund clean energy jobs”>This is not specifically a degrowth policy proposal. Anti-degrowth environmentalists also favor such proposals. Such proposals are compatible with economic growth.
“Most people would prefer to work less so that they can spend more time with friends, family, and passion projects.”>They can choose to do so, in a free market. At least when the labor market is competitive and flexible enough, such that it is easier to chose a job that has less working hours. Instead of degrowth regulations (e.g. maximum work hours per week), it is more effective to increase job flexibility.
“and hoping for the best with technology investments.”>You can also say that degrowth environmentalists hope for the best with degrowth campaigns, with income and working hour regulations,…
“1. Why shouldn’t we set sustainable limits on resource extraction and continue to invest in technology?”> Sure, let’s do that. But only set limits on resource extraction when that resource extraction really correspond with environmental impact. What would be the sustainable limit for energy use? Suppose you set a limit on energy use per capita. e.g. 50 kWh per day per person. Now I invent a clean technology, namely feasible nuclear fusion, that can generate trillions of kWh per day. Is my invention not allowed, merely because you chose a limit of 50 kWh/day/person?
“Why is ignoring the possibility of running out of resources and betting everything on innovating our way out of all of those limits within a few decades better than a more careful approach?”>If you prefer degrowth, then why do we not have a degrowth world? Why don’t you just make the global economy degrow? Perhaps it is difficult, but then you are betting on feasibility of changing the global economy. In the end, we are interested in cost-effectiveness. Which policy campaigns are most cost-effective: a campaign for degrowth with e.g. income and working hour regulations, or a campaign for increased government funding for clean tech R&D (funded by a carbon tax or an income tax)? Suppose the economy (GDP) grows, and only 1% of the extra income is taxed. This should be extremely feasible. If these tax revenues go to clean tech R&D, we double funding for R&D, which could almost double tech innovation, which could almost double the speed to implement these technologies. We saw a 25% reduction in consumption-based per capita CO2 emissions in dozens of high-income countries in 15 years. Imagine we have in 15 years a 50% reduction…
“There are plenty of people who chop down an entire forest today for a quick buck rather than harvest sustainably in perpetuity, even if the latter would generate more wealth in the long run.”>Why would they chop down the forest so quickly? Because the interest rate is high. But that basically means the marginal productivity of capital is high. Selling the wood and investing in capital, might be the most efficient (productive). Once marginal productivity of capital declines, a lower harvest rate would become optimal. In other words: there is not necessarily a market failure when chopping down a forest. But you may refer to the real underlying market failure: the decrease in a public good such as biodiversity. The most effective policy interventions to solve that problem of biodiversity loss due to clearcutting too much forests, is a taxation, and funding tech innovation to have better alternatives than wood (substitutes for wood).
“2. A lot of people would rather have more time and meaningful work than money. Why should we ignore their preferences”> Why would they not simply choose to work less, if that is what they prefer? Whatever the reason you come up with, I honestly don’t think that economic growth is the main obstacle or reason why they are not so able to choose fewer working hours and more leisure time. In contrast: we do see a negative correlation between economic growth and working hours: a higher GDP correlates with fewer working hours.
“3. It’s not clear to me that all increases in growth and consumption necessarily mean greater happiness, creativity, and innovation forever.”> And it is not clear to me that all decreases in growth and consumption necessarily mean lower CO2 emissions and environmental impacts.
“Why not reduce certain kinds of consumption and use those resources to increase investments in innovation?”> Sure, but that is not incompatible with economic growth.
I’ve never heard of anyone proposing 85% wealth reduction so I don’t think it’s relevant here. But you could absolutely take that wealth and use it to create good standards of living across the board within sustainable limits. That’s what everyone wants at the end of the day, right?
I don’t know anything about degrowth people saying we cannot use new technologies even if they don’t cause damage to the environment. That sounds more like straight up primitivism, which is a really obscure ideology. I think you’re better off responding to the strongest possible arguments rather than the weakest ones. That seems like the most effective way to come to the best proposals using insights from both sides.
It seems like you don’t accept the possibility to have innovation within an economy and rising standards of living without increasing total resource extraction every year. Maybe people figure out asteroid mining and all kinds of innovations so we never have to worry about any resources but it seems possible that such technology could take a long time or never be invented. Instead you turn to “Well this seems politically hard not easy and effective” and again if we end up in a world where it’s what we needed to do, then we should have done it and tried to do it no matter how hard it was. CFCs were an example of banning harmful technology instead of an innovation only approach. You say it was easier because growth continued but you don’t have a counterfactual to judge it against. Maybe it’s more palatable to not change any tax rates and investment policies and just keep raising more revenue as the economy grows, but that doesn’t mean it’s the only way to invest in beneficial technologies.
People cut down a whole forest for profit today because they are shortsighted and don’t care or they don’t have other alternatives. For some people, interest rates will never change that unless you paid them more than what they could chop the whole forest down for today. They are that shortsighted and selfish. And if you’re doing that to save the Amazon, well that also seems like a big policy change very different than just invest, grow, and hope for the best. I don’t see any reason why we can’t have growth in parts of the world that need it while reducing overconsumption in other parts.
Thanks! Sometimes I wonder if it’s even worth thinking about topics like this since it seems so hard to see how it would even have an impact (and even if it did I could be wrong) so I’m glad you did.
“As you mention, increases in efficiency tend to be followed by equal increases in consumption in society absent other incentives and policies. So it’s understandable that some people might think we need some limits on resource extraction.”>I think it is better to have limits on environmental impact. Price mechanisms such as a carbon tax can be used to counter rebound effects on environmental impacts.
“The 40 hour work week was once unthinkable. So were child labor laws. So was a ban on CFCs.”> Economic growth made these policies much more politically feasible.
“What if people had just given up?”>Anti-degrowth environmentalists are not saying we should give up. They say we should invest more in technological innovation.
“Technology does not develop in a political vacuum, and we would not have seen over 90% cost reductions in technologies like solar during the past 10 years without major investments and support from the Obama administration.”>These are points primarily used by anti-degrowth environmentalists to argue for the importance (effectiveness) of more government funding of clean tech innovation. Degrowth environmentalists, on the other hand, are more skeptical about the importance of such clean tech innovations: they prefer a shrinking economy, where we have less money available for technological research. Looking at degrowth thinkers, organizations, panels and declarations, you don’t see a promotion of increased clean tech innovation funding. It is definitely not a top policy proposal. What you do see, is an explicit rejection (proposal to ban) of some technologies such as genetic modification, nuclear power and nanotechnology, a moratorium on techno-scientific research, an orientation research toward low-tech research and convivial tools, raising awareness about “technological addiction”, opposing digital technologies in education. These are not really helping the acceleration of clean tech innovation.
“Reducing carbon emissions is an example of “degrowth” in one sector of the economy.”> The energy sector can still grow, even when decarbonizing.
“The wealthiest 10% of the world are responsible for over half of emissions in 2015.”> But they own 85% of the wealth. Hence, per unit of wealth, they emit less. Suppose you had a policy that annihilates 85% of global wealth, namely all the wealth owned by the richest 10%. The richest 10% can no longer consume anything. That would only reduce emissions with 50%. With clean tech innovation, we can reduce more than 50% of emissions, without such politically unfeasible policies as 85% wealth reduction.
“And we know that happiness barely increases above $75,000 a year,”>Environmental impact also shows such a diminishing marginal effect. Above a certain income, someone’s environmental footprint barely increases when income increases. Richer people have a higher propensity to save than to consume. In high income countries, we see that an increasing income over time even correlates with reduced CO2 emissions (absolute decoupling). Cfr environmental Kuznets curve.
“so is rising GDP really benefiting most people when it mainly goes to the top 10%?”> The rising CO2 emissions mainly go to the bottom 90%...
“For example, banning all new fossil fuel extraction and creating a carbon tax that is used to fund clean energy jobs”>This is not specifically a degrowth policy proposal. Anti-degrowth environmentalists also favor such proposals. Such proposals are compatible with economic growth.
“Most people would prefer to work less so that they can spend more time with friends, family, and passion projects.”>They can choose to do so, in a free market. At least when the labor market is competitive and flexible enough, such that it is easier to chose a job that has less working hours. Instead of degrowth regulations (e.g. maximum work hours per week), it is more effective to increase job flexibility.
“and hoping for the best with technology investments.”>You can also say that degrowth environmentalists hope for the best with degrowth campaigns, with income and working hour regulations,…
“1. Why shouldn’t we set sustainable limits on resource extraction and continue to invest in technology?”> Sure, let’s do that. But only set limits on resource extraction when that resource extraction really correspond with environmental impact. What would be the sustainable limit for energy use? Suppose you set a limit on energy use per capita. e.g. 50 kWh per day per person. Now I invent a clean technology, namely feasible nuclear fusion, that can generate trillions of kWh per day. Is my invention not allowed, merely because you chose a limit of 50 kWh/day/person?
“Why is ignoring the possibility of running out of resources and betting everything on innovating our way out of all of those limits within a few decades better than a more careful approach?”>If you prefer degrowth, then why do we not have a degrowth world? Why don’t you just make the global economy degrow? Perhaps it is difficult, but then you are betting on feasibility of changing the global economy. In the end, we are interested in cost-effectiveness. Which policy campaigns are most cost-effective: a campaign for degrowth with e.g. income and working hour regulations, or a campaign for increased government funding for clean tech R&D (funded by a carbon tax or an income tax)? Suppose the economy (GDP) grows, and only 1% of the extra income is taxed. This should be extremely feasible. If these tax revenues go to clean tech R&D, we double funding for R&D, which could almost double tech innovation, which could almost double the speed to implement these technologies. We saw a 25% reduction in consumption-based per capita CO2 emissions in dozens of high-income countries in 15 years. Imagine we have in 15 years a 50% reduction…
“There are plenty of people who chop down an entire forest today for a quick buck rather than harvest sustainably in perpetuity, even if the latter would generate more wealth in the long run.”>Why would they chop down the forest so quickly? Because the interest rate is high. But that basically means the marginal productivity of capital is high. Selling the wood and investing in capital, might be the most efficient (productive). Once marginal productivity of capital declines, a lower harvest rate would become optimal. In other words: there is not necessarily a market failure when chopping down a forest. But you may refer to the real underlying market failure: the decrease in a public good such as biodiversity. The most effective policy interventions to solve that problem of biodiversity loss due to clearcutting too much forests, is a taxation, and funding tech innovation to have better alternatives than wood (substitutes for wood).
“2. A lot of people would rather have more time and meaningful work than money. Why should we ignore their preferences”> Why would they not simply choose to work less, if that is what they prefer? Whatever the reason you come up with, I honestly don’t think that economic growth is the main obstacle or reason why they are not so able to choose fewer working hours and more leisure time. In contrast: we do see a negative correlation between economic growth and working hours: a higher GDP correlates with fewer working hours.
“3. It’s not clear to me that all increases in growth and consumption necessarily mean greater happiness, creativity, and innovation forever.”> And it is not clear to me that all decreases in growth and consumption necessarily mean lower CO2 emissions and environmental impacts.
“Why not reduce certain kinds of consumption and use those resources to increase investments in innovation?”> Sure, but that is not incompatible with economic growth.
I’ve never heard of anyone proposing 85% wealth reduction so I don’t think it’s relevant here. But you could absolutely take that wealth and use it to create good standards of living across the board within sustainable limits. That’s what everyone wants at the end of the day, right?
I don’t know anything about degrowth people saying we cannot use new technologies even if they don’t cause damage to the environment. That sounds more like straight up primitivism, which is a really obscure ideology. I think you’re better off responding to the strongest possible arguments rather than the weakest ones. That seems like the most effective way to come to the best proposals using insights from both sides.
It seems like you don’t accept the possibility to have innovation within an economy and rising standards of living without increasing total resource extraction every year. Maybe people figure out asteroid mining and all kinds of innovations so we never have to worry about any resources but it seems possible that such technology could take a long time or never be invented. Instead you turn to “Well this seems politically hard not easy and effective” and again if we end up in a world where it’s what we needed to do, then we should have done it and tried to do it no matter how hard it was. CFCs were an example of banning harmful technology instead of an innovation only approach. You say it was easier because growth continued but you don’t have a counterfactual to judge it against. Maybe it’s more palatable to not change any tax rates and investment policies and just keep raising more revenue as the economy grows, but that doesn’t mean it’s the only way to invest in beneficial technologies.
People cut down a whole forest for profit today because they are shortsighted and don’t care or they don’t have other alternatives. For some people, interest rates will never change that unless you paid them more than what they could chop the whole forest down for today. They are that shortsighted and selfish. And if you’re doing that to save the Amazon, well that also seems like a big policy change very different than just invest, grow, and hope for the best. I don’t see any reason why we can’t have growth in parts of the world that need it while reducing overconsumption in other parts.
I appreciate both comments in this thread for exploring these issues in such depth.
Thanks! Sometimes I wonder if it’s even worth thinking about topics like this since it seems so hard to see how it would even have an impact (and even if it did I could be wrong) so I’m glad you did.