There needs to be more quantification—even if only loose quantification—of the impact of environmental harms in this post. I was unclear what the problem we’re trying to avoid is: it felt a bit like hand waving, saying “we might miss these goals/targets” but without making the impact of that clear.
Could you try to summarize the post more clearly up front and/or use headers for different sections? (Or use bolding for key statements). The analysis felt a bit windy, which slowed down and undermined my reading/understanding.
My view is that “degrowth” is just a (politically) terrible catchphrase/policy label. Who even invented the term? An oil lobbyist? At least at the label level, the focus should not be on “let’s kill growth,” it should be on “[what do we want to achieve?]”—especially given the next point.
Many of the simplistic assumptions I’ve seen regarding the relationship between “growth” and environmental damage are wrong: arguments related to the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) illustrate that regardless of whether the EKC is true on balance, there are definitely ways in which economic growth can also involve reducing pollution (e.g., developments in renewable energy) and economic growth makes environmental standards/health effects more important for some people.
1. How much suffering different environmental problems will cause is, as you know, difficult to put numbers on, especially in combination. But I fully agree with Toby Ord’s conclusion that it is very unlikely that humanity would become extinct this century as a result of climate change. However, I think most people will have worse lives due to environmental degradation, compared to if we stopped prioritizing growth now, which is not so dramatic as it may seem.
The pretty unknown direct climate effect that worries me the most is deadly wet bulb temperature—when it is high humidity and at the same time warmer outside than the skin’s temperature which is up to 35 degrees C, the body can not cool down by sweating. Then everyone dies within a few hours outdoors, as in a wet sauna if it’s impossible to get out. This is about to hit part of southern Asia within 50 years and thus 1-3.5 billion—up to 1 in 3 human beings. https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/04/28/1910114117
To stop this, we should reach the global goal at most +1.5 degrees. Then the climate impact of rich countries needs to be reduced by 10-20 percent each year. It is very unlikely that it would happen suddenly. If we also have growth, both experience and scientifically developed models suggest that a decoupling between GDP and greenhouse gas emissions greater than 3–4 per cent per year is very difficult to achieve. Some sources for that: Schandl et al. (2016), Hickel & Kallis (2020), the simulation tool C-ROADS (developed by Climate Interactive and MIT Sloan).
2. Ok, it’s only a 3 minutes text with different aspects, but perhaps like this? Key point: If we continue to have overall GDP growth in rich countries this decade, we will most likely exceed the planetary boundaries even more. Is it worth that?
3. I agree that degrowth is a word that sounds bad. A common response, for example from one of Sweden’s most influential economists, Klas Eklund, is that we should prioritize the environment and other central societal goals and then GDP will be what it becomes. But we don’t have a common word for that?
4. Absolutely in some areas for a limited time, but on a global level we only see some relative decoupling between GDP and climate emissions, no absolute decoupling. Both climate emissions and GDP are globally higher than ever. When it comes to GDP and material footprint we see no global decoupling at all. See figure 1 about this paragraph: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/growth-without-economic-growth
When something becomes more efficient, we buy more instead of choosing more free time (rebound effect). Of course, it’s not impossible that it will be different in the future, but we need to drastically reduce our environmental impact now, otherwise we’re exceeding more tipping points that can’t be reversed, like losing most of the Amazon rainforest.
To be clear, that article only forecasts that outcome in the “business-as-usual” approach which seems to mean to them an increase of 5–8 degrees Celsius (figure 2B), which seems like a really high estimate; is that within the standard forecasted range, or is that more like the “assume all progress in renewable energy magically halts and we continue on as if nothing bad is happening” forecast?
1. How much suffering different environmental problems will cause is, as you know, difficult to put numbers on, especially in combination.
I think there is probably a range of decent estimates out there about mortality/DALYs as well as some economic costs under different scenarios (which should not include what I described above, if I understood what was meant by “business-as-usual”). It doesn’t need to be precise to be helpful here; even an order of magnitude range could be very helpful, possibly even two orders of magnitude.
2. Ok, it’s only a 3 minutes text with different aspects, but perhaps like this? Key point: If we continue to have overall GDP growth in rich countries this decade, we will most likely exceed the planetary boundaries even more. Is it worth that?
The estimated reading time on each post is only a loose estimate, and in this case it definitely was not a 3-minute read for me since I had to re-read multiple things to get a clear picture of what you were vs. weren’t claiming + I had to read about some of the mentioned concepts, such as “planetary boundaries.” Ultimately, it’s just a good practice to have a tl;dr up front that summarizes your main points in 2–4 sentences.
As to the summary in this case, I would again re-emphasize my points above: I’d like to see actual rough estimates as to the potential costs of not pursuing degrowth, because “exceed the planetary boundaries” means basically nothing to me (and even what I briefly read was not very persuasive, especially if we’re already exceeding the boundaries and not facing mass starvation/heat exhaustion/etc.)
we should prioritize the environment and other central societal goals and then GDP will be what it becomes. But we don’t have a common word for that?
We don’t have a term for “Environmental protection”?? That sounds like a failure of imagination. Even an acronym or “no catchphrase at all” seems better to me than “degrowth,” which really seems like a counterproductive label.
4. Absolutely in some areas for a limited time, but on a global level we only see some relative decoupling between GDP and climate emissions, no absolute decoupling. Both climate emissions and GDP are globally higher than ever. When it comes to GDP and material footprint we see no global decoupling at all. See figure 1 about this paragraph: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/growth-without-economic-growth
To be blunt, that’s a rather shallow, self-confirming collection/interpretation of data, especially since it doesn’t even grapple with the ideas of the EKC: you shouldn’t expect an aggregate/global decoupling when you have numerous developing countries with massive population sizes (China and India) as well as many other developing countries going through the low-income industrial/manufacturing stages currently. A more dispassionate review of the data would look at things with a more granular lens, which is what I did with some WorldBank data for a class paper a few years ago, producing the following graphs:
“With each point representing a country, the result in both years is a strong correlation between countries’ GDPpc and CO2pc levels, displayed in the given trendlines.” Note, however, that the relationship between GDP per capita and CO2 emissions substantially changes between the two time periods to become “more efficient” (GDPpc/CO2) in 2013 vs. 1990.
”In the diagram, each country’s changes are represented by a series of data points. The sources for the data are the same as the previous section’s. The countries listed include the BRICS countries, various Western-aligned countries, and a few others such as the United Arab Emirates (ARE), Mexico, and Hungary.” Note how some countries’ relationship actually “bends backwards”—i.e., the CO2 emissions per GDPpc begins decoupling or outright decreasing in some industrialized countries as the countries become richer.
When something becomes more efficient, we buy more instead of choosing more free time (rebound effect). Of course, it’s not impossible that it will be different in the future, but we need to drastically reduce our environmental impact now, otherwise we’re exceeding more tipping points that can’t be reversed, like losing most of the Amazon rainforest.
Counterpoint: If you replace coal plants with solar or other renewables (e.g., hydroelectric), you don’t just adjust your consumption patterns so drastically as to make solar/etc. pollute as much as coal.
More broadly, it just seems like you aren’t familiar with the research/argumentation on the EKC. If that’s true, I would strongly encourage you to learn more about it if you are planning to focus on environmental concerns. The EKC is certainly debatable in terms of how powerful it is and whether it will act fast enough, but the theoretical evidence is very strong for some activities (i.e., replacing coal with renewables or at least natural gas), and some shallow review of the data (e.g., above) partially supports the idea (with some potential exceptions, such as with oil-producing economies).
Of course I do hope and believe that we can avoid the business as usual scenario, but at the same time we have all these feedback loops and combination of effects that IPCC doesn’t count. On the other hand we also have more technichal progress than expected. On the third hand, it might be a harder time for all these refugees in the future.
I haven’t seen any numbers like: So many people will die and so much suffering/happiness do we get during next 50 years if global GDP during next 10 years is −3% annually instead of +3% due to degrowth only in rich countries. And degrowth or not, we can still choose to stop extreme poverty.
According to a study 2020 where artificial intelligence processed as many as 500,000 scientific articles and reports from the past 20 years to find the most cost-effective balance of measures, the cost to largely eradicate global hunger by 2030, is only $ 33 billion per year in addition to what is currently being invested. That’s less than 5 percent of the US military budget. If we only take the most cost-effective measures, it’s enough with Sweden’s defense budget to almost halve world hunger. Now it’s 2022 and with covid-19 more is required. But still, it’s not a question of increasing GDP, it’s a question of (political) will. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/oct/13/ending-world-hunger-by-2030-would-cost-330bn-study-finds
With all this together, perhaps we can guess some overall numbers you’re asking for?
3. One term suggested is growth agnostic, another growth realist, a third is to say the whole sentence each time: “we should prioritize the environment and other central societal goals and then GDP will be what it becomes”.
4. Yes, EKC is a common argument. I think we have a pretty good summary of pros and cons about EKC here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznets_curve I can also add that we now are in the situation that less environmental impact is not enough, we need drastically less environmental impact starting now. That means we can’t have the same strategies now as 20 years ago.
I agree that it’s a big change when we spend money on renewables instead of fossil fuels, but we’re mainly not there yet and we still have other planetary boundaries.
A few points:
There needs to be more quantification—even if only loose quantification—of the impact of environmental harms in this post. I was unclear what the problem we’re trying to avoid is: it felt a bit like hand waving, saying “we might miss these goals/targets” but without making the impact of that clear.
Could you try to summarize the post more clearly up front and/or use headers for different sections? (Or use bolding for key statements). The analysis felt a bit windy, which slowed down and undermined my reading/understanding.
My view is that “degrowth” is just a (politically) terrible catchphrase/policy label. Who even invented the term? An oil lobbyist? At least at the label level, the focus should not be on “let’s kill growth,” it should be on “[what do we want to achieve?]”—especially given the next point.
Many of the simplistic assumptions I’ve seen regarding the relationship between “growth” and environmental damage are wrong: arguments related to the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) illustrate that regardless of whether the EKC is true on balance, there are definitely ways in which economic growth can also involve reducing pollution (e.g., developments in renewable energy) and economic growth makes environmental standards/health effects more important for some people.
Thanks for your points.
1. How much suffering different environmental problems will cause is, as you know, difficult to put numbers on, especially in combination. But I fully agree with Toby Ord’s conclusion that it is very unlikely that humanity would become extinct this century as a result of climate change. However, I think most people will have worse lives due to environmental degradation, compared to if we stopped prioritizing growth now, which is not so dramatic as it may seem.
The pretty unknown direct climate effect that worries me the most is deadly wet bulb temperature—when it is high humidity and at the same time warmer outside than the skin’s temperature which is up to 35 degrees C, the body can not cool down by sweating. Then everyone dies within a few hours outdoors, as in a wet sauna if it’s impossible to get out. This is about to hit part of southern Asia within 50 years and thus 1-3.5 billion—up to 1 in 3 human beings. https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/04/28/1910114117
To stop this, we should reach the global goal at most +1.5 degrees. Then the climate impact of rich countries needs to be reduced by 10-20 percent each year. It is very unlikely that it would happen suddenly. If we also have growth, both experience and scientifically developed models suggest that a decoupling between GDP and greenhouse gas emissions greater than 3–4 per cent per year is very difficult to achieve. Some sources for that: Schandl et al. (2016), Hickel & Kallis (2020), the simulation tool C-ROADS (developed by Climate Interactive and MIT Sloan).
2. Ok, it’s only a 3 minutes text with different aspects, but perhaps like this? Key point: If we continue to have overall GDP growth in rich countries this decade, we will most likely exceed the planetary boundaries even more. Is it worth that?
3. I agree that degrowth is a word that sounds bad. A common response, for example from one of Sweden’s most influential economists, Klas Eklund, is that we should prioritize the environment and other central societal goals and then GDP will be what it becomes. But we don’t have a common word for that?
4. Absolutely in some areas for a limited time, but on a global level we only see some relative decoupling between GDP and climate emissions, no absolute decoupling. Both climate emissions and GDP are globally higher than ever. When it comes to GDP and material footprint we see no global decoupling at all. See figure 1 about this paragraph:
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/growth-without-economic-growth
When something becomes more efficient, we buy more instead of choosing more free time (rebound effect). Of course, it’s not impossible that it will be different in the future, but we need to drastically reduce our environmental impact now, otherwise we’re exceeding more tipping points that can’t be reversed, like losing most of the Amazon rainforest.
To be clear, that article only forecasts that outcome in the “business-as-usual” approach which seems to mean to them an increase of 5–8 degrees Celsius (figure 2B), which seems like a really high estimate; is that within the standard forecasted range, or is that more like the “assume all progress in renewable energy magically halts and we continue on as if nothing bad is happening” forecast?
I think there is probably a range of decent estimates out there about mortality/DALYs as well as some economic costs under different scenarios (which should not include what I described above, if I understood what was meant by “business-as-usual”). It doesn’t need to be precise to be helpful here; even an order of magnitude range could be very helpful, possibly even two orders of magnitude.
The estimated reading time on each post is only a loose estimate, and in this case it definitely was not a 3-minute read for me since I had to re-read multiple things to get a clear picture of what you were vs. weren’t claiming + I had to read about some of the mentioned concepts, such as “planetary boundaries.” Ultimately, it’s just a good practice to have a tl;dr up front that summarizes your main points in 2–4 sentences.
As to the summary in this case, I would again re-emphasize my points above: I’d like to see actual rough estimates as to the potential costs of not pursuing degrowth, because “exceed the planetary boundaries” means basically nothing to me (and even what I briefly read was not very persuasive, especially if we’re already exceeding the boundaries and not facing mass starvation/heat exhaustion/etc.)
We don’t have a term for “Environmental protection”?? That sounds like a failure of imagination. Even an acronym or “no catchphrase at all” seems better to me than “degrowth,” which really seems like a counterproductive label.
To be blunt, that’s a rather shallow, self-confirming collection/interpretation of data, especially since it doesn’t even grapple with the ideas of the EKC: you shouldn’t expect an aggregate/global decoupling when you have numerous developing countries with massive population sizes (China and India) as well as many other developing countries going through the low-income industrial/manufacturing stages currently. A more dispassionate review of the data would look at things with a more granular lens, which is what I did with some WorldBank data for a class paper a few years ago, producing the following graphs:
Counterpoint: If you replace coal plants with solar or other renewables (e.g., hydroelectric), you don’t just adjust your consumption patterns so drastically as to make solar/etc. pollute as much as coal.
More broadly, it just seems like you aren’t familiar with the research/argumentation on the EKC. If that’s true, I would strongly encourage you to learn more about it if you are planning to focus on environmental concerns. The EKC is certainly debatable in terms of how powerful it is and whether it will act fast enough, but the theoretical evidence is very strong for some activities (i.e., replacing coal with renewables or at least natural gas), and some shallow review of the data (e.g., above) partially supports the idea (with some potential exceptions, such as with oil-producing economies).
Thanks for re-reading and considering arguments.
1-2: In the study I mentioned it’s within 50 years. Will it stay there? Earlier studies estimated this would take around 200 years, according to
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/27/science/intolerable-heat-may-hit-the-middle-east-by-the-end-of-the-century.html (I can’t access these studies)
Of course I do hope and believe that we can avoid the business as usual scenario, but at the same time we have all these feedback loops and combination of effects that IPCC doesn’t count. On the other hand we also have more technichal progress than expected. On the third hand, it might be a harder time for all these refugees in the future.
As the study also mentions: “warming to 2 °C, compared with 1.5 °C, is estimated to increase the number of people exposed to climate-related risks and poverty by up to several hundred million by 2050”. Here’s another study about future wet bulb temperatures in South Asia:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1603322
The heat deaths in India and Pakistan now, is expected annually with 2 C warming.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/india-heat-wave-climate-change-1.6442517
That contributes to less cheap food. Already, 2 in 5 britons buy less to eat in a new study: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/13/cost-of-living-golden-era-of-cheap-food-over
But I think we will also use new ways to produce food (Allfed, etc).
I haven’t seen any numbers like: So many people will die and so much suffering/happiness do we get during next 50 years if global GDP during next 10 years is −3% annually instead of +3% due to degrowth only in rich countries. And degrowth or not, we can still choose to stop extreme poverty.
According to a study 2020 where artificial intelligence processed as many as 500,000 scientific articles and reports from the past 20 years to find the most cost-effective balance of measures, the cost to largely eradicate global hunger by 2030, is only $ 33 billion per year in addition to what is currently being invested. That’s less than 5 percent of the US military budget. If we only take the most cost-effective measures, it’s enough with Sweden’s defense budget to almost halve world hunger. Now it’s 2022 and with covid-19 more is required. But still, it’s not a question of increasing GDP, it’s a question of (political) will.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/oct/13/ending-world-hunger-by-2030-would-cost-330bn-study-finds
I have also summarized what IPCC says about mental health 2022, and these problems start to increase already when temperature exceeds +20 C: https://www.facebook.com/groups/EAmentalhealthandhappiness/posts/4914186425331333
With all this together, perhaps we can guess some overall numbers you’re asking for?
3. One term suggested is growth agnostic, another growth realist, a third is to say the whole sentence each time: “we should prioritize the environment and other central societal goals and then GDP will be what it becomes”.
4. Yes, EKC is a common argument. I think we have a pretty good summary of pros and cons about EKC here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznets_curve
I can also add that we now are in the situation that less environmental impact is not enough, we need drastically less environmental impact starting now. That means we can’t have the same strategies now as 20 years ago.
I agree that it’s a big change when we spend money on renewables instead of fossil fuels, but we’re mainly not there yet and we still have other planetary boundaries.