The Latest Eco-Obsession: Degrowth
The climate-obsessed now tell us we should “buy less stuff,” forgive debts, grow our own food, etc
They say this will “build a more just and sustainable society” and “save the planet” from “climate chaos.”
This idea is popular with capitalism-haters.
One at a ChangeNow “eco conference” says, “A smaller, slower economy could also be a sweeter economy.”
A sweeter economy? What nonsense.
We already unintentionally experimented with “degrowth.”
During the pandemic, frightened politicians closed businesses and ordered people to stay home.
Growth stopped.
“Did that save us?” asks Swedish author Johan Norberg in my new video. “No. It was a terrible tragedy. Sixty million people were thrown into extreme poverty.”
Yet some “degrowth” activists call the pandemic a good thing. “Did a lot of environmental good,” says one on Al Jazeera. “Pollution has been radically cut, emissions have plummeted,” says another.
It’s true. The pandemic did reduce ‘carbon’ emissions.
“But by no more than six percent!” says Norberg. “If we wanted to reduce global warming,” he says, “We would need one pandemic every year. And that would be a terrible disaster for human life and health.”
Sure would.
Norberg points out:
“If we didn’t have any economic growth since the 1950s, we would (alegedly – Ed) have slightly less global warming, but around half a million more people would die because of climate-related natural disasters.
The risk of dying has declined by some 90%, and that’s not because we have fewer disasters. … It’s because we’ve had economic growth.
It means that we improve construction, improve early warning systems, improve healthcare … we can deal with disasters in a better way.”
Over time, even a little growth makes a huge beneficial difference.
“If Sweden, my own country, had had just one percentage point lower economic growth per capita, then Sweden today would be as poor as Albania.”
“What’s wrong with Albania?” I ask.
“Albanians are a quarter as rich as Swedes,” responds Norberg, “That shows in everything from life expectancy and child mortality to working conditions.”
Albania’s growth was stunted by years of communism. Because of that, today Albanians risk their lives to try to reach capitalist countries.
“That’s what you need to know about different economic and political systems,” says Norberg. “Look at where the refugees go. They always go from more socialist economies to capitalist economies. People risk their lives to get to freedom and prosperity.”
The no-growth advocates don’t acknowledge that. They despise capitalism and don’t see its benefits.
We invited more than a dozen of them to come on Stossel TV to explain the evils of capitalism and describe how degrowth is better. Not one would.
I wish one would come to my studio to argue. I’d ask what he thinks about the claim Norberg makes in his newest book, “The Capitalist Manifesto.” He says, “The global free market will save the world.”
“That’s grandiose,” I tell Norberg.
“But it is saving the world,” he says. “Bit by bit, step by step. Every day over the past 20 years, more than 130,000 people were lifted out of extreme poverty!”
That means economic growth freed millions from stoop labor, from burning manure for heat, from lives where they die young.
Not only did free markets release people from miserable poverty, but when they did, they created conditions where people wanted to take care of the environment.
It’s why capitalist countries are less polluted than socialist ones. Only when you aren’t worried about your next meal can you start thinking about preserving nature.
On top of that, growth may give us the technology to reduce pollution and adjust to ‘climate change’.
Degrowth would leave the world poor, miserable, and polluted.
See more here climatechangedispatch
Header image: Sosyalekonomi.org
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Alan
| #
The problem is that there are not enough jobs for everybody. This is a trend that started with the industrial revolution. Jobs moved from agriculture to manufacturing and automation on farms further reduced jobs. Next automation reduced the number of jobs in industry and the west stupidly exported jobs to China. The jobs cannot be brought back because the west pays itself too much and we cannot compete with countries with lower manpower costs and now energy costs. But jobs have slowly been lost from industry and have moved into service jobs. These jobs will decline as AI is introduced. In addition the armed forces do not need to same number of men. When labour is not need there is no need to keep the workforce healthy as so the state does not need to fund the health services. It all works together. If we want to reverse this we need to return to labour intensive farming and industry and will anybody want that? What we are heading to is effectively economic feudalism where the rich will control what the masses are allowed to have and it will be very little. Hence the WEF says “we will have nothing and be happy”. The happy part is them laughing at us.
Reply
Lorraine
| #
It’s my feeling the “happy” part is you will be allowed to live and not be “eliminated”.
Reply
Tom
| #
Degrowth is code for depopulation.
Reply