How much of the decoupling seen in Western nations is true decoupling and not just exporting emissions to the developing world by shifting all the energy-intensive and polluting industries to other countries?
@DeepRafterGaming
8 жыл бұрын
+Doddibot yup, exactly what i thought while listening to him... He is like ignoring half the evidence.
@robbiespence6504
8 жыл бұрын
Quote from the above: "Theoretically it is possible for economic growth to continue indefinitely ..." Contrast: "Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist" (attributed to Kenneth Boulding in: United States. Congress. House (1973) Energy reorganization act of 1973: Hearings, Ninety-third Congress, first session, on H.R. 11510. p. 248.) In any case Paul Ekins, Ph.D. in economics from the University of London, says towards the end of his talk that he is "only really interested in the next few decades." Does he not care about future generations?
@bradfordtownsend9698
6 жыл бұрын
Robbie Spence Service adds to GDP: accounting firms billing more hours adds to GDP?
@thegoonist
3 жыл бұрын
its a joke mate relax
@robnewark7872
3 жыл бұрын
Did you watch this with no sound and just subs? Maybe you didn't get the joke, but it was a joke, good comment, economists are the worst!
@ligametis
5 жыл бұрын
Well, world pollution still grows while UK's is decreasing due to the fact that all manufacturing has been moved to cheaper less developed countries.
@RobertHildebrandt
5 жыл бұрын
Good point, haven't thought of that.
@JC-Utopic-Gauntlet
Жыл бұрын
@@RobertHildebrandt this is where over regulations become dangerous at the end of the day if the industry moves to a country with NO regulations you end up with worse environmental damage and those goods will have to be transported which creates even more damage. worse case scenario we transport the resources such as trees to china then china does the manufacturing and transports it back. That is a round trip across the ocean in the name of zero regulations. We need to come up with alternatives and stop with the additional regulations of the few things that we still produce.
@kts7326
5 жыл бұрын
Short answer, according to this talk: yes. All is taken care of, nothing to worry about. Meanwhile in Britain three years later: boiling in 38.7C, all time high breached
@nathanbrown9714
5 жыл бұрын
Why do we need to grow? Wouldn't it make more sense to design an economic system that did not require growth to function? Again : Why do we need to grow?
@darknebula5725
5 жыл бұрын
Becouse people have children
@karlwheatley1244
4 жыл бұрын
@@darknebula5725 The trends are heading towards decreased population growth and then declining population.
@shayseahawkraptorfan
3 жыл бұрын
@@darknebula5725 Well we shoudn't encourage it anymore. We need to normalize childfree and antinatalism.
@jorgecallico9177
5 жыл бұрын
Who would want to live in a world with 15 to 20 billion people?
@trulycentral
3 жыл бұрын
Not gonna happen. There's Ted Talks by Hans Rosling to explain this phenomenon in detail.
@josegegas
5 жыл бұрын
may be that the economic growth of some countries is causing environmental problems in others?
@muhammadsaadilah9573
5 жыл бұрын
yup love this comment. That's true. The developing countries basically support the developed Countries. The developing countries always say that they are helping the developing countries, but in fact they just make them indebted and forced to fullfill the needs of the developed countries by selling raw products as cheap as possible.
@Len_J_
3 жыл бұрын
Very intelligent guy clearly, with a well constructed and delivered presentation. It does smack however, as one that is blinkered and in the pocket of government. He does not have the metal to mention a single actual solution. He overlooks that 80% (in the UK for example) of GDP is now services, hence why material consumption is flatlining. Its a simple fact that could have been mentioned. However most of that are financial services - and we don't need a lecture on the problems of that... I don't like the fact that his main example for a solution was a tax. Presentations like this give govts the justification to tax us at any rate for just about anything. Tax someone going on an aircraft - sure. Then what. The aircraft still flies though... The other issue is that reducing greenhouse gases is not enough. Going for the "second curve". There is no recapturing of CO2. The world will simply produce more CO2 but at a slower rate. Even if we eliminate man made CO2 today - it will not be enough. The damage has been done. Just look at the weather wierding in the last few years. The floods. The heat. And that's NOW. The storms. Presentations like this are also misleading as he does not address nitrous oxide, which has 300 times the trapping of heat than CO2, but no one wants to talk about it because it means tackling big business namely the multi billion industry that is agriculture rather than consumers. Consumers are much easier to tax and easier to be made to feel guilty. The forecast is just to pump out billions of tons just at a slower rate. He also does not consider that rising GDP across the globe will rapidly lead to overconsumption of certain goods eg meat with enormous environmental damage. It's nice to be optimistic cherry picking certain examples, but the reality that he is not considering is that there is no real solution to an ever growing population, with each individual hungry for an enormous amount of resources. The migration crisis proves that we are at the beginning of something 'not good' - a global fight for resources. And no one wants to talk about it or deal with it because it is about 'migrants' and therefore not politically expedient to do so. So we talk about CO2 or landfill - because consumers are just easier to target and tax.
@salimbatel6571
5 жыл бұрын
when you talk about UK gpd growth , talk about egypt , middle east and co ... when you talk about FR gpd growth , talk about Algeria , morroco and africa ... let futur generations know how humans ; the white ones have grown in despite others ...
@tinogruchmann
6 жыл бұрын
uk, growth in the financial, Not in industry sector
@jasonloh6792
5 жыл бұрын
Industrial sector cannot grow infinitely but other sectors may be able to. The guy is only trying to make a point that saving the earth will not necessarily require sacrificing our economies but the right policies and technologies need to be put in place. Total economic collapse will also mean the end of our Civilization though not of humanity. I agree we should shift our economic structure. The way things are, companies produce unsustainably and purposefully make their goods have short life cycles creating waste and wasting resources to turn a profit. This model should be dealt with but it is good to know that humanity still has a chance to evade global warming. What is wrong with these haters in the comments. God...
@jasonloh6792
5 жыл бұрын
I would add that saving the earth and dealing with pollutions and sustainability itself could be a source of economic growth...
@lavaradecaduceo8668
3 жыл бұрын
You have to turn off your brain and avoid any thermodynamic concept to understand this guy.
@Michealfarmer
2 жыл бұрын
B.S Alert! What about all the damage it took just to get to this point in time? That should be counted towards the damage it took to go green! And that’s not even mentioning the amount of damage that will be required to be undertaken in order to extract and squeeze every last kg of resource from the earth in a last ditch, completely futile attempt, to go green. This man sounds smart but it’s an act. I live in the world. Not in the library and I can tell you personally that if there is a creek it will be filled in. Because they are! I see it all the time! If there is a tree they want to cut it down. If there is a water supply they will dam it. There are no signs of the decrease in the destruction, only signs that papers are being manipulated to tell the story they want us to hear.
@-dread-9925
2 жыл бұрын
The answer is no. We live in a finite world with finite resources and if you only care about the apparent infinity of your imagination, then yes, it can seem that the economy can just grow forever. Though, back to reality- eventually we’re going to run out of natural resources and if the economy only grows as a result of tangible productivity which allows the exchanging of goods and services then the economy follows the same logistic growth pattern that any life form population does, not the imaginary exponential growth that a capitalist economist fantasizes about. Karl Marx figured this out over 150 years ago.
@stephenmarshall5529
3 жыл бұрын
What good is the world being "A much richer place" when all that wealth has been hoarded by the super rich who use their power to avoid taxation, so the money can't get spent anyway? What good is all that wealth when its use depends on perpetuating the the destructive practices we now engage in? If nothing else is growing, then it's just money, which becomes worthless as soon as there is nothing to buy. Has this guy seen the destruction of forests by logging, oceans, fish stocks, forest fires, cutting of forests to plant palm oil?
@AshishGautamxtcashish
3 жыл бұрын
So what do you think now about the possibilities this man predicted 4 years ago?
@gamingtonight1526
3 жыл бұрын
No, we can't have growth forever, because we have finite, not infinite resources.
@cholesterol804
4 жыл бұрын
Its human nature called greed. You want a super button which when pressed solves all your problem.
@karlwheatley1244
4 жыл бұрын
Clever guy, but not wise: He's just not looking at the big picture. We don't just have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we need to get them to net negative to really slow the runaway train while ALSO reducing the amount of man-made chemicals and plastics in the world while ALSO increasing the amount of the Earth that is protected wilderness. He talks like reducing landfill 50% in the UK means you've solved the problem but if you keep using up limited resources and putting any amount of them into landfills, you run out of resources. The multifaceted environmental problems are far more daunting than he faces up to--perhaps because the timeline for his analysis only goes out a few decades--where his moderate reductions in man-made harm to the web of life only means that ecosystems will collapse a bit later than on current trajectories.
@bryanmeyers9523
4 жыл бұрын
I agree, the underlying issue is determining the absolute targets in emissions and setting out to achieve a balance between emission and sequestration. That's the idea behind concepts such as natural capital economics. It is a difficult to implement as it would be a global system requiring global agreement. The way countries grow will have to change completely for that to happen. It's a difficult and complex task but with improved technologies and increased cooperation it could work. That being said I agree also that at some point, economies will have to become circular to maintain the balance of resource extraction.
@eagleartillery1361
5 жыл бұрын
Secular Stagnation lead to populism and war.
@Anand.Harprem
3 жыл бұрын
What’s secular stagnation?
@fishecllub3652
Жыл бұрын
I smell a policy debater.
@tmjcbs
8 жыл бұрын
Enter Trump and all the necessary emission reductions will be postponed for at least another 4 years.......
@hangingthief
4 жыл бұрын
Lol no. This talk was already delusional before Trump, there are biophysical limits to growth and we are greatly exceeding them, this talk is refuted in the literature, both in the natural sciences and scientific economics. Opposed to "policy economics"
@hangingthief
4 жыл бұрын
The planet will collapse if we do not counter growth
@hangingthief
4 жыл бұрын
Not to mention the unsupported presumption that growth is beneficial to or necessary to support human civilizations. Which is false.
@milandjurdjevich1685
2 жыл бұрын
You still do not understand anything!
@luvabhi3
3 жыл бұрын
Lol shift all industries to poor countries, say material consumption is decoupled! He is an ostrich disguised as a philosopher.
Пікірлер: 53