8 ms·

A new book asserts that rich countries grow with lighter environmental impacts

94 points by quickfox 7y ago

DoreenMichele 7y ago
It's long been known that businesses that produce a lot of waste have lower profits. This is a large part of why businesses try to combat fraud, waste and abuse: For their financial health. http://archive.knoxnews.com/business/companies-finding-less-waste-means-more-profit-ep-403017472-357515301.html/ http://archive.knoxnews.com/business/companies-finding-less-... I guess it's nice to see this well-known fact applied at a broader level. I haven't seen that before. But it also makes me feel a bit like "We're dummies, no?" What pretty much everyone knows to be true at the micro level shouldn't be some kind of big news at the macro level, yet it is because everyone thinks capitalism is ruining the planet.
- doctorpangloss 7y ago
  > it is because everyone thinks capitalism is ruining the planet - Most people's experience with capitalism is more accurately described as retail. - Most of the time, people are describing how retail is ruining the planet, which it most definitely is. You'd have to be a real blowhard to not see how capitalism and retail are related, and on top of that, to broadly reject a popular emotional consensus that must have some truth to it. For most people that truth is not elusive.
MrSlovenia 7y ago
Makes sense: when a country has an industrial revolution it just wants to grow fast. Then when the extreme growth part passes it starts to stabilize: this is when the country & the people start doing well enough so that they can look at other issues (environmental impact) without having to sacrifice their livelihoods. The human will always prioritize his own and his families livelihood. Only once that is stable can one afford to look at the impact. If you're poor and can hardly afford basic stuff for your children you obviously won't care about the environment, it's last thing on your mind. And if anyone writes "yeah but even poor people should care": no, that is not how human nature works. First you & your family, only then everything else.
- justicezyx 7y ago
  > that is not how human nature works. Please add should, this should not be how human nature works. Also, one capitalist cannot on the one hand free will is the key for prosperity, and at he same time ask others to think beyond others’ basic life needs while suffering.
- marmaduke 7y ago
  This is exactly what I think of when I see hopefuls talking about climate change, among other topics. The guy who doesn't have enough money for rent? He's not buying the expensive free range eggs. If I were in a developing country, I would be worried that climate accords become a other way for those on top to stay there.
  - vinay427 7y ago
    > The guy who doesn't have enough money for rent? He's not buying the expensive free range eggs. I suppose you were just providing a random example, but if you're curious the production of free-range eggs almost certainly pollutes more carbon than caged eggs [1] while being less ethically sound (assuming that was the consideration for cage-free), environmentally responsible, and typically more expensive than plant alternatives. [1] https://www.smh.com.au/national/free-range-hens-boost-carbon-20-percent-20111216-1oyvp.html https://www.smh.com.au/national/free-range-hens-boost-carbon...
    - jschwartzi 7y ago
      That's okay, because I use about 50% fewer eggs when I buy free range. They're more than twice as expensive. So while the per-egg carbon cost is 20% higher my total carbon usage for eggs will have dropped significantly as a result of switching.
    - lonelappde 7y ago
      What's the ethical concern of free-range? Also, the report you cited was the (conventional) egg industry researching itself, not an independent study.
  - 7y ago
JoshCalbet 7y ago
Because rich countries brings their products from somewhere else, they don't have to produce them, they don't have to deal with the environmental impact of producing them.
- dmix 7y ago
  That’s a myth, the US (and Canada, Germany, etc) still does tons of manufacturing and mining locally.
- wtdata 7y ago
  That's a common misconception, China is not even amongst the top 50 countries when it comes to industrial production value per capita. And most rich countries are near the top: https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Industry/Manufacturing%2C-value-added/Current-US%24-per-capita https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Industry/Man...
- lozenge 7y ago
  This is true. China's environmental impact is 22% lower if you exclude their exports, and many countries in Europe would have 30% higher impact if you include their imports. Figures from the abstract - somewhat out of date but true to a lesser extent today - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851800/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851800/
hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
It brings this up in the article, but I have a very difficult time believing this isn't just because rich countries have shifted manufacturing and mining to poor countries. Look at recycling. We all thought we were so environmentally aware by recycling, but turns out so much "recycling" was just "ship to poor countries to deal with the fallout".
- justicezyx 7y ago
  Wasn’t rich countries also forcefully deprived the wealth of the developing countries before the inception the great development?
- chewz 7y ago
  Where do you draw the line? How about Thailand or Malaysia (as an example)? They are both fairly developed and hoping to avoid middle income trap and become developed countries within few years. In both countries disregard for enviroment and citizens health is just sad. Toxic haze, toxic water, pollution, trash. When is the moment that a country decides that it is rich enough and it is time to clean its act? https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/1643388/chiang-mai-air-pollution-worst-in-the-world https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/1643388/chiang-... https://www.chiangraitimes.com/thailand-monks-adorn-robes-made-from-recycled-plastic-bottles/?amp https://www.chiangraitimes.com/thailand-monks-adorn-robes-ma... https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2019/08/06/haze-hits-malaysia-no-area-records-good-air-quality/ https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2019/08/06... https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2019/07/13/two-incidents-of-pollution-in-pasir-gudang-affected-thousands-heres-what-we/1771022 https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2019/07/13/two-incid... https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2019/07/19/incineration-not-the-way-to-deal-with-plastic-waste-environmental-ngo-tells/1773034 https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2019/07/19/incinerat...
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >Where do you draw the line? You don't. You account for those externalities all the way (until they become small enough so that further breakdown does not matter). >When is the moment that a country decides that it is rich enough and it is time to clean its act? If by cleaning you mean "moving it somewhere else" then it doesn't matter.
Expez 7y ago
I recently finished Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker and this exact point was made in that book. I'll paraphrase a salient quote from the book: poverty is the greatest polluter. Intuitively this makes great sense: when you're eking out a subsistence living you're not going to care about the environment, but when resources are plenty you can afford to consider other living things too.
- new2628 7y ago
  This seems to contradict the simple observation that, by and large, the poorer a country the more biodiversity it has.
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    Not necessarily- a poor country with high biodiversity or other natural resources are a known phenomenon [0]. Also, another known issue is that the most polluted rivers are often from developing countries, partially because developed countries are sending their trash there. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
    - new2628 7y ago
      Resource curse is an interesting phenomenon, but I think biodiversity (~ the healthiness/robustness of the remaining natural environment) and e.g. the amount of accessible oil/gas a country has are fundamentally different aspects.
- briandear 7y ago
  Simple Maslow is all this is.
- drdrey 7y ago
  That's just not true. The US emits 16 tons of CO2 per capita. For many African countries, that number is 1-2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita#Annual_carbon_dioxide_emissions_%5Btonnes%5D_per_capita https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_... The greatest polluter is everybody living in large single family homes full of things manufactured on other continents, with AC, multiple cars, eating red meat every day.
jt2190 7y ago
> The book... says there are four main forces... that enable decoupling in mature economies: > * the efficiencies driven by capitalism > * technological progress that has allowed us to “dematerialize” our consumption (by, for instance, cramming atlases, compasses, calculators, recorders, cameras, stereos, and other gadgets into a single device in our pocket) > * public awareness of environmental damage > * governments that respond to those concerns by putting regulations in place to reduce those harms > So, McAfee argues, what we need to address climate change and prevent other environmental catastrophes, while maintaining modern living standards for billions of people, is … even more of each of these [four forces], working in concert.
- jt2190 7y ago
  There currently seems to be a big hole in this approach, which is that rich jurisdictions need to be aligned with poorer ones to work in concert toward these goals, otherwise rich jurisdictions can just “pretend” they’re meeting goals when they’re just moving them to poor jurisdictions.
- lozenge 7y ago
  In other words, if government regulations incentivise efficiency, then our capitalist economy will provide that efficiency. Which is what any environmental economist--or any economist generally--would tell you.
avip 7y ago
How does that reconcile with the actual (admittedly outdated) facts? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_...
- lozenge 7y ago
  He is looking at carbon efficiency - emissions divided by GDP. On top of that, he's looking at the change in efficiency rather than the actual efficiency, thus he can boast that the US is increasingly efficient, instead of noting it is already very inefficient. Of course, the planet is based on physics and doesn't understand GDP, so this is all in a wider sense irrelevant.
  - marmaduke 7y ago
    > the planet is based on physics and doesn't understand GDP, so this is all in a wider sense irrelevant Per https://xkcd.com/435/ https://xkcd.com/435/ economics (GDP) would be to the far left (or between sociology and math if we're on S^1), so if efficiency became a part of the exchange rate or tax on goods, it would become immediately understandable by planet. I like BTW, the suggestion that the planet's understanding things. I can imagine she feels rather itchy these days.
algaeontoast 7y ago
I think another attribute of this is education and being aware that there is slightly more to life than just the pursuit of money. Sure, people with means fall for this all the time, but I think poor people also commonly enter the same trap. Note that a pursuit of saving face and appearing rich is entirely different than the pursuit of wealth - but a pursuit of money could take either path. For instance, understanding why burning down a rain-forest to make $100 might not be worthwhile, akin to uber drivers endangering drivers and pedestrians to make $15. Sometimes developed western countries seem to have sympathy for people who are willing to deforest African nations (whom are also usually helpless to act against these transgressions) and poach endangered animals (an obvious heinous act) and oddly sometimes progressives will state that it's less-bad because they're poor / uneducated...
- esotericn 7y ago
  I'd argue that this is a huge issue in the Western world that we could theoretically solve, though how it would happen practically I'm not sure. Stable homes for all, reduce and/or eliminate the worst forms of advertising. With some luck you then have a relatively happy populace, content to spend time with their family and on leisure etc without wanting to get big 4x4s or jet around the world or whatever. Kill off the rat race. Quite incompatible with our current economy though...
  - dgellow 7y ago
    Not only incompatible with the economy. What you describe is likely to require an authoritarian system.
  - algaeontoast 7y ago
    I don't necessarily have a problem with people being motivated and as a result of their efforts making money - moreso that most people seem to be motivated just to save face and "show" others how rich they are (mostly a media driven idea). I think these kinds of narratives harm poor people more since they are inclined to make horrible financial choices to be like these "rich" people, who in reality are probably in nearly just as much debt as actual poor people. I think the most interesting thought experiment here is when you consider extremist progressives who want to "kill the rich and elite" - in reality if this actually did play out I think they'd just end up killing people who are most evidently "rich" but not actually withholding wealth from the poor. In essence, they'd be killing all the self-obsessed and narcissistic consumerists. Anyone who was actually rich or still in control of banking infrastructure would be smart enough to not be showy. (yes, I understand this is a pretty extreme tangent) All in all, I do think the rat race is empowering to people who are able to understand what is really valuable to them.
mushufasa 7y ago
This is also called the Environmental Kuznets Curve (1991) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznets_curve#Environmental_Kuznets_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznets_curve#Environmental_Ku... . There's a lot of criticism in the literature. The statistics rarely live up to the theory at face value. (https://steadystate.org/wp-content/uploads/Stern_KuznetsCurve.pdf https://steadystate.org/wp-content/uploads/Stern_KuznetsCurv...). And often, new pollutants emerge in rich countries as others decline. For example, in the USA, water pollutants targeted by the Clean Water Act (1972) have declined, but new pollutants have emerged which aren't measured or managed by the policy. Recent years have seen an explosion in estrogen hormones that turn male fish to hermaphrodites that lay eggs, coming from unchecked fertilizer runoff and birth control sewage. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/02/160203-feminized-fish-endocrine-disruption-hormones-wildlife-refuges/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/02/160203-femin...
- dmix 7y ago
  > The researchers found intersex smallmouth bass everywhere they looked. About 85 percent of the males collected in the refuges were intersex. At least some males at every site had female egg cells. It was less prevalent in largemouth bass—about 27 percent. Wow that's the vast majority, sounds like it could be a serious issue. What's interesting is how it's been found near cities and Agriculture but also in remote areas. I'm curious how much of a role the waste treatment centers have played which was noted as a potential source. Since water can travel long distances via rivers and rain its going to be hard to pinpoint who or what is to blame. Hopefully they keep digging into that question. I also now understand what Alex Jones meant by "gay fish" in one of his popular rants he was mocked for.
  - mushufasa 7y ago
    > What's interesting is how it's been found near cities and Agriculture but also in remote areas. I'm curious how much of a role the waste treatment centers have played which was noted as a potential source. There are generally two main sources. 1. agricultural runoff related to fertilizers. 2. Urban sewage, because birth control products get flushed down toilets and the wastewater treatment plants don't even try to filter for hormones (it's not part of the Clean Water Act). And even if they tried, the methods to do so are nascent (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/06/19/415336306/hunting-ways-to-keep-synthetic-estrogens-out-of-rivers-and-seas https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/06/19/4153363...). > I also now understand what Alex Jones meant by "gay fish" in one of his popular rants he was mocked for. Yes, he got unfair criticism for calling attention to this -- it is actually a huge environmental problem that needs more public awareness. The ecological impacts are huge, and yes because the water treatment plants don't filter, you might be drinking similar concentrations through tap water. (edit: to be clear, the concentrations that harm fish are nowhere near enough to cause the same level of harm in humans, so no you will not turn gay from drinking tap water) He's still a nutcase con man though, IMO. Mixing in a few grains of truth makes the poisonous ideas go down smoother.
cma 7y ago
Now do it in consumption growth adjusted for marginal utility of the growth.
dafty4 7y ago
Assertion pretty obvious, non? (Of course a knowledge-based economy is going to pollute less than an industrial- and/or resource-driven one.) Then the first line of the author's thesis (more capitalism needed) doesn't follow from the premise: As China and Sweden demonstrate, advanced economies need not necessarily be strictly capitalist.
chunsj 7y ago
Ignoring all the cost reaching to current state. Isn't this what we call fake news?
- zaro 7y ago
  Maybe propaganda is a beer name, as this is not really news just a twisted storyt that serves certain interests.
paulsutter 7y ago
Developing nations can follow-suit, by outsourcing their own pollution intensive activities to ... developing countries? > rich countries have figured out how to grow with lighter environmental impacts—and developing nations can follow suit
wazoox 7y ago
This is all fine and reassuring and soothing, but the fact is that we need to entirely decorrelate economic output from resource usage, and that just doesn't happen, nor is there any way to make it happen, even in theory. This sounds for me like a call to wishful thinking, something like "we can go on like we always did, we won't crash and collapse but will find a way out". Basically, a propaganda piece for neoliberal capitalism which is driving us into the ground fast. Borderline criminal, maybe.
midnitewarrior 7y ago
Modern, rich countries externalize their polution-causing activities to developing nations.

94 points by quickfox 7y ago

It's long been known that businesses that produce a lot of waste have lower profits. This is a large part of why businesses try to combat fraud, waste and abuse: For their financial health. http://archive.knoxnews.com/business/companies-finding-less-waste-means-more-profit-ep-403017472-357515301.html/ http://archive.knoxnews.com/business/companies-finding-less-... I guess it's nice to see this well-known fact applied at a broader level. I haven't seen that before. But it also makes me feel a bit like "We're dummies, no?" What pretty much everyone knows to be true at the micro level shouldn't be some kind of big news at the macro level, yet it is because everyone thinks capitalism is ruining the planet.

doctorpangloss 7y ago
> it is because everyone thinks capitalism is ruining the planet - Most people's experience with capitalism is more accurately described as retail. - Most of the time, people are describing how retail is ruining the planet, which it most definitely is. You'd have to be a real blowhard to not see how capitalism and retail are related, and on top of that, to broadly reject a popular emotional consensus that must have some truth to it. For most people that truth is not elusive.

MrSlovenia 7y ago

Makes sense: when a country has an industrial revolution it just wants to grow fast. Then when the extreme growth part passes it starts to stabilize: this is when the country & the people start doing well enough so that they can look at other issues (environmental impact) without having to sacrifice their livelihoods. The human will always prioritize his own and his families livelihood. Only once that is stable can one afford to look at the impact. If you're poor and can hardly afford basic stuff for your children you obviously won't care about the environment, it's last thing on your mind. And if anyone writes "yeah but even poor people should care": no, that is not how human nature works. First you & your family, only then everything else.

justicezyx 7y ago
> that is not how human nature works. Please add should, this should not be how human nature works. Also, one capitalist cannot on the one hand free will is the key for prosperity, and at he same time ask others to think beyond others’ basic life needs while suffering.
marmaduke 7y ago
This is exactly what I think of when I see hopefuls talking about climate change, among other topics. The guy who doesn't have enough money for rent? He's not buying the expensive free range eggs. If I were in a developing country, I would be worried that climate accords become a other way for those on top to stay there.
- vinay427 7y ago
  > The guy who doesn't have enough money for rent? He's not buying the expensive free range eggs. I suppose you were just providing a random example, but if you're curious the production of free-range eggs almost certainly pollutes more carbon than caged eggs [1] while being less ethically sound (assuming that was the consideration for cage-free), environmentally responsible, and typically more expensive than plant alternatives. [1] https://www.smh.com.au/national/free-range-hens-boost-carbon-20-percent-20111216-1oyvp.html https://www.smh.com.au/national/free-range-hens-boost-carbon...
  - jschwartzi 7y ago
    That's okay, because I use about 50% fewer eggs when I buy free range. They're more than twice as expensive. So while the per-egg carbon cost is 20% higher my total carbon usage for eggs will have dropped significantly as a result of switching.
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    What's the ethical concern of free-range? Also, the report you cited was the (conventional) egg industry researching itself, not an independent study.
- 7y ago

JoshCalbet 7y ago

Because rich countries brings their products from somewhere else, they don't have to produce them, they don't have to deal with the environmental impact of producing them.

dmix 7y ago
That’s a myth, the US (and Canada, Germany, etc) still does tons of manufacturing and mining locally.
wtdata 7y ago
That's a common misconception, China is not even amongst the top 50 countries when it comes to industrial production value per capita. And most rich countries are near the top: https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Industry/Manufacturing%2C-value-added/Current-US%24-per-capita https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Industry/Man...
lozenge 7y ago
This is true. China's environmental impact is 22% lower if you exclude their exports, and many countries in Europe would have 30% higher impact if you include their imports. Figures from the abstract - somewhat out of date but true to a lesser extent today - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851800/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851800/

hn_throwaway_99 7y ago

It brings this up in the article, but I have a very difficult time believing this isn't just because rich countries have shifted manufacturing and mining to poor countries. Look at recycling. We all thought we were so environmentally aware by recycling, but turns out so much "recycling" was just "ship to poor countries to deal with the fallout".

justicezyx 7y ago
Wasn’t rich countries also forcefully deprived the wealth of the developing countries before the inception the great development?
chewz 7y ago
Where do you draw the line? How about Thailand or Malaysia (as an example)? They are both fairly developed and hoping to avoid middle income trap and become developed countries within few years. In both countries disregard for enviroment and citizens health is just sad. Toxic haze, toxic water, pollution, trash. When is the moment that a country decides that it is rich enough and it is time to clean its act? https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/1643388/chiang-mai-air-pollution-worst-in-the-world https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/1643388/chiang-... https://www.chiangraitimes.com/thailand-monks-adorn-robes-made-from-recycled-plastic-bottles/?amp https://www.chiangraitimes.com/thailand-monks-adorn-robes-ma... https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2019/08/06/haze-hits-malaysia-no-area-records-good-air-quality/ https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2019/08/06... https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2019/07/13/two-incidents-of-pollution-in-pasir-gudang-affected-thousands-heres-what-we/1771022 https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2019/07/13/two-incid... https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2019/07/19/incineration-not-the-way-to-deal-with-plastic-waste-environmental-ngo-tells/1773034 https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2019/07/19/incinerat...
- coldtea 7y ago
  >Where do you draw the line? You don't. You account for those externalities all the way (until they become small enough so that further breakdown does not matter). >When is the moment that a country decides that it is rich enough and it is time to clean its act? If by cleaning you mean "moving it somewhere else" then it doesn't matter.

Expez 7y ago

I recently finished Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker and this exact point was made in that book. I'll paraphrase a salient quote from the book: poverty is the greatest polluter. Intuitively this makes great sense: when you're eking out a subsistence living you're not going to care about the environment, but when resources are plenty you can afford to consider other living things too.

new2628 7y ago
This seems to contradict the simple observation that, by and large, the poorer a country the more biodiversity it has.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  Not necessarily- a poor country with high biodiversity or other natural resources are a known phenomenon [0]. Also, another known issue is that the most polluted rivers are often from developing countries, partially because developed countries are sending their trash there. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
  - new2628 7y ago
    Resource curse is an interesting phenomenon, but I think biodiversity (~ the healthiness/robustness of the remaining natural environment) and e.g. the amount of accessible oil/gas a country has are fundamentally different aspects.
briandear 7y ago
Simple Maslow is all this is.
drdrey 7y ago
That's just not true. The US emits 16 tons of CO2 per capita. For many African countries, that number is 1-2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita#Annual_carbon_dioxide_emissions_%5Btonnes%5D_per_capita https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_... The greatest polluter is everybody living in large single family homes full of things manufactured on other continents, with AC, multiple cars, eating red meat every day.

jt2190 7y ago

> The book... says there are four main forces... that enable decoupling in mature economies: > * the efficiencies driven by capitalism > * technological progress that has allowed us to “dematerialize” our consumption (by, for instance, cramming atlases, compasses, calculators, recorders, cameras, stereos, and other gadgets into a single device in our pocket) > * public awareness of environmental damage > * governments that respond to those concerns by putting regulations in place to reduce those harms > So, McAfee argues, what we need to address climate change and prevent other environmental catastrophes, while maintaining modern living standards for billions of people, is … even more of each of these [four forces], working in concert.

jt2190 7y ago
There currently seems to be a big hole in this approach, which is that rich jurisdictions need to be aligned with poorer ones to work in concert toward these goals, otherwise rich jurisdictions can just “pretend” they’re meeting goals when they’re just moving them to poor jurisdictions.
lozenge 7y ago
In other words, if government regulations incentivise efficiency, then our capitalist economy will provide that efficiency. Which is what any environmental economist--or any economist generally--would tell you.

avip 7y ago

How does that reconcile with the actual (admittedly outdated) facts? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_...

lozenge 7y ago
He is looking at carbon efficiency - emissions divided by GDP. On top of that, he's looking at the change in efficiency rather than the actual efficiency, thus he can boast that the US is increasingly efficient, instead of noting it is already very inefficient. Of course, the planet is based on physics and doesn't understand GDP, so this is all in a wider sense irrelevant.
- marmaduke 7y ago
  > the planet is based on physics and doesn't understand GDP, so this is all in a wider sense irrelevant Per https://xkcd.com/435/ https://xkcd.com/435/ economics (GDP) would be to the far left (or between sociology and math if we're on S^1), so if efficiency became a part of the exchange rate or tax on goods, it would become immediately understandable by planet. I like BTW, the suggestion that the planet's understanding things. I can imagine she feels rather itchy these days.

algaeontoast 7y ago

I think another attribute of this is education and being aware that there is slightly more to life than just the pursuit of money. Sure, people with means fall for this all the time, but I think poor people also commonly enter the same trap. Note that a pursuit of saving face and appearing rich is entirely different than the pursuit of wealth - but a pursuit of money could take either path. For instance, understanding why burning down a rain-forest to make $100 might not be worthwhile, akin to uber drivers endangering drivers and pedestrians to make $15. Sometimes developed western countries seem to have sympathy for people who are willing to deforest African nations (whom are also usually helpless to act against these transgressions) and poach endangered animals (an obvious heinous act) and oddly sometimes progressives will state that it's less-bad because they're poor / uneducated...

esotericn 7y ago
I'd argue that this is a huge issue in the Western world that we could theoretically solve, though how it would happen practically I'm not sure. Stable homes for all, reduce and/or eliminate the worst forms of advertising. With some luck you then have a relatively happy populace, content to spend time with their family and on leisure etc without wanting to get big 4x4s or jet around the world or whatever. Kill off the rat race. Quite incompatible with our current economy though...
- dgellow 7y ago
  Not only incompatible with the economy. What you describe is likely to require an authoritarian system.
- algaeontoast 7y ago
  I don't necessarily have a problem with people being motivated and as a result of their efforts making money - moreso that most people seem to be motivated just to save face and "show" others how rich they are (mostly a media driven idea). I think these kinds of narratives harm poor people more since they are inclined to make horrible financial choices to be like these "rich" people, who in reality are probably in nearly just as much debt as actual poor people. I think the most interesting thought experiment here is when you consider extremist progressives who want to "kill the rich and elite" - in reality if this actually did play out I think they'd just end up killing people who are most evidently "rich" but not actually withholding wealth from the poor. In essence, they'd be killing all the self-obsessed and narcissistic consumerists. Anyone who was actually rich or still in control of banking infrastructure would be smart enough to not be showy. (yes, I understand this is a pretty extreme tangent) All in all, I do think the rat race is empowering to people who are able to understand what is really valuable to them.

mushufasa 7y ago

This is also called the Environmental Kuznets Curve (1991) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznets_curve#Environmental_Kuznets_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznets_curve#Environmental_Ku... . There's a lot of criticism in the literature. The statistics rarely live up to the theory at face value. (https://steadystate.org/wp-content/uploads/Stern_KuznetsCurve.pdf https://steadystate.org/wp-content/uploads/Stern_KuznetsCurv...). And often, new pollutants emerge in rich countries as others decline. For example, in the USA, water pollutants targeted by the Clean Water Act (1972) have declined, but new pollutants have emerged which aren't measured or managed by the policy. Recent years have seen an explosion in estrogen hormones that turn male fish to hermaphrodites that lay eggs, coming from unchecked fertilizer runoff and birth control sewage. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/02/160203-feminized-fish-endocrine-disruption-hormones-wildlife-refuges/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/02/160203-femin...

dmix 7y ago
> The researchers found intersex smallmouth bass everywhere they looked. About 85 percent of the males collected in the refuges were intersex. At least some males at every site had female egg cells. It was less prevalent in largemouth bass—about 27 percent. Wow that's the vast majority, sounds like it could be a serious issue. What's interesting is how it's been found near cities and Agriculture but also in remote areas. I'm curious how much of a role the waste treatment centers have played which was noted as a potential source. Since water can travel long distances via rivers and rain its going to be hard to pinpoint who or what is to blame. Hopefully they keep digging into that question. I also now understand what Alex Jones meant by "gay fish" in one of his popular rants he was mocked for.
- mushufasa 7y ago
  > What's interesting is how it's been found near cities and Agriculture but also in remote areas. I'm curious how much of a role the waste treatment centers have played which was noted as a potential source. There are generally two main sources. 1. agricultural runoff related to fertilizers. 2. Urban sewage, because birth control products get flushed down toilets and the wastewater treatment plants don't even try to filter for hormones (it's not part of the Clean Water Act). And even if they tried, the methods to do so are nascent (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/06/19/415336306/hunting-ways-to-keep-synthetic-estrogens-out-of-rivers-and-seas https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/06/19/4153363...). > I also now understand what Alex Jones meant by "gay fish" in one of his popular rants he was mocked for. Yes, he got unfair criticism for calling attention to this -- it is actually a huge environmental problem that needs more public awareness. The ecological impacts are huge, and yes because the water treatment plants don't filter, you might be drinking similar concentrations through tap water. (edit: to be clear, the concentrations that harm fish are nowhere near enough to cause the same level of harm in humans, so no you will not turn gay from drinking tap water) He's still a nutcase con man though, IMO. Mixing in a few grains of truth makes the poisonous ideas go down smoother.

cma 7y ago

Now do it in consumption growth adjusted for marginal utility of the growth.

dafty4 7y ago

Assertion pretty obvious, non? (Of course a knowledge-based economy is going to pollute less than an industrial- and/or resource-driven one.) Then the first line of the author's thesis (more capitalism needed) doesn't follow from the premise: As China and Sweden demonstrate, advanced economies need not necessarily be strictly capitalist.

chunsj 7y ago

Ignoring all the cost reaching to current state. Isn't this what we call fake news?

zaro 7y ago
Maybe propaganda is a beer name, as this is not really news just a twisted storyt that serves certain interests.

paulsutter 7y ago

Developing nations can follow-suit, by outsourcing their own pollution intensive activities to ... developing countries? > rich countries have figured out how to grow with lighter environmental impacts—and developing nations can follow suit

wazoox 7y ago

This is all fine and reassuring and soothing, but the fact is that we need to entirely decorrelate economic output from resource usage, and that just doesn't happen, nor is there any way to make it happen, even in theory. This sounds for me like a call to wishful thinking, something like "we can go on like we always did, we won't crash and collapse but will find a way out". Basically, a propaganda piece for neoliberal capitalism which is driving us into the ground fast. Borderline criminal, maybe.

midnitewarrior 7y ago

Modern, rich countries externalize their polution-causing activities to developing nations.