This video was made possible by the people who support me on Patreon.
In 2009, South Korea did something remarkable. The country poured 2% of its GDP, some $38.1 billion,
into environmental projects, hoping to create one million green jobs over the next
five years. The goal was to spur growth in a slumping economy while simultaneously
creating a low carbon society. In one sense, the plan worked. South Korea’s economic system
did eventually recover, but in a more important sense, the plan failed. From 2009 to 2014,
Korea’s emissions rose 11.8%. So, despite massive investments in clean energy, railway expansion,
and energy efficiency, South Korea’s emissions still climbed. So what happened? Why didn’t South
Korea’s green growth strategy work? Today, we’ll answer that question and more in order
to understand one of the insidious spectres that haunts the green energy revolution: consumption.
How consumption is causing Climate Change:
It’s December and the streets of New York City are filled with Christmas.
Stores, trees, lights, bags, packages, and trash. Christmas in America is a sacred
capitalist holiday wherein the average American explodes their average yearly emissions footprint
by roughly 650kg of CO2e, while spending a cumulative $2.6 billion on wrapping paper.
Up until around 150 years ago, however, the holiday rarely saw a wrapped present in sight.
But then unofficial holidays like Black Friday and department stores like Macy’s started to encourage
shoppers to fill their carts with tech and trinkets as a means of expressing care and love.
Now, Christmas shopping epitomizes the consumer experience in the United States. It's driven by a
complex mix of personal desire, social pressures, status signaling, stress, and propaganda
that work, in many instances, not to increase personal well-being, but to pad the pocketbooks
of corporations. Advertisements on Instagram and billboards in Times Square bombard us with visions
of what we could be if only we had that watch or that phone, which locks us into a world where,
in order to find happiness or comfort or political change, we need to buy...stuff.
But a range of studies consistently found that once a person’s needs are met, extra consumption
does not increase their well-being. And buying new phones, clothes, and gadgets all have an
environmental price tag. Despite the fact that 100 companies were found to be the root cause of 70%
of global emissions, the reality is that the people using those companies’ products and burning
their fuel are us. Or rather, I should say, primarily rich communities and countries. Because
consumption levels are not equal across the world, the average American uses over 100 times the
energy as someone from India. And if everyone in the world were to live in the same way the
average German does right now, global emissions would double. So as those in rich countries
gorge on luxury items and the newest tech, they use energy and emit at much higher rates than
countries in the majority world, which often are the ones feeling the brunt of climate disasters
Why we can’t buy our way out of climate change:
The blame for overconsumption should not and can not be placed solely on individuals. Companies
and corporations have a vested interest in making you buy more stuff because if they don’t
they go bankrupt. Which is why they slap green labels onto their products and advertise
everywhere. Indeed, the whole idea of a personal carbon footprint is a propaganda campaign created
by the fossil fuel giant BP. The move allowed them to lock-in decades of fossil fuel use
by turning the attention away from their complicity in climate change, and instead
blaming the individual for not living a low carbon lifestyle or not buying the right thing.
The natural conclusion in a system riddled with ads and cultural norms imploring all your senses
to buy more then, is that your dollar is your vote. An idea which stands in stark contrast
to the democratic ideal of one person, one vote. We are led to believe that growing the economy,
which for the individual means buying more, whether it be supporting new green tech,
or wearing sustainably-made clothing, is how we stop climate change. But the reality is that
this capitalist growth model counteracts the work being done to decrease emissions. Over the last 40
years, global emissions have skyrocketed despite dramatic expansions of renewable and energy
efficiency technologies. Yes, growth does lead to an expansion of new sustainable innovations,
but it also leads to the expansion of fossil fuel-intensive industries. Just one percent
growth in GDP leads to a 0.5 to 0.8% increase in carbon emissions. And if we continue to grow at 3
percent per year, by 2043, the global economy will be two times larger than it is now, which means
energy consumption will be larger and the task of transitioning towards a zero-carbon world will
be much harder. So, something's got to give. And that something is consumption in rich countries.
What options do we have?
The unfortunate reality is that expanding zero-carbon technologies to meet global
energy demands, or what’s known as decoupling emissions from growth,
will be an extremely difficult task. A task that South Korea attempted back 2009
and ran headfirst into the consequences of a growth-centered economy. The reason why South
Korea’s emissions still rose 11.8% over five years is that their total energy consumption
outpaced renewable installation and energy efficiency projects. So the emissions they
saved with green technology were nullified by their overall increase in consumption levels.
So then, what options do we have? A recent study modeled that by 2050 the world could support the
equivalent of three times the current global population if global consumption levels drop
60% back down to 1960 levels. Most notably though, the paper claims that this is possible
while still maintaining or even improving a decent lifestyle for all. And within their
definition of a decent living. the researchers include laptops, comfortable climate control,
access to robust transportation networks and universal healthcare. In order to achieve this
world wherein everyone is able to enjoy a decent lifestyle while also avoiding
a climate emergency, the researchers suggest a dual-pronged approach. On the demand-side,
consumption levels must drop by as much as 95% in countries with today’s highest per-capita
consumers. That means no more second houses or eating red meat every single day of the
week. This then must be simultaneously coupled with massive rollouts of advanced technology
in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other sectors. Together, the model predicts,
these scenarios could allow the global population to live well in a zero carbon world. And if all
this sounds scary, Hope Jahren, author of The Story of More, compares this future lifestyle
to that of someone living in Switzerland in the 1960s, which, to me, doesn't sound that bad,
especially considering that everyone in the world would be able to live the 1960s Swiss life.
Big questions, with big consequences:
The key point here is that reducing emissions or what’s known as decoupling emissions from growth
is not enough to quickly prevent the worst-case climate change scenario. Reducing consumption
has to be integrated into our solutions toolkit if we are to quickly tackle the climate crisis before
2050. But the burden of this task should not be laid upon the individual, it’s the job of
governments and the very corporations who created the mess in the first place to facilitate this
drop in consumption. Imagine for a moment, if instead of lobbying for fuel subsidies
and spending millions telling us to decrease our carbon footprint, BP was required to address its
complicity in climate change by leaving fossil fuels in the ground and developing renewable
energy, rapid public transportation, and energy efficiency technologies. I’d imagine the task
of reducing our own consumption and emissions would probably be a lot easier. Ultimately,
degrowth is a path we need to take seriously if we are to tackle the climate emergency.
While I can’t pretend to predict the far reaching consequences reducing growth would create,
I do know one thing: the smaller our global needs, the easier the transition will be.
Hey everyone, Charlie here. If you've been watching Our Changing Climate for a while
or just stumbled across this video and are wondering how you can help me make more videos,
then consider supporting the show on Patreon. As an OCC patron, you’ll gain early access to videos,
special behind the scenes updates, as well as a members-only group chat. In addition,
each month my supporters vote on an environmental group that I then donate a portion of my monthly
revenue to. So if you want to support the channel or are feeling generous, head over
to patreon.com/ourchangingclimate and become an OCC patron. If you’re not interested or aren’t
financially able, then no worries! I hope you enjoyed the video, and I’ll see you in two weeks!