The illusion of “degrowth” in a poor and unequal world

Branko Milanovic · 18 Nov 2017

Others here said this too

The climate policy everyone has quietly assumed is that poorer countries stay poor, and that is the wrong answer.

Their wordsFrom these exchanges I got the impression that they were unaware of just how unequal and poor (yes, poor) the world is today and what would be the trade-offs if we really were to decide to fix the volume of goods and services produced and consumed in the world at the current level.

Also said by Casey Handmer

Read the piece on glineq.blogspot.com ↗

5 korrents from this piece ↓

Branko Milanovic did not write this page.

Every claim below was made in this piece, quoted word for word and numbered in the order the piece makes them, so you can read it there rather than take our word for it. The sentence above each quote is our reading of the claim, not their wording. Each quote was checked against a stored copy of the page at build time; where the two differ, the quote is the fact.

Our reading
Freezing world output at today's level would condemn a quarter of humanity to permanent abject poverty.

Their wordsThen, unless we change the distribution of income, we are condemning to permanent abject poverty some 15 percent of world population that currently earn less than $1.90 per day and some quarter of humankind who earn less than $2.50 per day.
Our reading
The climate policy everyone has quietly assumed is that poorer countries stay poor, and that is the wrong answer.

Their wordsFrom these exchanges I got the impression that they were unaware of just how unequal and poor (yes, poor) the world is today and what would be the trade-offs if we really were to decide to fix the volume of goods and services produced and consumed in the world at the current level.
Our reading
Degrowth shared out equally would cut the incomes of everyone above the world average by about two-thirds.

Their wordsHow much of a reduction would this imply for the global top 27% (those with incomes above the global mean)? Their incomes would have to be cut by almost two-thirds.
Our reading
Degrowth would require the world to go from an inequality worse than South Africa's to a complete equality no recorded society has ever had.

Their wordsThe world would have to move from an inequality level that is higher than that of South Africa to complete equality that has never existed in any recorded society.
Our reading
The way to cut emissions is to tax the most emission-intensive goods, not to stop growth.

Their wordsIt would make more sense, if we want to think seriously about how to reduce emissions, not to engage in the illusions of degrowth in a very poor and unequal world but to think how the most emission-intensive goods and services could be taxed in order to reduce their consumption.

Keep reading

The other pieces are the ones whose claims are worded most like this one's. That measures language, not agreement: they may argue the opposite.