Bill McKibben - Downsides to Economic Growth

[ElPericoCooCoo]

If you think climate change isn't real you are buying the same arguments that tobacco companies used for 50 years to sell coffin nails not to mention buying off lawmakers to promote this kind of might be right, might not, who knows lets not do anything about it. Learn something about the laws of thermodynamics and physics and you will have a good idea of how climate science works.

[mphello]

The only hoax is that taking immediate action to outlaw coal and switch to wind and solar for electricity and outlaw oil-powered cars in order to ease the transition through the end of oil and climate change is going to "hurt" the economy, when in fact it will be the only thing that will save it.

[MrUmbrick]

". Bill is correct and the financial crisis was actually good for the planet; 10% less carbon emissions!'

You won't think Bill is correct when you are living on the street because of these absurd laws base on a hoax!

Did you know that your leader al gore thinks that it's over a million degrees two kilometres down from the surface of the earth?

[MrUmbrick]

The warmMonger posters should learn at least a little Science before they post their pro-AGW propaganda.

Do ANY of the 350 people know that CO2 is actually good for plants?

That greenhouses put CO2 into the greenhouse to help the plants?

Do they know that the EPA's statement that the says CO2 is toxic is a lie?

Are they going to fine you for the breath that you exhale?

[cl1mbat1ze]

@MrUmbrick ye plants use CO2 for photosynthesis, to grow and to create oxygen. But plants also release that CO2 into the ecological system when they die(as do all living things), which is then used by other plants again for the same purpose. And the carbon cycle continues on. Carbon dioxide introduced by carbon emissions from oil and cars and all that introduces more CO2 to the system. And since there already is enough CO2 in the system, this ends up in the atmosphere.

[cl1mbat1ze]

That's pretty basic high-school biology right there. So, yes, plants need CO2 to live, but more CO2 does nothing for plants, and excess CO2 goes directly into the atmosphere. Not trying to argue any specific point just wanted to correct that.

[KatOfTheAli]

@MrUmbrick Plants have enough CO2. Greenhouse gases destroy the ozone layer, which causes cancer. They cause global warming, which endangers many forms of wildlife and even human lives. EPA is lying? Really, a huge group of scientists is lying just for the fun of it? Trust me, it's not in the government's interest to lie about that. 'Hey, let's lie and say CO2 is harmful so we have to spend money to fix a problem that doesnt exist and piss off all the tax payers!'

[MrUmbrick]

"keep on blathering on YouTube about the conspiracy They are committing! *yawn*"

Seems like the 350 bunch are doing a whole lot of blahthering and blithering!

"Or you could just get a library card..."

Yeah, you could get a library card and read all the mainstream lies like the rest of the sheep instead of educating yourself without the biased global warmMonger books that are outdated.

Chris Horner's books aren't in the library because they are a threat to the government.

[MrUmbrick]

Sleep City is just fine with the government taking all your freedoms.

Keep on promoting the interests of multimillionaires (Carbon Credit scammers?) , keep on being ignorant of what the term "scientific consensus" means. Funny words coming from someone who is ignorant of actual Science.

[MrUmbrick]

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus." -- Michael Crichton

[Bigum99]

It's an uphill battle. Bill is correct and the financial crisis was actually good for the planet; 10% less carbon emissions! The system is not balanced and must fall, cracks are already there. Future generations will be awestruck on our (former) "Age of Plenty" and probably will not be able to comprehend our lifestyles. Better that way, so they won't curse us

[luckystenzelagain]

Politics, economics, philosophy, even religion will no longer matter when the finite space is filled and its resources depleted to the point of gone. Dialogue is important, but don't lose sight of facts and try to keep an eye open as things change. Some things are true whether you believe them or not...

[350global]

Downsides to economic destruction caused by foolish regulation giving credence to the AGW lie:

unemployment, starvation, 3rd world contries that will never be able to develop.

31,000 scientists and the founder of the Weather Channel know that man-made global warming is a hoax.

4500 of the 6000 temp gathering stations were shut down because they didnt agree with the global warming scam.

Watch out for those who want total control and regulation of everything!

[sleepcity]

@350global Watch out for those who want no control or regulation of anything!

Keep on promoting the interests of multimillionaires, keep on being ignorant of what the term "scientific consensus" means, keep on blathering on YouTube about the conspiracy They are committing! *yawn*

Or you could just get a library card...

[modestgirl1]

@350global REALLY WOW... SO THE MELTING OF THE NORTH POLE MUST BE A HOAX TOO.... AND THE DRYING OF EVEN MORE WESTERN LAND IS ALSO A MYTH... god strike the ignorant please

[HowToChangeTheWorld]

@modestgirl1 Tell me, do you know of any geologist who will publicly state that an ice age does not result in massive droughts and desertification? Good luck. Desertification results from land use by animals such as humans, and also ice ages. Ice ages pull the moisture out of the air, soil, vegetation, bodies of water and lock it up in ice. Desertification is not a result of global warming.

[StunnedByStupidity]

@HowToChangeTheWorld Expanding Hadley cells - look it up!

[behaack]

So Mr. McKibben seems more concerned with the environent then he is in the downward slope of the American "happiness" curve.

A lot has happened during the part 50 years since American happiness has peaked. It may very well be that if our prosperity has not increased that our happiness level may be even lower.

[HorseCents]

@behaack, good priorities you have there. We don't need "the environment" at all to live. And Jesus is coming to destroy what we don't need anyhow.

[dunctonhoney]

We did not evolve to be happy. We evolved to compete the pass on our genes. That's why there's such an instinct to grab consumables. Or spend your money on an expensive watch to compete with people. No doubt you'll remember the watch less than a family day out that the money could be spent on.

[dtothediesel]

This video is truly enlightening. It truly changes my views on economics.

[IrreducibleParadox]

@dtot

It's enlightening, but tell me, did you think that everyone got happier and happier all the time? ;-p

[dtothediesel]

No, but one would think that amazing new technology and prosperity would lead to happiness. One of the problems is that most of the prosperity has gone to the very rich.

[IrreducibleParadox]

But the measure of human happiness has nothing to do with material gains. Health maybe, but the new technology doesn't really let us relax more, it's still a contest. We might shorten our hours, but we're more likely to increase the complexity of what we have to perform than reduce it. If something is easy it won't pay you anything to do it, hence, relatively speaking, we stay in the same place, only with an increasingly complicated environment. :-p

[dtothediesel]

Hey, I'm not some materialist who thinks that technology is the solution. It can certainly be harnessed to do great things, but humans, by nature, can make technology destructive. So I think that we must use technology for human good, not for profit or war.

[panther9mm]

Why he don't want the chinese to eat?

[braddevos]

Your views on economics must have been very hazy.

[CosmicFork]

Faith in the absolute goodness of economic growth ignores one crucial piece of evidence. We see with our own eyes that unrestrained economic growth can be destructive to the natural environment and the habitats of plants and animals. Logic suggests that the same process may reach a stage where it adversely affects the human habitat, and that this is manifested in the economic insecurity and social breakdown we are trying to change.

[Astralprojection23]

It already adversely affects human habitats. Chemicals that get leaked into our food system, rivers, soils, and air are the result of this unfettered economic growth. Manufacturing is one of the most destructive force to human habitats. As these jobs get outsourced more and more to the "global south"/"under-developed"/"3rd World" then the evidence of human habitat destruction will not be so clear, since these areas of the world have no voice.

[CosmicFork]

The harmful side of growth may not be apparent all at once, though. Perhaps growth first is widely beneficial, then later adversely affects the natural environment, still later damages the human habitat, and finally destroys the jobs and economic security it was supposed to create. At each stage those who are unaffected fail to take alarm. If growth creates unemployment for some, but better jobs for others, those who are still employed will continue to see growth as beneficial.

[Astralprojection23]

I totally agree. I think the most challenging aspect of growth is understanding limits and determining what is essential to life in order to meet those limits. We, as an entire species, need to re-evaluate our needs and wants. Also, the "environment" needs to be put clearly in the constitution as a stakeholder in society, with rights. This is what Ecuador is trying to do and it will be a perfect way to bring the environmental justice movement to the forefront of policy making.

[fakeshani]

Yes. I definetley agree with him. If economic growth measures happiness of people, americans or other people in industrial countires must be happier than others. However, is it true? I dont think economy is the only factor to mesure people's happiness. So, politicians. focus on something else, too.

[jburns2011]

guess what i just punched my fuckn keyboard a;f6

[IrreducibleParadox]

He might as well say,"Happiness has gone down since african americans were granted the vote."

[IrreducibleParadox]

Is that an accurate quote from you Daniel. Then maybe you're the one who should return to school because that's not even a correlation, the vote right is not a continuous change. Suggest a more sensible alternative to reduced happiness than Mackibbens increased complexity and demand of human resources which is a necessary consequence (ergo correlates) of our increased consumption and I'll discuss it.

[osmark86]

that is an unfair statement and you know it. he never goes into the variables, rather he draws an overall economic correlation to raise a question. the bottomline of what he's saying is that the current economic idea of growth as the proverbial steam engine keeping us moving should be questioned. and wouldn't you agree??

[IrreducibleParadox]

=(, I've made a mess of my statements under this video, because I was tired and in a bad mood when I wrote them, which is a shame to. I do agree though, if you roll a boulder of a mountain sure it rolls faster and faster, but to where exactly. The main thing that we're accomplishing is an increase of the complexity and power of action that we have in our lives. Sounds good, but with the constant drive to master the complexities it is possible that we're also causing increased frustration.

[osmark86]

word. it's about time we question these axioms of modern economics and start looking at living closer to our means. why do we always seem to believe that this is equivalent to less happiness? I think that if christians actually read the bible they would agree too hahaha. richer = happier is such an indoctrined belief.

[IrreducibleParadox]

The why is easy. It's a matter of power. Power is taken because if it isn't it is stolen. If something can be done more efficiently than before someone will do it so and benefit. Personally I'd think that the most pressing concern for humanity would be to end strife and world poverty but that doesn't increase power, or options of actions or give an edge where profit spills in. So they're second rate issues. Greed rules because hungry people will always eat, and people who are feed up starve.

[psikeyhackr]

When consumers buy cars they get added to GDP. But cars wear out and must eventually be replaced. When consumers buy replacements they get added to GDP. But the cars that wore out never got subtracted from anywhere.

Economists don't mention NDP much but only CAPITAL goods get depreciated. So that GDP as ECONOMIC GROWTH is actually nonsense.

Economists can't do algebra.

They don't mention the planned obsolescence of automobiles either. The laws of physics do not change year to year.

[danieleriskay]

"They don't mention the planned obsolescence of automobiles either. "

That's because economists are too smart to believe in the planned obsolescence of automobiles.

[psikeyhackr]

{{{ That's because economists are too smart to believe in the planned obsolescence of automobiles. }}}

ROFLMAO

Look at the planes from WWII, the P=51 Mustang, the Spitfire. What electronic computers did engineers use to design those planes? They didn't have any! Now 39 years after the moon landing we need to keep changing junk that rolls along the ground at less than 130 mph.

Economists are too DUMB to understand the engineering consequences of the laws of physics not changing every year.

[danieleriskay]

I'm not sure why you bring up the P-51, an inefficient, slow, fragile plane that burned a tremendous amount of oil due to the low tolerance of its engine.

As to your whining about worn out cars not being subtracted from GDP, neither do worn out homes, clothing, used soaps, consumed foods, worn out roads, etc.

Entropy is the law. Look it up.

[danieleriskay]

Furthermore, if you knew anything about cars you'd know that:

1) cars are vastly more reliable than they were decades ago.

2) they are vastly more complicated.

3) they are vastly more sophisticated.

4) they are vastly more safe.

The progress in cars has been remarkable. Perhaps since you're so knowledgeable about cars you can bring one to market that will last forever while still being affordable and fuel efficient. No one is stopping you. Just the laws of physics.

[psikeyhackr]

{Entropy is the law. Look it up.}

And economists are ignoring the laws of physics by not reporting the DEPRECIATION of DURABLE CONSUMER GOODS.

{2) they are vastly more complicated.

3) they are vastly more sophisticated.}

Modern electronics can be retrofitted to a '57 Chevy.

{{ P-51, an inefficient, slow, fragile plane }}

440 mph was slow 4 a piston plane in 1944? You need to lie about a great plane to prove your point? Anyone can research it. That fragile plane won the air war in Europe.

[danieleriskay]

And the P-51 sucks compared to an F-16, just like cars from the 1940s suck compared to modern cars. I have no idea what you're getting at with this talk of retrofitting a '57 Chevy.

[psikeyhackr]

You're absolutely right. The F-16 has a turbine engine while the P-51 had a piston engine.

A turbine car almost won the Indy500 in 1968 but turbines were banned and most cars today have piston engines not turbines. Turbines last longer because they just spin so why aren't economists asking why cars haven't had turbines for years to REDUCE DEPRECIATION.

The airlines discovered turbines could go 10,000 hours between overhauls while they used to overhaul pistons every 400 hours.

[danieleriskay]

LOL..

Turbines wouldn't reduce depreciation.  You really need to take some courses in both micro and macroeconomics.

[psikeyhackr]

If the engines last longer what does that do to the useful life of the car?

Of course a lot of the depreciation is just the result of useless variation in body style. That is why there is so much loss in the first year even though there hasn't been much wear on the car.

Macroeconomics defines depreciation as applying to CAPITAL GOODS ONLY. The entire economics profession is composed of lying morons.

They pretend DEMAND SIDE DEPRECIATION does not exist.

[danieleriskay]

LOL. Yep, they're lying. Just to try to trick people like you. Fortunately, you saw through their terrible shenanigans.

Now, tell me, how would the world be changed (or your standard of living) if economists used your definition.

[psikeyhackr]

Standard of living is another CASH FLOW measurement. When do economists talk about the NET WORTH of most people?

The planned depreciation of planned obsolescence keeps people running on a treadmill. When do economists suggest mandatory accounting in school? Double entry accounting is 700 years old. How hard can it be with today's computers?

There have been 200,000,000+ cars in the US since 1995. How much depreciation is that every year?

Keep fighting facts with sarcasm. It is so intelligent.

[danieleriskay]

lol... yes, it is smart to fight you with sarcasm. Because you're silly. It's hard to take you seriously.

So you can't point to any difference it would make in your life or my life if your definition was changed. Thank you.

There is no planned obsolescence. The depreciation is anticipated, not planned. Depreciation is the result of market forces independent of the particular characteristics of the vehicles. The value of a car is nothing more than what someone is willing to pay.

[danieleriskay]

The value of things drops when there is an abundant supply. Cars are manufactured by all sorts of countries by numerous companies. Cars are entering the market faster than they are wearing out. Hence, used cars are not as desirable as new cars. The best way to reduce depreciation of used cars would be to forbid the manufacture or importation of new cars. But that would be a really silly move.

[psikeyhackr]

You will notice the auto manufacturers are not competing with each on the durability and reliability of their cars. Are we supposed to believe after a couple of centuries of making machines and one century of making cars that there aren't methods of testing and specifying this?

But all of the manufacturers are at the same level of mech eng technology and if they could all make cars last 3 times as long their incomes would probably go down. But that contradicts our definition of econ growth.

[danieleriskay]

And here I thought Toyota became such a profitable company because of their reputation for reliability.

Whether a car lasts for 100K miles or 200K miles or 300K miles is largely due to the behavior of the owner and how they approach preventative maintenance. I have a truck manufactured in 1965 that has over 300k miles on it.

[psikeyhackr]

And how often have I heard 18 wheel trailer trucks last 1,000,000 miles? But cars are built in larger quantities so eliminating the stupid and useless styling variations would allow for cost reductions and eliminate a lot of maintenance problems.

We just have too many nitwits that love cars and don't know what cam shaft is. LOL

But regardless of that the economists should be computing and reporting that DEPRECIATION.

And subtracting it from the so called GROWTH.

NDP = GDP - Depreciation

[danieleriskay]

Beyond that, Bill McKibben's attempts to link the supposed decrease in happiness to an increase in consumption or economic growth is just plain silly. Someone should send him (and his fans) back to school. They missed the day when "correlation vs. causation" was covered.

There's no reason to think that current moods/attitudes are directly related as he asserts to the long-term economic trends.

He might as well say,"Happiness has gone down since african americans were granted the vote."

[EasyEs]

I notice only how University Profs talk about this kinda stuff, well the ones with tenure do at least.

Who is going to stop the Chinese from trying to improve their standard of living again? This guy?!

[IrreducibleParadox]

They should stop themselves, just as we should stop ourselves in the light of the consequences of our consumptions. Furthermore, things apparently aren't what make us happy, and producing them certainly isn't. So why do we drive so hard at it? What this video suggests is moderation, nothing less, nothing more.

[macca13]

How dare you thumb your nose at the growth that China has experience. Perhaps if america stoped producing 22% of all carbon emission the enviroment could be saved. Whats that place in japan called...........kyoto i think.

[IrreducibleParadox]

He doesn't thumb his nose at anything but general concept of economic growth.

[EasyEs]

Doesn't matter. Climate models are based on runaway feedbacks not CO2 concentration which has little effect on climate. I don't think the atmosphere operates this way, but if it does we don't have a clue when these feedbacks kick in. So in effect cutting all Co2 might not matter at all because they could enact anyways brought on by unforseen solar effects or just time. I don't belive this is teh case and most emperical evidence agrees with this position

[opalcomp]

Excellent presentation! I want to contribute an old, true Chinese tale: a wealthy man achieved great wisdom through his efforts. He then dumped all his property in a deep lake. When criticized and told he should have given to the poor, he said "I consider all this to be a great burden. Why would I give it to someone else?" Note: in those days, not much was being dumped in lakes, and it would decompose :--)