I’ve come to realize that the provision of guaranteed public services is the only way to successfully decarbonize the economy: housing, healthcare, education, nutrition and ICT. A good deal of the competitive pressure for jobs and growth is a consequence of financial anxiety, economic insecurity, and poverty. The productivity gains since the 70s have mostly gone to profit, and therefore to shareholders. That is why the stock market has become popular as a support structure for those with assets, while workers have have suffered. It was noted as early as the industrial revolution that when their means of subsistence is threatened, the working class can take revenge. And the ideological movements of the 20th demonstrated this danger. The political Right is successfully courting this anxiety and channeling it into an expansion of energy intensive markets. By placing a hard floor on well-being through public services, a considerable barrier to decarbonization is removed, and the Right has considerably less support or justification for opposition to sustainability beyond their own self-interest.
Good. Now compare it to the poverty rates in countries without capitalism. Take a look at the poverty rate in China 100 years ago or 50 years ago and today. It has plummeted. Because capitalism.
To the point! Make sure to check out Juliet Schor‘s books. Very enlightening stuff for anyone wishing to understand more about the crucial role of economics in the race to safe life on this planet
Lots of good information here. I don't believe that the type of robust change necessary is possible under capitalism. The elites simply won't allow this type of change to take place. Revolution may be our only hope.
And well, the people that have most of the guns want to elect a fascist. Remember, revolutions led to Napoleon and Lenin/ Stalin and the Khmer Rouge. Quit idealizing revolution. The US got lucky.
An excellent series of lectures! I just wish our politicians and so-called leaders would watch it. I will certainly share this with my network and forward links to my MP (sadly a neoliberal idiot).
That animal and other species affected by inequality of us and animals is good anology.But also note that inequality is the driver of growth and progressive innovation. Its nature
Few questions pop up: in America lots of folks have multiple jobs (with fewer hours). Where I live (some eu country) we can't get personnel enough and so a lot of work gets done by people from outside the country, even from outside the eu. Isn't it better to look at total working hours work than at individual work time? Yes, we work less as individuals here, but still the economy is growing and more work is getting done. I do see the correlation between work time and emissions decline - I'm sceptical of cause and effect in these. There are a lot of other factors at play here comparing China and India to the west. Social security, healthcare, social network, personal perspectives on improving your self and your offspring, cultural differences in levels of individualism.. on and on. Comparing apples and bricks in numbers.
Politics don't claim a reduction of the working hours but of an increase of the life working time. Thus in Germany the pension age is increasing from year to year and politicians discuss an age of 70 years for men and women already. So the number of working hours of a lifetime is increasing and the life-work balance of a men's lifetime is worsening steadily.
Economic prosperity has relied on a growing population for at least the last 2 centuries. Now, population growth is slowing - China's population is falling. It is interesting to see an economic theory that is adapted to a steady state population rather than a Ponzi scheme of a growing population of young to support the old.
It appears that the countries in the Goldemberg Corner are smaller in population density and geographical size. Can the ROW so easily replicate their models?
It needs to be discussed by everyone, in partnership with climate scientists. Serious focus on this topic, like too many others, has been siloed off. As you say, we are out of time and can no longer allow important subjects to languish in dark corners of academia, enabling corporate interests to own and manipulate the public conversation.
@@NewEconomicThinking listening to the bean counters has gotten us nowhere. Unfortunately, many of the climate scientists have rolled over and whitewashed the true situation. The temperature rise is already over 1.5C. But at least the professor talks about overpopulation and capitalism, which are the root causes. It's already too late but keep taking the hopium.
That is one of the primary pillars of our organization. Mainstream economics turned its back on society long ago, it must be made useful to people and our planet. Part of the purpose of this and other work we do is calling out the ill deeds of the discipline, whether it comes to climate or other arenas, and working towards repairing those failures. We are not taking "hopium" we are doing our best to act and use the time we have to make whatever difference we can. Giving up is not an option.
What's the carbon footprint of war, how much energy is consumed by military vehicles on a daily basis. Is it now time to say no to war, no to arms sales, no to economic sanctions. If nato pulled out of its permanent war with the world how much carbon would be saved?
![The Scope of the Climate Crisis - [ECO]NOMICS Part 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AlFKMIfqaPE/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Scope of the Climate Crisis - [ECO]NOMICS Part 1](/img/tr.png)
![Political Economy of Climate Disruption - [ECO]NOMICS Part 2](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yjC4eVLxo6I/mqdefault.jpg)
I really appreciate this series. Thank you so much for this 4 part series and the valuable information.
Fantastic series. As expected from iNet. Thanks especially to Prof Schor for this excellent summation.
I’ve come to realize that the provision of guaranteed public services is the only way to successfully decarbonize the economy: housing, healthcare, education, nutrition and ICT. A good deal of the competitive pressure for jobs and growth is a consequence of financial anxiety, economic insecurity, and poverty. The productivity gains since the 70s have mostly gone to profit, and therefore to shareholders. That is why the stock market has become popular as a support structure for those with assets, while workers have have suffered. It was noted as early as the industrial revolution that when their means of subsistence is threatened, the working class can take revenge. And the ideological movements of the 20th demonstrated this danger. The political Right is successfully courting this anxiety and channeling it into an expansion of energy intensive markets. By placing a hard floor on well-being through public services, a considerable barrier to decarbonization is removed, and the Right has considerably less support or justification for opposition to sustainability beyond their own self-interest.
Good.
Now compare it to the poverty rates in countries without capitalism. Take a look at the poverty rate in China 100 years ago or
50 years ago and today. It has plummeted. Because capitalism.
To the point! Make sure to check out Juliet Schor‘s books. Very enlightening stuff for anyone wishing to understand more about the crucial role of economics in the race to safe life on this planet
Such a great presentation!
Lots of good information here. I don't believe that the type of robust change necessary is possible under capitalism. The elites simply won't allow this type of change to take place. Revolution may be our only hope.
And well, the people that have most of the guns want to elect a fascist. Remember, revolutions led to Napoleon and Lenin/ Stalin and the Khmer Rouge. Quit idealizing revolution. The US got lucky.
An excellent series of lectures! I just wish our politicians and so-called leaders would watch it. I will certainly share this with my network and forward links to my MP (sadly a neoliberal idiot).
We need to accelerate crises to make people aware of the problem!
That animal and other species affected by inequality of us and animals is good anology.But also note that inequality is the driver of growth and progressive innovation. Its nature
Few questions pop up: in America lots of folks have multiple jobs (with fewer hours). Where I live (some eu country) we can't get personnel enough and so a lot of work gets done by people from outside the country, even from outside the eu.
Isn't it better to look at total working hours work than at individual work time? Yes, we work less as individuals here, but still the economy is growing and more work is getting done.
I do see the correlation between work time and emissions decline - I'm sceptical of cause and effect in these. There are a lot of other factors at play here comparing China and India to the west. Social security, healthcare, social network, personal perspectives on improving your self and your offspring, cultural differences in levels of individualism.. on and on. Comparing apples and bricks in numbers.
Politics don't claim a reduction of the working hours but of an increase of the life working time. Thus in Germany the pension age is increasing from year to year and politicians discuss an age of 70 years for men and women already. So the number of working hours of a lifetime is increasing and the life-work balance of a men's lifetime is worsening steadily.
Economic prosperity has relied on a growing population for at least the last 2 centuries. Now, population growth is slowing - China's population is falling. It is interesting to see an economic theory that is adapted to a steady state population rather than a Ponzi scheme of a growing population of young to support the old.
It appears that the countries in the Goldemberg Corner are smaller in population density and geographical size. Can the ROW so easily replicate their models?
Thank you mam
No, we don't have time. This topic needs to be discussed by biologists and climate scientists and not economists.
It needs to be discussed by everyone, in partnership with climate scientists. Serious focus on this topic, like too many others, has been siloed off. As you say, we are out of time and can no longer allow important subjects to languish in dark corners of academia, enabling corporate interests to own and manipulate the public conversation.
@@NewEconomicThinking listening to the bean counters has gotten us nowhere. Unfortunately, many of the climate scientists have rolled over and whitewashed the true situation. The temperature rise is already over 1.5C. But at least the professor talks about overpopulation and capitalism, which are the root causes. It's already too late but keep taking the hopium.
That is one of the primary pillars of our organization. Mainstream economics turned its back on society long ago, it must be made useful to people and our planet. Part of the purpose of this and other work we do is calling out the ill deeds of the discipline, whether it comes to climate or other arenas, and working towards repairing those failures. We are not taking "hopium" we are doing our best to act and use the time we have to make whatever difference we can. Giving up is not an option.
But want a decrease in energy usage lead to an increase in energy prices?
What's the carbon footprint of war, how much energy is consumed by military vehicles on a daily basis. Is it now time to say no to war, no to arms sales, no to economic sanctions. If nato pulled out of its permanent war with the world how much carbon would be saved?
And then Spock and Kirk arrived with the Humpback Whale.
But for the other persons
Hey New(Eco)
Not talking about nuclear makes this disingenuous. Are you motivated to hate hierarchy or do you want to fix climate.
You look out not for yourself