Comments by "Persona" (@ArawnOfAnnwn) on "DEGROWTH: Destroying the Economy to Save the Planet?" video.

The only thing you should find terrifying is how misleading YT videos can be. This one being a case in point.
15
That chart is misleading anyway, you don't even need to argue that China produces stuff for everyone else. China only pollutes the most if you look at CURRENT annual emissions. If you look at total emissions, China is just 12.5%, while the US is double that - literally a quarter of all carbon emissions. Europe is 22%. India? 3%. Etc. And then there's per capita emissions, which really make rich nations look bad. In reality poorer nations are developing in a much cleaner fashion than their rich nation predecessors did.
15
This was an exceedingly alarmist video that also misrepresented a lot of things. On emissions for instance, VE paints a very misleading picture by only showing current annual emissions. Climate change is overwhelmingly a problem created by rich countries, NOT poor ones. Per capita rich citizens emit far more than poor ones by a massive margin. But okay, let's say you don't care about fairness. But not only that, if you look at TOTAL emissions, rather than current, it's again rich nations that caused the problem. The US, for instance, has emitted 25% of ALL carbon, and Europe is just behind at 22%. China? 12.5%, HALF the US. India? 3%. Making it seem like these nations are responsible is disingenuous at best.
9
@Teutathis You didn't develop any blueprint and countries aren't following the same path as you did. For instance China is now the world leader in both solar energy and electric vehicles, despite still being a developing country. Many African nations are skipping physical banking networks entirely in favor of internet banking. Etc. These nations are all developing far BETTER and faster than the west did, and despite not having the same resources and control the west enjoyed. Your population argument is just wrong and your example silly. India's fertility rate atm is literally below the minimum replacement level of 2.1 and still falling. Other nations that aren't even developed yet are even lower, cos in pretty much every case not only does the birth rate decline as nations develop, it declines much faster than their incomes rise. Thailand is still a middle income nation, yet its fertility rate is 1.3. Births are only high in very poor nations, like Ethiopia or Nigeria, that have yet to take off - and as such their emissions are tiny because their people are so poor. Even there it's falling as they start to grow. Btw, the developed world also experienced a population spurt when it was developing. Go look up what the population of the UK or US or whoever was at the start of the industrial revolution. In fact yours was worse, as you were so bad at it cos it was highly unequal with barely any social spending on things like girls health and schools until decades into it, which lowers population growth. As such, populations in your nations grew for a century, while in developing nations today the decline can start in mere decades cos they invest into health and girls education from the outset. And finally your diaspora argument is laughable lol. First off, those diaspora support your economies. If not for immigration most western economies would be in a downward spiral as their own people aren't enough as their populations age. Secondly the reason their emissions are higher than the nation they came from is cos YOUR emissions are higher lol. Don't blame them for just living like you do. Try lowering your own carbon intensive nation and that'll automatically affect them too. Cos, you know, they're living in your nations. Oh but of course that would require you lot to actually change yourselves, and we all know how anathema that is to you. Cope.
8
China is not an outlier, that chart is just misleading. China only pollutes the most if you look at CURRENT annual emissions. If you look at total emissions, China is just 12.5%, while the US is double that - literally a quarter of all carbon emissions. Europe is 22%. India? 3%. Etc. And then there's per capita emissions, which really make rich nations look bad. In reality poorer nations are developing in a much cleaner fashion than their rich nation predecessors did.
3
Then there's the way that degrowth itself was presented as some sort of doomsday plan by the elite. In reality all it is is a research project. To claim that degrowth seeks to make everyone poorer is a gross misrepresentation of what that research is for. The idea isn't to worsen people's quality of life, it's to reduce what you may term 'ineffectual growth' i.e. growth that doesn't improve the quality of life. This is closely tied with finding alternative measures to GDP. For instance, growth in cigarette or drug sales does increase GDP, but hurts people's actual quality of life. The concept is simply to generalize that idea, usually by introducing negative elements into the formula for calculating national growth. For instance, see the Genuine Progress Indicator. These ideas only depress growth in terms of rampant consumerism, resource depletion or wastage. People still live prosperous lives in a real sense.
2
@kimwarburton8490 sigh I've no idea what issue YT has with that comment, but it's too long for me to tinker around with all the bits of it to make it visible. Susan sucks!
2
@innosam123 Btw, if you've ever felt like rolling your eyes at boomers talking down to younger generations, this is similar. The whole west is basically the equivalent of the boomers talking down to poorer, and not ironically also younger, nations. Don't make me 'ok boomer' you now.
2
@paulomilan515 Fine, I'll copy my comments - On emissions for instance, VE paints a very misleading picture by only showing current annual emissions. Climate change is overwhelmingly a problem created by rich countries, NOT poor ones. Per capita rich citizens emit far more than poor ones by a massive margin. But okay, let's say you don't care about fairness. But not only that, if you look at TOTAL emissions, rather than current, it's again rich nations that caused the problem. The US, for instance, has emitted 25% of ALL carbon, and Europe is just behind at 22%. China? 12.5%, HALF the US. India? 3%. Making it seem like these nations are responsible is disingenuous at best.
2
You don't even need to look per capita, albeit that's certainly the fairer way. Even in terms of total emissions, China is half that of the US alone, which has put a quarter of all carbon into the sky. India has contributed just 3% of all emissions. And so on.
2
@innosam123 I take it you dislike measures to discourage smoking as well, despite its many proven ill health effects? Cos that's akin to what's being done here.
2
@shaun7142 Read my second comment.
1
@shaun7142 It's right above your comment. It's the first reply here.
1
@shaun7142 It's worse than that, as what and how it get censored oft varies between users from different places. So you don't see the same comments as others might. Anyway, here - "Then there's the way that degrowth itself was presented as some sort of doomsday plan by the elite. In reality all it is is a research project. To claim that degrowth seeks to make everyone poorer is a gross misrepresentation of what that research is for. The idea isn't to worsen people's quality of life, it's to reduce what you may term 'ineffectual growth' i.e. growth that doesn't improve the quality of life. This is closely tied with finding alternative measures to GDP. For instance, growth in cigarette or drug sales does increase GDP, but hurts people's actual quality of life. The concept is simply to generalize that idea, usually by introducing negative elements into the formula for calculating national growth. For instance, see the Genuine Progress Indicator. These ideas only depress growth in terms of rampant consumerism, resource depletion or wastage. People still live prosperous lives in a real sense."
1
@kimwarburton8490 Can you see my comment above yours? It's a copy of my second comment.
1
@shaun7142 That's cos longer comments have more stuff in them and hence more possibilities for things that could trip the algorithm. In this case it isn't any longer than my opening comment. Meh.
1
Then there's the way that degrowth itself was presented in this video as some sort of doomsday plot by the elite. In reality all it is is a research project. To claim that degrowth seeks to make everyone poorer is a gross misrepresentation of what that research is for. The idea isn't to worsen people's quality of life, it's to reduce what you may term 'ineffectual growth' i.e. growth that doesn't improve the quality of life. This is closely tied with finding alternative measures to GDP. For instance, growth in cigarette or drug sales does increase GDP, but hurts people's actual quality of life. The concept is simply to generalize that idea, usually by introducing negative elements into the formula for calculating national growth. For instance, see the Genuine Progress Indicator. These ideas only depress growth in terms of rampant consumerism, resource depletion or wastage. People still live prosperous lives in a real sense.
1
@jdjphotographynl This IS common sense. The way that degrowth itself was presented as some sort of doomsday plan by the elite is silly. In reality all it is is a research project. To claim that degrowth seeks to make everyone poorer is a gross misrepresentation of what that research is for. The idea isn't to worsen people's quality of life, it's to reduce what you may term 'ineffectual growth' i.e. growth that doesn't improve the quality of life. This is closely tied with finding alternative measures to GDP. For instance, growth in cigarette or drug sales does increase GDP, but hurts people's actual quality of life. The concept is simply to generalize that idea, usually by introducing negative elements into the formula for calculating national growth. For instance, see the Genuine Progress Indicator. These ideas only depress growth in terms of rampant consumerism, resource depletion or wastage. People still live prosperous lives in a real sense.
1
More like another reason to unsub from this channel. This was an extremely misleading video, as explained in my comment.
1
@paulomilan515 Then there's the way that degrowth itself was presented as some sort of doomsday plan by the elite. In reality all it is is a research project. To claim that degrowth seeks to make everyone poorer is a gross misrepresentation of what that research is for. The idea isn't to worsen people's quality of life, it's to reduce what you may term 'ineffectual growth' i.e. growth that doesn't improve the quality of life. This is closely tied with finding alternative measures to GDP. For instance, growth in cigarette or drug sales does increase GDP, but hurts people's actual quality of life. The concept is simply to generalize that idea, usually by introducing negative elements into the formula for calculating national growth. For instance, see the Genuine Progress Indicator. These ideas only depress growth in terms of rampant consumerism, resource depletion or wastage. People still live prosperous lives in a real sense.
1
This video misrepresents and misleads a lot. The way that degrowth itself was presented as some sort of doomsday plan by the elite is silly. In reality all it is is a research project. To claim that degrowth seeks to make everyone poorer is a gross misrepresentation of what that research is for. The idea isn't to worsen people's quality of life, it's to reduce what you may term 'ineffectual growth' i.e. growth that doesn't improve the quality of life. This is closely tied with finding alternative measures to GDP. For instance, growth in cigarette or drug sales does increase GDP, but hurts people's actual quality of life. The concept is simply to generalize that idea, usually by introducing negative elements into the formula for calculating national growth. For instance, see the Genuine Progress Indicator. These ideas only depress growth in terms of rampant consumerism, resource depletion or wastage. People still live prosperous lives in a real sense.
1
@floak18 The way that degrowth itself was presented in this video as some sort of doomsday plot by the elite is frankly alarmist and misleading. In reality all it is is a research project. To claim that degrowth seeks to make everyone poorer is a gross misrepresentation of what that research is for. The idea isn't to worsen people's quality of life, it's to reduce what you may term 'ineffectual growth' i.e. growth that doesn't improve the quality of life. This is closely tied with finding alternative measures to GDP. For instance, growth in cigarette or drug sales does increase GDP, but hurts people's actual quality of life. The concept is simply to generalize that idea, usually by introducing negative elements into the formula for calculating national growth. For instance, see the Genuine Progress Indicator. These ideas only depress growth in terms of rampant consumerism, resource depletion or wastage. People still live prosperous lives in a real sense.
1