The fundamental fact that Wolf ignores is that we live on a finite planet. The gains of the past, about which he enthuses, were built on cheap energy, abundant abuse of materials without taking into consideration the consequences of doing so, and a willingness to ignore the external costs imposed on society as a result of that indifference. That era is over. We face climate breakdown now. We are already on a dire path to 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming because we pretended that infinite growth was possible, and Wolf still wants more of the same. This is economic, social and climate madness. He might wish for increased productivity from consuming (and abusing) ever more of the world ‘s natural resources, whilst showing complete contempt for the rights of working people, but the stalling productivity numbers he quotes in his article do not show a failure of effort or the consequence of laws protecting labour rights; they show the natural consequence of economies hitting planetary and social limits.
Sigh.
First, growth is not coming back in the form he imagines, whether he thinks it necessary or not. Wolf might lament the collapse of postwar productivity miracles and clearly longs for their return, believing a combination of AI, other disruptive technologies, and greatly relaxed labour laws — allowing companies to dispense with their employees at will to the detriment of employees everywhere — might deliver them again.
Double Sigh.
Rising productivity allows you to do more with the same resources. That’s the very definition of rising productivity – more value of output from the same inputs. So, if 20th century growth wsa largely driven by rising productivity – it was – then 20th century growth is exactly the sort of growth that *we insist upon* for this new world of limited resources. Because the whole point of increasing prouctivity is greater value of output *from the same resources*.
Seems Bill Gates has stopped drinking the Climate Catastrophe koolaid – https://www.gatesnotes.com/work/accelerate-energy-innovation/reader/three-tough-truths-about-climate
The cynic might note that changing political moods in the US might have helped this along…
Bill’s a technology guy. Not a hippy, nor a commie. Most of his side of the Gates Foundation work is about things like developing technology to improve things. I think this is about spot on:-
To be clear: Climate change is a very important problem. It needs to be solved, along with other problems like malaria and malnutrition.
Now, I happen to think the numbers are cooked, fanciful, models not half as good as what people say. I can’t prove that, there’s just a gut feel about how they’re presented. But Bill’s at least got his head screwed on that this is one of many things. He’s in the Lomborg camp (Lomborg has numbers that show that malaria is a better spend).
Good to see he finally realised that it’s “time to put human welfare at the center of our climate strategies”. Yeah, duh, Bill. Any human strategy which is not ultimately focused on human welfare is a bit pointless.
I suspect it’s also because a fair bit of his wealth and his foundation is invested in companies which need abundant and reliable energy.
Isn’t the definition of economics “study of the allocation of scarce resources…”? Scarce, not infinite?
Asking for a friend.
It’s classic Spud. Start with a fundamental misrepresentation or misunderstanding and spiral hysterically from there.
You can look at the RAC’s chart of petrol and diesel consumption and see that it peaked around 2007/8.
https://www.racfoundation.org/data/volume-petrol-diesel-consumed-uk-over-time-by-year
There’s a load of technologies that caused that:-
People get their panties in a wad over how much energy computers use, but it’s a COMPARED TO WHAT thing. You can power a lot of computing with the energy to move a car 1 mile. My shift to bus and train was a lot about the apps. Not the vehicles. But that I could plan, figure out routes, which used to be a lot of friction compared to a car. I don’t stand in the rain waiting for a cancelled bus. Stagecoach tell me and I stay in the warm for the next one.
He may be right about countries he admires. Dictatorships such as China and Congo need fast economic growth just to be able to afford to clean up the pollution they cause.
There are many examples of doing more with less.
Light bulbs consume less electricity, smart phones are slimmer and make printed maps redundant, the invention of the egg box means fewer eggs are broken, cars would be lighter if they didn’t have those stupid batteries in them, etc.
We’ve barely scratched the surface of productivity gains. There are lighter and stronger construction materials coming soon, smaller cheaper and more local nuclear power stations, etc.
“Climate change is a very important problem. It needs to be solved, along with other problems…”
Nope. The climate changes all on its own and isn’t a problem. The idea that CO2 causes it have been falsified by numerous failed predictions based on it. Even if it was a problem there is nothing that humans can do apart from adapting to the changed weather. Something that we have done, admittedly imperfectly, for thousands of years.