South Korea's "Green Growth" strategy failed to reduce emissions because it prioritized economic growth and increased consumption over actual reduction, highlighting that decoupling emissions from growth is insufficient; reducing consumption is crucial for tackling the climate crisis.
Mind Map
คลิกเพื่อขยาย
คลิกเพื่อสำรวจ Mind Map แบบอินเตอร์แอคทีฟฉบับเต็ม
this video was made possible by the
people who support me on patreon
in 2009 south korea did something remarkable
remarkable
the country poured 2 percent of its gdp
some 38.1 billion us dollars into
environmental projects
hoping to create 1 million green jobs
over the next
5 years the goal was to spur growth
in a slumping economy while
simultaneously creating a low carbon society
society
in one sense the plan worked south
korea's economic system
did eventually recover but in a more
important sense
the plan failed from 2009 to 2014
korea's emissions rose 11.8 percent
so despite massive investments in clean energy
energy
railway expansion and energy efficiency
south korea's emissions still climbed
what happened why didn't south korea's
green growth strategy
work today we'll answer that question
and more
in order to understand one of the
insidious specters
that haunts the green energy revolution consumption
consumption
it's december and the streets of new
york city are filled with christmas
stores trees lights bags
packages and trash christmas
in america is a sacred capitalist
holiday wherein the average american
explodes their average yearly emissions footprint
footprint
by roughly 650 kilograms of co2 equivalent
equivalent
while spending a cumulative 2.6 billion
dollars on wrapping paper
up until around 150 years ago however
the holiday rarely saw a wrapped present
in sight
but then unofficial holidays like black friday
friday
and department stores like macy's
started to encourage
shoppers to fill their carts with tech
and trinkets
as a means of expressing care and love
now christmas shopping epitomizes the consumer
consumer
experience in the united states it's
driven by a complex mix
of personal desire social pressures
status signaling
stress and propaganda that work in many instances
instances
not to increase personal well-being but
to pad the pocketbooks
of corporations advertisements on
instagram and billboards in times square
bombard us with visions of what we could
be if
only we had that watch or phone which
locks us
into a world where in order to find happiness
happiness
or comfort or political change we need
to buy
stuff but a range of studies
consistently found
that once a person's needs are met extra
consumption does not increase
their well-being and buying new phones
clothes and gadgets
all have an environmental price tag
despite the fact that 100 companies were
found to be the root cause of 70
of global emissions the reality is that
the people using those companies
products and burning their fuel are us
or rather i should say primarily rich
communities and
countries because consumption levels are
not equal
across the world the average american
uses over 100 times the energy
as someone from india and if everyone in
the world were to live
in the same way the average german does
right now global emissions
would double so as those in rich
countries gorge on luxury items
and the newest tech they use energy and
emit at much higher rates than countries
in the majority
world which often are the ones feeling
the brunt
the blame for overconsumption should not
and cannot be placed
solely on individuals companies and
corporations have a vested
interest in making you buy more stuff
because if they don't
they go bankrupt which is why they slap
green labels onto their products and advertised
advertised
everywhere indeed the whole idea of a
personal carbon footprint
is a propaganda campaign created by the
fossil fuel giant bp
the move allowed them to lock in decades
of fossil fuel use by turning the attention
attention
away from their complicity in climate change
change
and instead blaming the individual for
not living a low-carbon lifestyle
the natural conclusion in a system
riddled with ads and cultural norms
imploring all of your senses to buy more
is that your dollar is your vote an idea
which stands in stark contrast to the
democratic ideal of
one person one vote we are led to
believe that growing the economy
which for the individual means buying
more whether it be supporting new green tech
tech
or wearing sustainably made clothing is
how we stop
climate change but the reality is that
this capitalist growth model
counteracts the work being done to
decrease emissions
over the last 40 years global emissions
have skyrocketed despite
dramatic expansions of renewable and energy
energy
efficiency technologies yes growth does
lead to an expansion of new sustainable
innovations but it also
leads to the expansion of fossil fuel
intensive industries
just one percent growth in gdp leads to 0.5
0.5
to 0.8 percent increase in carbon emissions
emissions
and if we continue to grow at 3 percent
per year by 2043 the global economy will be
be
two times larger than it is now which means
means
energy consumption will be larger and
the task of transitioning towards a zero
carbon world
will be much harder so something's got
to give
and that something is consumption in
rich countries [Music]
[Music]
the unfortunate reality is that
expanding zero carbon technologies to
meet global energy demands
or what's known as decoupling emissions
from growth
will be an extremely difficult task
a task that south korea attempted back
in 2009
and ran head first into the consequences
of a growth-centered economy
the reason why south korea's emissions
still rose
11.8 percent over five years is that
their total
energy consumption outpaced renewable installation
