European Progress Conference

Europe has become known as a hub of degrowth.

It is unclear what this claims is supposed to mean. The characters "europ" do not appear in the Conclusions of the linked article. It is not clear what the fact that some authors of papers covering "degrowth" come from Europe, whatever that means in the specific paper, is supposed to prove.

[-]AnthonyC1y20

I think there's a lot of good analysis here, and I agree that Europe in general seems mixed at best about growth and innovation. Many cities and some countries are doing great things, but the EU likes to slow everything down, even the things they themselves mandate need to happen on a deadline. As an American, I care about the well being of Europeans, but really, that's their own deal. They're well-off enough to survive their own mistakes and change course if they want.

I care more about how de-growth politics in Europe affects the development of the world as a whole, and in that regard, I'm a bit less concerned (though not unconcerned). As you noted, there's a lot of good technology and software being developed in Europe. But, it seems to me that to a greater extent than in the US, the money isn't being captured by European GDP, and in many cases the projects using such technology that enable further growth are happening outside European borders.

In other words: there's a potential timeline where ITER goes great and the result is that KEPCO and TEPCO and SP Group higher Chinese and Indian ITER partners to build the first commercial plants in Korea and Japan and Singapore (whose current best options include things like building undersea HVDC cables to Australia) to prove out the technology, which lets them get costs down enough to decarbonize China and India and Indonesia and the rest of APAC. Europe, maybe, follows 20-30 years later to finish whatever is left to be done after pushing wind and solar as far as they can manage. Probably using lots of American and Canadian technology for the wind and solar and energy storage, as well as their own, of course. This is not the best timeline for fusion, but it's a very good one.

I once joked with a (Dutch) coworker that the traditional American approach to stagnation is to go build a new city. We've been going West and South for 400 years. The traditional European approach is to wait for someone or something to raze your city and then rebuild with newer stuff and a better plan. They've been doing that for 1600 years. Europe today has pretty much successfully ended the specter of being razed, and the US has run out of West and South, but neither Europe nor America really knows how to renew itself in place. We just started later and with a few useful differences in ideals.

[-]Martin Sustrik1y42

b> Many cities and some countries are doing great things, but the EU likes to slow everything down

If it was that simple, its a whole mess with both EU and member states implicated:

In 2008, the EU established a European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) with the aim of replicating the success of institutions like MIT. If you have not heard of it, it is not your fault. The effort went badly from the start, as EU countries couldn't agree on where to put it. So, in true EU fashion, governments compromised by breaking it into pieces and spreading it across multiple cities. So much for agglomeration effects.

But, it seems to me that to a greater extent than in the US, the money isn't being captured by European GDP, and in many cases the projects using such technology that enable further growth are happening outside European borders.

Case in point: Germany subsidizing early development of solar. But there is longer any production of solar panels in Germany.

The traditional European approach is to wait for someone or something to raze your city and then rebuild with newer stuff and a better plan.

I think I've even seen a study about areas bombed out during WWII performing better economically today.

[-]AnthonyC1y40

If it was that simple, its a whole mess with both EU and member states implicated:

Of course, I was definitely oversimplifying for my comment!

I think I've even seen a study about areas bombed out during WWII performing better economically today.

One good example is the collapse of the steel industry in the US, hastened by Europe and Japan using newer and better equipment. I haven't looked into direct comparisons between cities in Europe, that would be interesting.

[-]Sherrinford1y10

are not completely impervious to pro-growth ideas

Depicting "eurocrats" as mostly impervious to "pro-growth ideas" seems like a strawman.

[-]Martin Sustrik1y20

Sorry, this is an internal European discourse about the European economy slowing down compared to the US. The "eurocrat" wording is a bit tongue-in-cheek thing. The reality is more about the coordination problems associated with scaling down the regulation. Compare the news like this: "Macron Warns EU ‘Could Die’ Within 3 Years Due to Overregulation, Welfare Burden, Underinvestment" https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/macron-warns-eu-could-die-within-3-years-due-to-overregulation-social-welfare-burden-underinvestment-5734718?rs=SHRNCMMW

[-]Sherrinford1y1-1

I know the internal European discourse, which is why I think depicting politicians in Europe as being mostly impervious to "pro-growth ideas" seems like a strawman. It is mainstream in the EU to try to find ways for higher economic growth rates. Everybody is talking about deregulation, but there are very different ideas what kind of policies would lead to higher growth rates.

[-]Martin Sustrik1y20

Agreed. But the popular narrative is that all the EU bureaucrats want is to regulate and then regulate some more. The sentence in question is supposed to say that it is not necessarily so, in accord with what you are saying.

[-]Sherrinford1y10

It is an interesting question how justified this stereotype is, given that many regulations aim at creating a single market and reducing trade barriers.

Comparing EU growth to the US is hard for different reasons, for instance demography but also the decarbonization efforts of the EU.

[-]Sherrinford1y10

This stuff is scary: I've seen degrowthers

It is unclear how strongly related such degrowthers are to the beyond-growth conference people used as an example in the previous sentence.

[-]Sherrinford1y10

European parliament even hosted a degrowth conference.

The linked abstract does not contain the word "degrowth". The title is "Beyond growth: Pathways towards sustainable prosperity in the EU", the abstract is relatively unclear but - among other things - seems to criticize GDP as a measure, and talk positively of "research and innovation". The executive summary of the study that can be found there seems to talk positively of delivering "greener and more sustainable growth through technological or social innovations" and of "decoupling of economic growth from increased emissions of carbon dioxide". So in general, this seems to be about limiting the growth of the usage of natural resources in order to stay within sustainable levels.

[+][comment deleted]1y10

LESSWRONG
LW

LESSWRONG
LW

30

European Progress Conference

30

30