Simon Kuper - the myth of 'green growth'

[Randy Butternubs]

I've just read an excerpt from an article by Simon Kuper, writing in the Financial Times:

"Like many other Europeans, I've begun commuting by bike. I bought an excellent new bike, two locks and a helmet for about €300. That's about 1% of the average price of a new car, and I'll never need petrol. Bicycle repairs rarely cost much, and if my bike isn't stolen, nobody will earn another cent out of my urban transport for another decade or so. Cycling is clean and healthy, but if it does grow, it will decimate jobs and reduce gross domestic product: the story of the bicycle is the myth of 'green growth' in one device. If we shift from cars to bikes, and buy less stuff, going green will mean less growth - and no politician ever got elected promising less GDP."

The full article is behind a paywall so this excerpt is all I have to go on. I'm concerned (though not enourmously surprised) that a writer for the Financial Times, who is a cyclist and is writing about cycling, may be unaware of the economic arguments in favour of cycling for transport. Particularly the massive cost to the NHS and the country in general from toxic emmisions and from road deaths. Also the (I think?) well documented benificial effect of cycling infrastructure on local buisnesses.

Has anyone read the article who can shed some more light on this? What other economic arguments are there in favour of cycling for transport? Does a €200 bicycle have a snowball's chance of surviving two decades of commuting?

I don't neccesarily disagree with the author's views in general. Here's an older article on 'green growth' that isn't behind a paywall (Financial Times link): https://www.ft.com/content/47b0917c-f523-11e9-a79c-bc9acae3b654

 

[Fab Foodie]

It’s bullshit. HTH.

 

[classic33]

Got the full piece here,
https://www.ft.com/content/5af4d8b6-52b0-11ea-90ad-25e377c0ee1f

 

[Wobblers]

Going by your quoted snippet here (I'll read the full article when I've got more time) it seems that the journalist believes that the money saved by increasing cycling will come from money no longer being spent on cars, fuel, garages etc. In other words, it's the old "economics is a zero sum game" argument. Which is nonsense, and I'd expect anyone writing for the FT to know that. Presumably Kuper thinks that all this money would simply vanish in a puff of illogic rather than being spent on other things? That's the thing: the savings that result will be spent elsewhere in the economy - and some of it invested in things that will drive future growth.

It's funny, when cars replaced the far more expensive to run horses we never saw economic armageddon due to all these now unemployed stable hands. Nor did the growth of computing lay waste to the economy as a result of now jobless office workers. Quite the reverse, actually. So history suggests that Kuper's arguments are very wrong.

The unwisdom of relentlessly pursuing an infinite growth model in a very finite world is another kettle of fish entirely, but not one he seems to be addressing.

 

[Drago]

The damage to the economy caused by motoring in the form of death, injury and climate change, vastly outweighs the value the industry brings to the economy by several orders of magnitude. It's a shame Kuper forgot to mention any of that.

 

[All uphill]

I did read the original article, in printed form, last week, and found it thoughtful, as usual for Simon Kuper.

As I recall it is not about the merits of cycling but makes the point that politicians are likely to have more interest in things that create economic activity than in things that reduce it, and that presents a challenge to greener activities. It hadn't occurred to me that noisy, polluting cars might be more attractive to politicians for that reason.

It's true, of course, that we do not live in a zero sum world, but not all politicians know that!

 

[Ming the Merciless]

The assumption that increased cycling will reduce economic activity is very flawed. Plus the economics of a significantly reduced burden on the NHS as people are no longer the sick sedentarys that they are right now.

 

[snorri]

He fails in his opening paragraph to hook me and encourage me to pay to go beyond the paywall.

 

[icowden]

It sounds like a similar circular argument to the "smoking pays for the health service" one.

 

[BrumJim]

Going by your quoted snippet here (I'll read the full article when I've got more time) it seems that the journalist believes that the money saved by increasing cycling will come from money no longer being spent on cars, fuel, garages etc. In other words, it's the old "economics is a zero sum game" argument. Which is nonsense, and I'd expect anyone writing for the FT to know that. Presumably Kuper thinks that all this money would simply vanish in a puff of illogic rather than being spent on other things? That's the thing: the savings that result will be spent elsewhere in the economy - and some of it invested in things that will drive future growth.

It's funny, when cars replaced the far more expensive to run horses we never saw economic armageddon due to all these now unemployed stable hands. Nor did the growth of computing lay waste to the economy as a result of now jobless office workers. Quite the reverse, actually. So history suggests that Kuper's arguments are very wrong.

The unwisdom of relentlessly pursuing an infinite growth model in a very finite world is another kettle of fish entirely, but not one he seems to be addressing.

Without reading the article, I was a little puzzled by that concept too.

Without any economics qualifications above A-level standard, I have long wondered about economic activity for a green future. Clearly the sort of over-spending on credit that gets politicians excited about economic growth is a complete anathema to environmentalism. However starting with a simple premise of "I have it, therefore I will spend it", if instead of spending it on myself, I give generously (either voluntarily or through taxation), those who receive it are more likely to spend it on "stuff", with the associated environmental impact, rather than people, e.g. a reflexologist or nail technician (to pick two random service-focused consumption activities), and therefore I should keep it to myself or donate to the rich for them to fritter on transient experiences rather than mining / drilling -based items? (tangibles)

I think I've even lost myself there.

 

[Randy Butternubs]

I did read the original article, in printed form, last week, and found it thoughtful, as usual for Simon Kuper.

As I recall it is not about the merits of cycling but makes the point that politicians are likely to have more interest in things that create economic activity than in things that reduce it, and that presents a challenge to greener activities. It hadn't occurred to me that noisy, polluting cars might be more attractive to politicians for that reason.

It's true, of course, that we do not live in a zero sum world, but not all politicians know that!

Yeah, from reading his older article, he isn't saying that economic concerns should trump environmental ones; he's challanging the idea that we can eat our cake and have it too by reducing our impact on the climate while still all being very rich (by pre-industrial standards). He's also saying that getting green initiatives going is hard in a democracy since people typically won't vote to make life harder for themselves.

That said, his idea that cycling specifically is bad for the economy seems flawed.

It sounds like a similar circular argument to the "smoking pays for the health service" one.

I was under the impression that, due to the extremely high tax on tobacco, the revenue from smoking does exceed the amount smoking costs the NHS. Is this incorrect?

 

[Drago]

He is challenging the idea, but his basic premise is simply wrong.

 

[Randy Butternubs]

He is challenging the idea, but his basic premise is simply wrong.

When it comes to bicycles? Sure. Or are you referring to all aspects?

 

[Drago]

Pretty much all aspects.