Skip to content

Radical resetters’ press release: Degrowth, radically reduce living standards

July 23, 2021

By Paul Homewood


A new peer reviewed study from the University of Leeds reveals the objectives of the Great Reset.

CFACT report:




Apparently the problem with the world is that you are too free.

Americans must slash our energy use 87% and abandon limited government and our free economy if we are to live “sustainably” and meet the goals of the Paris Climate Accord.  That is according to a peer-reviewed study by five lead authors published June 29th in the journal Global Environmental Change.

Read the entire study at

It’s not often that the Socialists planning our future dystopia make their intentions plainly known.

We can thank five academic radicals for doing just that.

Although the study’s authors concede that only countries with high energy use accomplish “decent living standards,” they nonetheless conclude that our political and economic systems are “misaligned with the aspirations of sustainable development” and are “unfit for the challenges of the 21st century.”

You can kiss individual freedom and prosperity goodbye, along with individual housing, cars, air travel, entrepreneurship, and even eating meat.

Their prescription:

  • Slash annual energy use per person from Canada – 232 Gigajoules (GJ), U.S. –  204 GJ, and France 95 – GJ to a very low 27 GJ per year
  • “Fairer income distribution is crucial for achieving decent living standards at low energy use”
  • “To reduce existing income disparities, governments could raise minimum wages, provide a Universal Basic Income, and introduce a maximum income”
  • “We also need much higher taxes on high incomes, and lower taxes on low incomes”
  • Move from “an animal-based to a plant-based diet”
  • Move from “individual to collective transport”
  • Move from “motorized to active” (walking and cycling) travel
  • “Economic growth beyond moderate levels of affluence is detrimental for aspirations of sustainable development”.
  • “Degrowth… is an idea whose time has come”


According to the study’s Press Release:


Securing decent living standards for all while reducing global energy use.

Fundamental changes in our economies are required to secure decent living standards for all in the struggle against climate breakdown, according to new research.

Governments need to dramatically improve public services, reduce income disparities, scale back resource extraction, and abandon economic growth in affluent countries, for people around the world to thrive whilst cutting global average energy use in half.

Without such fundamental changes, the study warns, we face an existential dilemma: in our current economic system, the energy savings required to avert catastrophic climate changes might undermine living standards; while the improvements in living standards required to end material poverty would need large increases in energy use, further exacerbating climate breakdown.

By 2050, global energy use needs to be as low as 27 gigajoules (GJ) of final energy per person to reach the aspirations of the Paris Agreement of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C without relying on speculative future technologies, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That means current global average energy use (55 GJ per person) needs to be cut in half, while affluent countries like the UK (81 GJ per person) or Spain (77 GJ per person) need to reduce their average energy use by as much as 65%, France (95 GJ per person) by more than 70%, and the most energy-hungry countries like the USA (204 GJ per person) or Canada (232 GJ per person) need to cut by as much as 90%. 

The authors go on to explain how everybody is going to be much better off living in a communist dystopia, where nobody needs consumer goods, or most other things for that matter. I wonder where we heard that before?

We will all have jobs in the public sector, along with guaranteed universal incomes, high taxes for the rich and high minimum wages.

But just what will life be like with a per capita energy consumption a third of what it is now?

27 GJ per person would put us on a par with, for instance, N Macedonia, Iraq, Egypt and Vietnam. I should also point out that it would mean China had to cut its per capita consumption by a half.

Private ownership of cars would be straight out of the window, except for the elite. Forget about air travel too.

Industry would be decimated and household usage cut to a minimum.





Forget too all of those goods we import at the moment. Not only would we have no money to pay for them, countries like China would also have to cut industry to the bone as well, and international shipping would also be out of the question.

Quite what jobs we would all be doing, once most of the private sector was shut down, is not made clear. No doubt we could create millions of non jobs in the public sector. But, more to the point, how would the country afford to pay them, when it was already broke?


Don’t make the mistake of regarding this as a fringe study, as this kind of radicalism is already taking root.

What it does above all however is inconveniently point out that the world cannot meet climate objectives simply by embracing renewable energy. Something much more radical is in store.

  1. July 23, 2021 4:04 pm

    If you control a centralised digital currency, you control everything with social credit score. If you’re being a naughty boy you won’t be allowed to spend money, even if your account has Yuan deposited. You go without food for a day.

    Or for not taking your annual gene therapy. Is what we’re being groomed for?

  2. Coeur de Lion permalink
    July 23, 2021 4:08 pm

    The unspoken objective is the reduction of CO2. Not a chance. Asian power stations and natural forces . 2ppm a year for ever . ECS at about 0.6degC. Global temperature stabilising as now for 20 years. Collapse of alarmism, other problems supervenes.

    • July 23, 2021 5:27 pm

      Some sceptics thought we had won when a genuine crisis – Wuflu – came on the scene. But the woodlice soon came back out from under their stone to tell us about the “real” crisis.

  3. July 23, 2021 4:50 pm

    The Energy Retail Market Strategies for the 2020’s has been published today.


    On page 10 is a graphic that indicates that the Govt will enforce compliance with Net Zero sympathetic equipment in their homes.

    There is no mention of how they are going to supply the energy to fulfill the demand. They say that there will be
    “…..tariffs reward consumers who can adjust their consumption away from periods when energy is scarce, to when it is more
    abundant – for example when it is windy, sunny, or there is low demand on the network.”
    This indicates to me that they expect a serious shortfall of energy supply on a regular basis because of the Energy Policy now in place.

    • Dave Ward permalink
      July 23, 2021 7:26 pm

      “Who can adjust their consumption away from periods when energy is scarce”

      I regularly check Gridwatch to see how UnRenewables are doing. Yesterday the 22nd, was (as far as I can remember) a new low for wind. At 7:10am 18,502MW of metered capacity was producing just SEVENTY FIVE MW!!! It’s a good job I don’t eat cooked breakfasts…

  4. David Redfern permalink
    July 23, 2021 5:00 pm

    The recipe for a feral society. Literally kill, or be killed.

    • Sean permalink
      July 23, 2021 10:16 pm

      From an old Unix ‘fortune file’: “/earth is 97% full. Please delete anyone you can.”

  5. Gerry, England permalink
    July 23, 2021 5:05 pm

    There will come a point where your life is not worth living so you might as well leave with a bang, taking a few of ‘them’ with you.

  6. markl permalink
    July 23, 2021 5:07 pm

    The goal of AGW has always been to instill a new world order by destroying successful and productive countries without dropping a bomb.

    • July 23, 2021 5:23 pm

      What about Asian non-Paris complying nations and Russia
      .WILL they get off from leftwingery scotfree and richer?

      • July 23, 2021 5:51 pm

        Although Boris’s non-ToryGomnt is on the left side of balance, didn’t realize it was Commy.

  7. Phoenix44 permalink
    July 23, 2021 5:53 pm

    How is this “‘peer reviewed” or “science”?

    It’s economics, and extremely poor economics at that as it confuses wealth with money. When very little is produced, it doesn’t matter what the state pays you as you can buy anything. There will not be a “decent living standard for the vast majority” even if we pay dverybody £1 million.

    Presumably this is written by scientists not economists?

  8. July 23, 2021 7:17 pm

    Like the old communist regime countries, the proposed draconian rules wouldn’t apply to the favoured enforcers.

  9. Ray Sanders permalink
    July 23, 2021 7:30 pm

    “How is this “‘peer reviewed” or “science”?” Those were my exact thoughts as well. Notice how “energy” must be equated to “atmospheric CO2” and it must be “renewables” So how come non CO2 emitting and massively powerful nuclear power is never mentioned?

  10. Harry Passfield permalink
    July 23, 2021 7:32 pm

    If the remodellers need to get some reference they only need to see how the World population survived during the 1940s-50s after a rather nasty exchange of views coupled with depopulation in Europe.
    Curiously, ‘man’ survived and prospered. Regardless of CO2.

  11. Harry Passfield permalink
    July 23, 2021 7:38 pm

    A bit more I meant to add….So, the answer to the saving of the world is for the most successful economy in the world to reduce itself to the level of the worst economy in word so that they can – help the poor. How will we tell who is poor by then?

    • Brian Jackson permalink
      July 24, 2021 9:05 am

      Harry, Old saying-
      “You don’t make the poor rich by making the rich poor”.
      Note these nutters are always comfortably off and are prescribing for everybody else, not themselves.
      Bj in UK.

      • Gamecock permalink
        July 24, 2021 3:29 pm

        “Tax the rich, feed the poor
        Till there are no rich no more” – Ten Years After (1971)

        The objective has never been to help the poor; it is to destroy the rich.

        They speak of the poor because YOU care about them. They don’t.

        The issue is never the issue. The Left pushes issues to get you to accept their totalitarian view. Yesterday’s issues are all in the bin, sucked dry of any benefit they could get out of it. Often, people are worse off AFTER the Left helps them.

  12. David Wojick permalink
    July 23, 2021 11:23 pm

    This doctrine has a name and is 30 something years old:
    Contraction and convergence

    Used to be centered in Oxford but has apparently made it as far a Leeds.
    Not to be taken seriously.

  13. Gamecock permalink
    July 24, 2021 3:33 pm

    They are over playing their hand. “Sustainably” is not a motivator for most people.

    “Sustainably” is a delightful reification fallacy.

  14. Aaron Halliwell permalink
    July 24, 2021 8:34 pm

    Didn’t Pol Pot try something like this in Cambodia a few years ago?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: