Tim Jackson: An economic reality check (2010)

Uploaded on Oct 5, 2010:ted.com As the world faces recession, climate change, inequity and more, Tim Jackson delivers a piercing challenge to established economic principles, explaining how we might stop feeding the crises and start investing in our future.

Tim Jackson TED Talk 2010

TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world’s leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes. Featured speakers have included Al Gore on climate change, Philippe Starck on design, Jill Bolte Taylor on observing her own stroke, Nicholas Negroponte on One Laptop per Child, Jane Goodall on chimpanzees, Bill Gates on malaria and mosquitoes, Pattie Maes on the “Sixth Sense” wearable tech, and “Lost” producer JJ Abrams on the allure of mystery.

TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, development and the arts. Closed captions and translated subtitles in a variety of languages are now available on TED.com, at ted.com/translate.

Watch a highlight reel of the Top 10 TEDTalks at ted.com/index.php/talks/top10.

Support Climate State
CS provides climate coverage with articles and video productions since 2011 - free of charge. Your donation keeps us going, supports our operations. If you donate send us a name / custom link, and get mentioned on the Supporter Page ranked by donation amount.


  1. CRASH THE SYSTEM. this tepid swill won’t save the environment OR the
    economy. this is contrary to the natural flow of capitalism. no amount of
    grass roots movement will make this take root. land based existence is the
    only sustainability. is the planet getting larger each year? i suspect 9
    billion people living like westerners would be us all already DEAD. youtube
    ‘DERRICK JENSEN’. they probably won’t ask him to talk at TED.

  2. is he taking into consideration that 9 billion people breath more air and
    breath out co2 than 7 billion people so even if we changed how we do things
    there won’t be enough we put too much faith in science and almost no faith
    in God anymore , SAD

  3. @funnyguise WHATs so hard in realizing the fact that there is not a single respected scientific body on this planet that would agree with that “sceptical” doubts? Your messiahs are lobbyists and “rightwing”fatass thinktanks, rush limbaughs, monckton, fox noise all created by fossil fuel scumbags. WHATs so hard to see through that? Finally a real, sneaky, DANGEROUS, important(!) +obvious CONSPIRACY. But you “truthers” look up in the sky because a misterious voice whispers about flying unicorns.

  4. @Provakator lol @ you calling the ideas naive. Tim may indeed get bragging
    rights for this, but the ideas portrayed are not his alone, nor did he
    claim they were. he gave some credit where it was due at least. Perhaps you
    should give yourself a bit more credit to be an adaptable human being and
    not berate your own innate abilities prior to testing them.Saying something
    wont work proves nothing more than your own shortsightedness. Lets prove it
    doesnt work.

  5. sighted thinking, etc., has occurred ad hoc on a daily basis for hundreds
    (arguably thousands) of years and the system is the result. The system
    exists in the form that it’s in because of the reality of (predictable)
    human behavior, not despite it. In other words, to accomplish what he’s
    asking (it seems to me), doesn’t mean changing intellectual theories or
    financial approaches, it means attempting to radically re-condition how
    humans think. His appeals to our “better nature” is an

  6. words, we’re all good for the most part, but we’re good in different ways.
    How we’ll be good isn’t predictable. And an economy must, above all things,
    be perfectly predictable. If the Economy is going to fluctuate (which it
    always will), it must at least do so logically. There’s no logical, no
    “optimum”, form of altruism. For one person, an investment of 1% of profits
    in the public wheal is sane and logical gift; for another, nothing short of
    100% is. If the benefits of an investment are

  7. subjective, the incentives to invest aren’t rational. Which is fine on an
    individual basis, but it’s a fantasy (and a fallacy) to believe an economy
    can be planned that way.

  8. @aklondikebar Only partly. I mean, I think most people get that there is an
    imperative need to handle our resources responsibly. I just don’t buy
    humanity as The Great Evil Cause of All Things Wrong in the World Today. I
    think there has to be a balance between having a thriving economy and and a
    thriving planet. I fail to see why I should have to live like a
    cave-dweller and erase my “footprint”. Why do I have to make it seem like I
    never existed? That’s too extreme a perspective.

  9. sounds like a fairly desperate bid for libertarians to finally get around
    to the ecological question… and failing.

  10. @ShadowfaxSTP I totally agree with you. We can’t go on producing junk, polluting nature or use war to overcome our differences. We definitely need a new system – a system based on quality goods which will last. For that we need a new economic system which does not rely on endless growth to function. For that we need a new way of thinking…

  11. “We, people, being persuaded to spend money we don’t have, on things we don’t need, to make impressions that don’t last, on people we don’t care about.” If you have half an hour during the weekend, enjoy Tim Jackson’s economic reality check.

  12. I see your point but I woudl argue that it is possible that the people that run Ecosia only have that one job, (running a website can take a lot more time than you might think) so they need to keep 20% so they can eat, send their children to school etc, better they keep that 20% and we have the option to use a greener search engine. But of course I may be completely wrong and they may be spending all of the money on ipods and spinning rims

  13. *Change Is Absolutely Necessary*

    Tim Jackson will give you a view on the problem; I’ll add others over the coming weeks. Each of us can do something to help – but if we continue doing so little and consuming so much it’s going to turn out very badly.

  14. The Earth’s resources are not running out. Although this seems strange, when humans are faced with scarcity, price signals direct them towards alternatives in a way that is economically efficient. The USA had a bit of an energy crisis looming, but then they discovered Shale gas, and now have enough reserves to keep them going for hundreds of years. Yes, global warming is a serious problem, but it does not mean that we stop trying to achieve economic growth and improvements in living standards.

  15. “We, people, being persuaded to spend money we don’t have, on things we
    don’t need, to make impressions that don’t last, on people we don’t care
    about.” If you have half an hour during the weekend, enjoy Tim Jackson’s
    economic reality check.

  16. yea smart people tend to have liberal views the word stemming from liberty meaning freedom.

  17. NATO destroyed Libya, and could destroy the world you are right. Bruce
    Gagnon has some good talks on nuclear weapons, check him out.

  18. err, this whole talk made absolutely no sense to me, especially “too busy
    keeping out the giraffes”. I mean, wtf was with that reference???

  19. I really enjoyed this. Check it out if you get a free 30 mins.

    Tim Jackson: An economic reality check

  20. I understand your point in terms of price mechanisms. But please consider
    fossil fuel subsidies designed to mitigate price rises , huge mechanical
    reliance on FFuels etc. You overestimate the abilities of technological
    efficiencies as a means to achieve reductions of ecological impacts.
    Consider and research: Technological rebound& Relative vs absolute
    decoupling In order to achieve carbon reductions in a growth economy we
    require unprecedented levels of efficiency reductions never seen before

  21. … “people, being persuaded to spend money we don’t have on things we don’t need to create impressions that won’t last on people we don’t care about.” – Tim Jackson

  22. “As the world faces recession, climate change, inequity and more, Tim Jackson delivers a piercing challenge to established economic principles, explaining how we might stop feeding the crises and start investing in our future.”

  23. He talks great, he talks about economics and what our future will hold.
    Must watch, please get a better understanding of our environment!

  24. Is it profound arrogance or supreme ignorance which leads man to believe
    the environment can be controlled? The environment was changing long
    before man and it will be changing after man has become extinct. In fact,
    the only constant that pertains to the environment is that it is constantly

  25. Almost everyone is aware about how current monetary system is unstable, unfair, not economic at all and very dangerous for every country in the world and actually to planet earth it’s self. For those who are not aware of current monetary system and how money is created – there are plenty of materials to look at – you could start with this one – (youtube: How Money is Made / Created: Ben Dyson Explains the Debt Crisis).
    But is there any other monetary system out there that could be used instead that would create stable harmony between economic growth, social stability, state and good welfare for everyone, logical and economical processes and of course protect planet earth from pollution? Well, I offer you – Green economic – my opinion how to get all that good stuff for every country and every human being. I now will describe what should be done to achieve this.
    New global currency Every country (or at transition period – those countries that are members of Green economy union) should be using only one currency – let’s call them „GREENS”. This doesn’t mean that there will be one central bank for this union but that every central bank of each country will be able to create money – GREENS. It’s not that they will be able to create it as much as they like – no.
    The amount of GREENS created, reserved and used by each country central bank is calculated and allowed by taking in account of these factors: How much amount oil, gas and it’s materials (petrochemicals, etc.) are created, reserved, imported, exported, used; How much amount of green energy and it’s bio materials are created, reserved, imported, exported, used. So the more country is going away from oil & gas (or using it less) and is producing green energy and bio materials/services – the more money they are allowed to create and have to use for their (and others) economy. What would be consequences

    1.) There would not be any economic bubbles anymore – because money is not created out of thin air – debt. Money would be backed by real material resources (green energy and bio materials) that every country and everyone needs. It would be also more fair for every union member because every country can work to create green energy and bio materials – so it would not matter so much (and in time absolutely) does country has oil & gas resources or it doesn’t. This means that of course there is no need to go on war just for the resources as it’s now.

    2.) Pollution reduction would be significant and in years it would be eliminated almost completely. No country would be economically interested in pollution by using oil & gas and it’s raw materials – because then they would have less money in their economy. So pollution reduction and using green energy make your country richer.

    3.) Every country will invest to develop new technology (or use those who where kept as secret by oil industry) that would make more effective green energy and it’s products/services. This would be major technology advancement for all countries in this new monetary union (which should be world wide).

    4.) There would be new Banks – as they would not be able to create money out of debt – Banks would be only allowed to loan money using funds from depositors. So this means that they would have to think how to earn more money from projects that creates more money in economy. Because as more money is there in economy – the more money banks will have from depositors and so more will they have in revenue. This eventually means that these new Banks are interested in giving loans and financing project that either create green energy or creates products from green energy and/or creates bio products/services (as you remember than central bank will be allowed to create more money). So Banks would be in direct interest and action to speed up green projects which creates actual jobs for people and so creates more consumption for green products and energy and so country central bank is allowed to create more money… and so on and on by spiral up way till we can go to next point.

    5.) All created money – GREEN is created by country central bank and given to country government to decide where to use it and invest it. So as now governments has money they don’t have to tax people. So in time as more and more there are GREENS in country economic – at some point governments will stop Tax at all, because there will be enough GREENS to supply all necessary government services. As almost everyone would be rich – everyone could pay for services. Only small amount would be necessary to support those that doesn’t have necessary money to buy services. Is in this great – more technology advancement, more jobs, no taxes and more money and more bio products/services and green energy and clean earth?

    Summary This new monetary system would be stable, logical, economical and make everyone much richer and increase people of the world welfare many times making this a golden age for humans. It would make us think how to spend less resources from the planet and to create re-usable materials using green energy. It would remove all the taxes and lower the prices just to accumulate more green products so that there would be more money to work for more technology advancement. Actually it’s very simple – you back the money by what you want the world to be working to – either it’s debt, oil and financial bubble or it’s something else. It’s all possible and after such monetary system implementation no-one will want to go back to this nonsense we have now.

    So – let’s go for this!

  26. Brilliant talk and nice to see something like this on Ted and have so many
    people cheer 🙂 Thanks Tim

  27. This message by Tim shows the need to make accommodations for all
    stakeholders and beneficiaries in an ever changing world. We should
    participate, not just look amused from our office windows. Thank you, Tim.

Leave a Reply