I'm not actually going to talk about the great diversity so much.
I'm going to talk more about the great acceleration,
which is actually the the great all economic growth in East Asia and parts of Southeast Asia in the second half of the 20th century.
But I want to bring these two great grades and so are expressing what great acceleration means in the moment.
But let me start with Ken Pomeranz is references to Core and North America.
The Great Divergence debate had been primarily carried out in relation to the relative standard of living real wages, incomes and so on.
But the other side of the Great Divergence is the the question of resources.
But to go to resource for that bonanza, the great divergence also meant that there were actually several places in East Asia,
South Asia, elsewhere where the growth of the market and division of labour had been reasonably in progress.
And we can have a kind of Smithee on growth without mechanised industrial output.
Why? And only in England, it diverged from this general pattern of Smith young growth.
This is another way of putting the meaning to that issue of great divergence.
In the meantime, we, as we have already heard East Asia and some Southeast Asian countries went through industrialisation beginning first in Japan.
That 19th century.
And the region, however, has been transformed into the fastest growing major user of energy resources by the second half of the 20th century.
But they are an identifiable resource, enhancing root.
If you were into Coren North America for Asia's economic development, but this is a question that I want to address.
I think this presentation suggests that there was such a load for Japan in 1980 to 1930 and another
much more comprehensive route for growth growth growth parts of Asia since 1960 to the present,
I am going to talk a little bit about what the growth acceleration means in in in the first section of this presentation and then post two questions.
The first one is how the organic economy shifted to the coal fossil fuel economy, and we compared England and Japan.
And the second one is how the Basic Driver Library for the months in Asia, which was basically driven by water and food and energy provisions,
was very rapidly replaced by the fossil fuel driven resource nexus in Asia for the last 70 years.
And I think the speed of this being never seen in Europe.
Now, the great acceleration had been coined by the Irish people,
but I just cite international just fear if you have a programme when it ended in 2000 15 and depressed by a future us.
It states that second half of the 20th century is unique in the history of human existence.
Many human activities reached take off point sometime in the 20th century and sharply accelerated towards the end of the century.
So the last 60 years, this since 2010,
the statistics without doubt seeing the most profound transformation of the human relationship with the natural world in the history of mankind.
As GDP compiled two sets of data socio economic indicators and Earth system trends, each with 12 indicators.
It doesn't cover very well for historians, so this the graph can be very misleading.
This is very often cited in the UN and future and global sustainability studies circles, and this is just nonsensical.
It combines all of these, and you can see that they want to say that the greatest acceleration occurred around 1960 or so.
And to prove that they had to go back to 1750 where you have there are some
kind of expertise in the socio economic trends mainly consists of population,
you know, GDP, urban population and particularly primary energy use.
I am not going to be able to spend any more than this,
and our system trends actually involves much more diverse actually indicators discover more recently by a scientists carbon dioxide, et cetera.
And but in my two, my the best of my knowledge, no one actually calculated the share of Asia in that a great acceleration for the last 17 16 years.
And a preliminary study suggests that roughly half of the increase not the proportion, but the increase since 1960 came from Asia.
In terms of the first four basic socioeconomic indicators, a population are GDP, urban population and the primary energy supply.
That is to say, the energy source change tradition and particularly urbanisation being amongst the main drivers of environmental intensification.
Some of them, especially Asia's population proportion, you are primarily surprised.
In 1960 was very low. We are very much driven by the biomass biomass energy, a lot of water and so forth, etc. Then it suddenly changed.
So resource base had been changed to biomass energy, to fossil fuels.
This is the one, and I think the proportion of Asian supply or consumption still remains less altogether,
not a direct comparison between China and the United States. But the rate of increase in the more recent period is actually quite spectacular.
And I think if you want to understand the future of resources, you really have to look at not just China, but growth parts of Asia.
Did this exercise also reveals that socioeconomic trends are largely regionally identifiable?
Were some of the Earth system trends indicate that, such as global warming in the UK does more globally oriented.
So it's kind of difficult to disaggregate. But we it's not it's not impossible.
And if we compare just trends with our system indicators, we find the two distinctive phases.
And basically, this is what I would like to propose is just the until 1950 there was actually a global industrialisation,
but it's it's pretty much driven by West and Western industrialisation, and this was replaced very clearly by West Asia Fusion.
Now I'm going to do the first presentation that had been very decent.
We've done it's it's completely new. You know this one, it's forward energy consumption in India.
Waris has been cited by reality.
It's a kind of energy consumption estimates in England and whereas 50 16 to 18 15 year long term trends with lots of estimates.
But you know, the high organic economy that Wrigley had illustrated included use of animals and humans by firewood,
et cetera, and this was embraced by coal. Now this is Japan.
Japan was extremely forest rich, extremely scarce.
This does not, I'm sorry to say, in good humour.
So it doesn't talk about the industrial revolution. We don't have.
We haven't actually managed to do include traditional water power wheels.
We have a lot of water and they are not included.
But on certain was also but the general trend is quite similar.
You get much faster transition from firewood and charcoal to coal,
initial stage of Japan's industrialisation and production of low tea being fuelled by timber.
And this was quickly replaced by coal, and we had also exported quite a lot of coal and exports of manufactured goods to other Asian countries.
Warfare by coal. So it's in terms of ecological footprint fashion.
It's actually embodied. Core is embodied in its exports.
So Japan benefit is just like in England,
both from the domestic production of coal and imports of raw materials and food, raw cotton, those soybeans and sugar.
Of course, colonial rule was kind of important.
It's true in Taiwan, and I think Korea secured it.
What it meant that Korean rice actually was in the water and land in these countries was embodied in the Japanese imports.
But it also was perhaps more important in earlier period benefited.
Japan benefited from imports from Western colonies in South and Southeast Asia, as well as from Manchuria.
So this was age of imperialism, of free trade.
And this was inter-regional trade that was equivalent to in North America for England.
So we had corn and intra Asian trade instead of Korea and North America, both vertical and the expansion,
which is called horizontal and the expansion access to Asian countries, made it possible for Japan to industrialise.
So the final topic is about the transformation of the media.
This is a much bigger and rougher picture. You probably have heard, how do you Osama's economic development in most of Asia?
It described the socio ecological characteristics of Muslim Asia across South Asia, East Asia and Southeast Asia,
in which water and air circulation through the use of resources intensive rice farming provided the population carrying capacity,
which is why is a much larger population than Europe,
which in turn offer the basis for the unlimited supplies of labour for industrialisation in a region model fashion.
This did not easy bring the economic development with the rise of living standards, as we have heard.
The breakthrough came from the globalisation of a resource base in the 1960s.
First in Japan, followed by South Korea and Taiwan and eventually absorbed by China.
So what is the equivalent to Korea, North Africa?
I mean America here in the Far East Asian miracle, the second miracle story and I just base shifted from coal to oil pretty fast.
The materials from cotton to Tim Cotton and timber and light industry labour intensive,
industry based economic development was depressed to buy to steer on petroleum products.
A man made fibre and plastic. Especially.
So it looks like this in 1962, energy commission debate had completely changed course and began to depend on oil rather than on coal.
Great divergence from the German policy at that time, we had completely independent of oil in the at the at the time of 1973 oil crisis,
and then we started doing securing natural gas and a little bit of nuclear power and others before the green energy phase had started in this century.
So we'll call it the oil transition was absolutely crucial for Asia's rapid industrialisation story.
Traditional water energy nexus was pretty common in the more developed and populated part of Monson Asia.
Sometimes people call it maritime monsoon India.
The availability, timing and predictability of water largely determine the value of land in terms of how much food it produced.
I hope that doesn't go. We elaborate on this same father they John.
As far as energy is concerned, it was largely biomass energy.
1952 two UN estimates actually quite clearly contrasts that Asia was primarily fuelled by biomass,
while West and the United States and other places were ferried by coal or oil.
The energy markets of timber and fossil fuels in Asia were integrated into the world economy only relatively recently and initially.
The only reason I can elaborate this father, but I want.
Thus, there was a lot of very autonomous local regional nexus,
and this is the constraints of local resource that have been determined the course of parcel of economic
development in the way that it promoted labour intensive rather than capital intensive industrialisation.
Now, urbanisation and globalisation changed this completely.
The global pattern of resource use emerged. So in Japan, the introduction of the seafront industrial complex around the Pacific course,
there were four of them by the developmental state, combined imported oil and minerals with labour, water and domestic transport networks.
So this is the first price where Molson Asia and Nexus had met the global resources oil from the Middle East, mere minerals from Australia, et cetera.
National Development Plans elaborated multiple purpose domes where urban population was addressed by citizens, movements and local governments.
This is the age where all of these pollution and it's very painful experience of diseases industrial pollution had occurred.
Natural causes were repressed by Ukraine and Iran.
The combination on the fusion of domestic and imported resources created synergies and trade offs, which is the subject of this recent.
If we have an excess in water energy, food, nexus literature.
How much? Oh, it's OK. This is Tokyo Bay.
And if you can see that it's the most reclamation projects were connected to the development of
industrial factories facing the bay after the so the red part is the reclaimed in between 1965 and 73.
After the 1970s, the driver of the development shifted from economic knees to the more socially
and environmentally acceptable gold reclamation of diverse purposes emerged.
And now we have. We are proud of this doing new reclamation process with industrial waste, which has killed the two or three but birds in one stone.
So this coincided with the broader ideological change from development, tourism to severe minimum and sustainability.
But I have been studying the history of reclamation in China and many other places in South Korea and Taiwan here in Tokyo.
Is this absurd, you know, natural course to accept this kind of tourist success?
But China is this terrible accident.
It's actually going much, much more seriously, and it's nothing to do with the uncertainties in general.
It's a kind of development similar way to try and effectively combine imported
resources from all over the world with very expensive but effective land,
which connects residential areas and industrial areas, as well as the third tertiary sector areas.
And this, you know, the Chinese had three major operations there.
They are much bigger than Japan in each of them. So you can you can actually imagine how big it is.
Now, to sum up, the you know, the water energy nexus in Monson Asia actually provided population carrying capacity in much of this area,
more than to the already 19th century dominance of Asia in terms of relatives here in our GDP.
And it goes down and it comes back with transformation of fossil fuels.
So after 1950, India emerged as the driving force of the rise in real GDP on primary energy use,
and now it is also a hotspot of global environmental problems.
So coal in North America was replaced by fossil fuels and global exploitation of domestic resources.
So the global exploitation of domestic resources became much tougher and severe and penetrating all over the world,
particularly in the developing countries of Asia and Africa and elsewhere.
Local and regional past faced tougher challenges,
even compared to 1960s Japan to make themselves sustainable, reflecting the greater forces of capitalism.
Thank you.