Economic growth 'cannot continue' (to prevent global climate change)

Source: BBC

Continuing global economic growth "is not possible" if nations are to tackle climate change, a report by an environmental think-tank has warned. The New Economics Foundation (Nef) said "unprecedented and probably impossible" carbon reductions would be needed to hold temperature rises below 2C (3.6F).

..."There is no global, environmental central bank to bail us out if we become ecologically bankrupt." None of the existing models or policies could "square the circle" of economic growth with climate safety...

They then considered whether economic growth could be maintained while "retaining a good likelihood" of limiting the global average temperature to within 2C of pre-industrial levels. The report concluded that a growth rate of just 3%, the "carbon intensity" of the global economy would need to fall by 95% by 2050 from 2002 levels. This would require an average annual reduction of 6.5%. However, the authors said that the world's carbon intensity had "flatlined" between 2000 and 2007.

"Magic bullets - such as carbon capture and storage, nuclear or even geo-engineering - are potentially dangerous distractions from more human-scale solutions..." "At the moment, magic bullets... are getting much of the funding and political attention, but are missing the targets," Dr Johnson said.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8478770.stm

N/t

probably true, but it is asserted like a fact.

Or alternatively find an energy source that can replace the energy obtained from fossil fuels while being carbon neutral. Economic growth requires energy, and since the dawn of the industrial age that has meant either coal or oil. None of the alternative fuels can replace them in terms of energy yield compared to energy invested; any shift to a fully low-carbon economy will mean a serious curtailment of economic growth if not a contraction. This is very simple logic and a conclusion that's easily arrived at considering present energy requirements and the increase needed to sustain growth vs the yield from low-carbon or carbon neutral sources.

- The "half-life" of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is something like 30 years. That means the CO2 we've put in the atmosphere already will affect global temperatures for a long time.

- Permafrost melting releases methane, a more potent heat-capturing gas than CO2. This warms the Earth, which melts more permafrost, which releases more methane, a positive feedback loop.

- Snow cover and sea ice covering land and water fewer days of the year exposes land and water to more sunlight. Exposed land and water absorb more solar radiation than snow and ice, which leads to additional warming and additional melting, another positive feedback loop.

- Warmer temperatures can cause land and water to release more CO2.

We may be close to, or have already reached, several "tipping points" that can lead to relatively rapid temperature increase. Nobody's doing anything significant to change the direction we're headed. My prediction is that the climate situation will turn out to be far worse than they are reporting so far. We need to go to the next step--figuring out how to live on a warmer Earth. We need better predictions of what will happen and at least start thinking about how to respond to inevitable climate changes.

Three telling quotes:

> "There is no global, environmental central bank to bail us out
> if we become ecologically bankrupt."

The financial world (and, indeed, much of the manufacturing, agricultural
and other primary industries) are used to getting bailouts, subsidies and
other "special measures" to allow them to continue with "business as usual"
despite critical warnings from the system that they are collectively
plundering. As a result, they have lost sight of how artificially false
and disconnected their attitudes have become.

There is no such safety net with regard to the environment.


> "Magic bullets - such as carbon capture and storage, nuclear or even
> geo-engineering - are potentially dangerous distractions from more
> human-scale solutions"

The only "hope" stories about the environment these days (i.e., ignoring
the standard denial approach of "ignore it and it will go away") involve
theoretical workarounds and proposals for technological miracles that
will allow the "business as usual" attitude to continue that little bit
longer. Despite the fact that the timescales involved (not to mention the
financial costs) mean that no action is being made now - or even, in some
cases, for the next decade or two - the "happy techno-green" stories are
still trumpeted (and received) as "solutions" that grant a reprieve from
people actually having to *think* about the real problems.


> "Its authors admit that they want us to be poorer and to lead more
> restricted lives for the sake of their faddish beliefs."

Not surprisingly, this came from an executive director of the Adam Smith
Institute - a body of overpaid egocentric fascists whose policies have
put millions upon millions of people into poverty and destroyed the
clean air & water that used to be available.

:grr:

and lackeys and the corporations are out of control?

Expect socio-economic revolution in the West?

Rely on China government to do the right thing?

Watch the Great Depression economic bust do the job? (I'll bank on this last).

That is sure to solve the problem. And people will gladly drop 1K even if they can't afford it just to have one.

That is, until the next one comes out and all the old ones are tossed away.

This is exactly what the right has been claiming.

The right, among other things, says at the end of the day combating global warming would mean our economies can't grow. They claimed that the entire point of this was to stifle economic growth and force us to live a more austere life.

This will just confirm exactly what they've claimed.

Anyway, as I've always said, all of this is a charade. Pretty much no country is going to actually do a thing to combat AGW if it will limit economic growth much. Not in a democracy anyway. Politicians need the support of the people to stay in power, and the people will never go for reducing their own economic affluence to combat global climate change.

It is really well past time to stop thinking of how to combat global warming, and instead learn how we can best manage it.

I don't think we can afford either.

Basically what is being called for in this article is exactly what the right has always claimed the left really wanted in a fight against AGW. Their conspiracy theories are all confirmed for them right here in this article. They claim the left are a bunch of socialists who hate capitalism, and that what they really are using AGW for is a way of destroying market economies.

I hope this is just the work of a few scientists and that mainstream climatologists don't accept this sort of finding.

Negative 6.5% growth rates for decades to come is the answer to AGW? Seriously?

I mean, if this is what is being sold in the name of science, then there is literally NO chance whatsoever in getting people on board with an effort to tackle global climate change.

The RW says global warming is about stopping economic growth...but if you look at what's really going on, that's an asinine confusion of cause and effect (and typical of them).

Who cares what they say? They don't dictate what is fact, they don't even care.

Economic growth and human population hits a wall when the resources that the planet provides more or less for free - water, oil, arable land, etc, - are fully utilized. Its up for debate how much more we can squeeze out before the climate takes a turn, but not that an end to growth is inevitable.

Individually, maybe, as long as it doesn't hurt overall growth. If you don't buy a car, that's not a big deal. Nobody gives a damn, it's your choice. Once enough people make that choice, and start not buying cars, then the auto industry goes under, and everyone has to chip in to prop it up, and the government might even try to force you to buy a car.

To limit ourselves would be like expecting to see Exxon, or Wal-Mart, or Monsanto limit themselves. It's just not going to happen. That's where some other entity fits into the equation. However, the same way that corporations try to get around government regulations, humanity tries to get around ecological regulations. Corporations don't like limits, humanity doesn't like limits. It's not an exact comparison, since humans make up both governments and corporations. Same general idea though.

that's the only possible conclusion to your scenario.

in England...These are their "free-market", "privatization" folks...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith_Institute

That's just what the tobacco industry people have been saying all along - the "cancerists" just want us all to quit smoking. This whole cancer thing is a smokescreen for tobacco haters and health fanatics. It would be best if we all just continued smoking and learned to live with lung cancer.

All we have to do is shift to non-carbon based energy sources over the next 100 years or so.

Possibly even larger problems if those new sources are "limitless". Nope, we'll float like a leaf in the wind once we just shift off of those carbon based energy sources. That's all we have to to. That's it. It's that easy. No worries about the endless list of variables and complexities of existence that will inevitably come into conflict with our narrow wants and desires as a single species among many forms of life.

But how many species have desires? I've thought a few of my tortoises might, but the snakes I'm leaning toward "no."

Besides the desire to bite me on occasion. :)

They made it clear that they wanted more swordfish.

...as an example of what simply wishing for growth without considering the consequences of it gets you.

I could go on about that, but maybe it would be best to ask what you would consider to be a reasonable rate of growth, and whether you distinguish economic growth from population growth, or consider them separable?

We should set boundaries on how much environmental cost is acceptable, and let the market figure out how much growth it can sustain within that context.

and if energy use and population followed that trend, in 35 years or so here's what we would have:

Double the population. Imagine every continent, every region, every city and village and countryside with twice as many people as are alive today.

Double the infrastructure. For every residence now, and every strip mall, grocery store, road, etc, there would be two in 35 years. Or look at it as taking the sum total of all the structures humans have built in history, and doing that all over again by 2045...in addition to maintaining what's here, of course.

Double the energy demand. We would have to keep producing all the power we are today (a tall order), and build another power plant or power source to match every one existing already.

Double the food and water demand. For every acre tilled and irrigated, and for every gallon of water used, we'd need to till and irrigate two acres and find two gallons of water...

...of course technology may accomplish some things, and its not hard from our country to just kick back and say the future works itself out, why worry, but if you here that someone is advocating growth and someone else says there is not such thing as sustainable growth at our point in history, thats what they are talking about. If growth goes down to 1%, you still wind up in the same place. It would take twice as long, but still less than a lifetime. I'd rather say zero growth is a reasonable and necessary goal, if we want to maintain any standard of living for future generations.