The new IPCC economic models show that economic growth is part of the solution
Story submitted by Tim Worstall
The IPCC has just released details of the economic models that are used to generate the emissions numbers for the climate change models. Whether or not we want to believe in climate change, think it’s all natural variation or are convinced that Armageddon is near at hand, the results are fascinating.
For the assumptions of the deeper greens are entirely refuted by what the IPCC themselves are saying. Economic growth is actually the solution to the perceived problems, not the cause. In the IPCC modelling the set up with the most economic growth has the least emissions.
Further, we don’t in fact need to reduce our energy consumption: again the model with the least warming still shows consumption near on doubling this century.
In fact, their models, recall, their own, the IPCC’s calculations, show that slower economic growth will lead to more warming.
There’s more on this at Forbes.
http://blogs.forbes.com/timworstall/2011/08/10/solving-climate-change/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Tim makes a mistake that is easily made, indeed, one that is facilitated by the authors of the study. He compares across the RCPs, assuming that they are consistent with one another. They are not. The four RCPs were build with four different models. Comparing RCPs is thus meaningless.
This is something i’ve long argued. It turns out that the peak emissions level per dollar of GDP is when the per capita income is around $10,000 (1990 dollars).
Oh dear, so Greenstrife et al’s dream of a golden non-industrial future society is blown away by their own organisation …
Uh huh – ya THINK ???
I don’t believe the Greenies are only just waking up to this paradigm….Is it that they are finally looking for a soft option out?
None of it would make anything other than a negligible difference to climate, of course, but it’ll be interesting to see the doublethink engaged in by certain NGOs to reconcile this with their prejudices.
Anything that expands freely, will sooner or later to be slowed down, and finally stopped (collapse) by their own (outer) limits, if no countermeasures are performed. (For example, the Soviet Union …)
Economic response to climate change falls under the epithet “If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it …!”
OMG. The IPCC poking their already too long nose into something else they little understand.
The best solution to our economic woes is to shut down the IPCC AND the US EPA. Get a grip on the fact that climate is driven by natural events not some trace atmospheric gas and use the overtaxed fossil fuels, with taxes reduced to removed, and get competitive industry going again without the millstone of ‘green power’. China would find that to compete with a robust competitive West will take more than government control of industry and democratise as it should.
Two birds, one stone.
The article points out that economic growth will lead to lower increases in carbon emissions than low economic growth and offers the evidence of the IPCCs own data, and this on the assumption of a fossil fuels based economy. Then it slips in a promotion for a carbon tax at the end, with no evidence for it’s efficacy.
Dealing with climate change, formerly known as AGW, is not the point; getting the worldwide carbon tax instated is the point. The IPCC economic report (and the article perhaps) can be viewed as propaganda trying to placate those who worry that the the only way to reduce carbon emissions is to stone-age the economy. Logical contradictions abound, but the message is consistent: world government and world government taxes.
As I believe the IPCC diagnosis of “the problem” is dubious in the first place, I don’t know how much credence anyone should place on their prescription for “the cure”. Mr. Worstall concludes his Forbes article with:
“Or as I pointed out at book length recently, a globalised market economy with a carbon tax will do just fine.”
If CO2 isn’t a problem, how would imposing a “carbon tax” have any beneficial effects? If we somehow decouple the imposition of a carbon tax from the rest of the eco-wacko agenda, the only thing it will accomplish is shifting energy use to lower-cost alternatives. But because the apparent “lower” cost is entirely the result of the tax, in effect we would be shifting energy use to *higher* cost alternatives.
This will impede economic growth, not foster it. The tax simply hides the fact that your economic system has become *less* efficient, while handing new money over to the very people who have proven they can waste it on a larger scale and with fewer consequences than any private enterprise.
Richard if “The four RCPs were build with four different models. Comparing RCPs is thus meaningless.”, then what is the point of them. If no comparissons can be made then what do we learn from this?
John Marshall theorizes
———-
The best solution to our economic woes is to shut down the IPCC AND the US EPA.
———-
Yeah sure. No numbers, just handwaving.
Go to China, look at the sky, breath the air, if you can. Watch Chinese people coughing and spitting to clear their throat, if there is no EPA this is what you get.
Because of three major errors [‘back radiation’ is really Prevost exchange energy which can do no work, ‘cloud albedo effect’ cooling supposed to hide CO2-AGW is really heating, 80% of net CO2 increase is from warming seas and oceans], the true level of CO2-AGW is at most a tenth of the median level claimed by the IPCC and may well be net zero.
So, no climate model can predict climate. It’s time the IPCC was shut down for peddling junk science.
They can only come to this conclusion because of the conclusion of another garbage non peer reviewed report from Greenpeace saying that 80% of energy supplies could be from renewable sources. If it makes them feel happy, let them believe this dross.
They already have one task for which they are not qualified but that does not daunt them from gratuitously taking on another for which they are also not qualified, and that one which currently has all of the experts in the field beaten. With such versatility perhaps they should be in charge of nuclear engineering development.
Are economic models any better than climate models?
This runs counter to actual history. The largest drop in real pollution happened when the Soviet Union collapsed. And the emissions graphs in one of yesterday’s stories show clearly that CO2 emission is perfectly and positively correlated with economic growth, in all types of countries.
You CAN have growth without adding real pollution, as the US demonstrated in the ’60s and ’70s, but you can’t have growth without adding CO2 emission.
Dust filters, SO2 scrubbers, and catalytic converters are relatively cheap and don’t stop economic activity. All attempts to slow down CO2 are economic stoppers. That’s their whole purpose, for heaven’s sake!
(SarcOn)”””””FLASH!!! The IPCC announced today that the ONLY way to save the planet is to grind all gold on Earth into a microfine dust powder and equally distribute it, from an altitude of 33.28 km, over the entire surface of the globe at precisely 03:36 GMT, 17 December 2014. Europe, Russia, Africa, Oceania, S.America, N.America, and SE Asia have all agreed to this bold, selfless plan and support it enthusiastically. The gold dust will, with the aid of natural lightning and Carbon Dioxide, convert and absorb ALL Manmade Global Warming chemicals produced in the last 16,526 +/- 294 years, and render the planet pollution free for a span of 389 +/- 16 years. CO2 levels are expected to be reduced to 1 part per trillion, a rather significant reduction indeed. Currently, China and India and OPEC countries are scheduled to hold popular elections regarding the surrender of personal and national stockpiles of Gold on 1 December 2014. The UNSecGen stated today that he “felt sure these countries would surely indever to persevier and make the best decision for the sake of all the World’s starving souls in search of enlightenment and a little fresh water to drink and some clean air to breathe and that, surely, the filthy British government would surely raise the benefits of the poor starving masses burning down London and Liverpool and….” (The SecGen is still speaking and be broke away to get this out ASAP).”””””
Expect nothing!
The Party’s over!
Time to pay The Piper!
😉
“Renewable” fuel is not a panacea. Because of poverty, indoor smoke from wood cooking fires is the greatest cause of deaths for children under 5 at 2 million/year.
Amy Smith shares simple, lifesaving design
See Tom Reed’s ultra efficient clean woodgas stove with ~ 40% efficiency vs 10-12% for an open stove.
People need work and income to pay for the technology to have a clean environment and better health, separate from whether the fuel is “renewable”.
White flag.
Richard Tol says:
August 11, 2011 at 3:12 am
Tim makes a mistake that is easily made, indeed, one that is facilitated by the authors of the study. He compares across the RCPs, assuming that they are consistent with one another. They are not. The four RCPs were build with four different models. Comparing RCPs is thus meaningless.
====================================================================
Richard, you should read the link provided in the article. The RCPs are like numbers built with a common protocol. The concept of RCPs was brought about specifically for comparisons to other RCPs derived from various models. http://www.springerlink.com/content/f296645337804p75/fulltext.html Start at section 2.
UN´s FAO has a more realistic forecast: Graph refers to temperatures up to the year 2100. This paper is actually and succesfully used by fishermen all over the world:
http://www.giurfa.com/fao_temps.jpg
Find full paper in: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/
Graph in page 50 of : ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/y2787e08.pdf
Just hold chaps & chapesses, these are outer models we’re talking about. We have pretty much criticised these when they claimed armageddon scenarios for the future, that they are flawed, many seriously, yet they all apparently concluded that we’re all gonna die sooner rather than later! Now, either they have completely misread their original model output, accidently or deliberately or through ignorance, OR thye lied about them. SO, how do these models fare, are they trustworthy, are they reliable, have they any basis in reality? Remember Lehman Brothers used a model or two to predict economics of climate change 90 years from now & look what happened to them in less than two! Having said all that, it has been demonstrated that developed nations have lower over all Carbon Footprints than undeveloped ones, without the use of models. We also need to remove the deliberately insidious language of propaganda, from the whole issue asap. Phrases such as “the West’s “addiction” to fossil fuels”, with all the inherent associations of drug addiction, & “Carbon Pollution”, etc. Change the language change the process!.
Tim’s article sounds great, but his final conclusion is to support a carbon tax. How we arrive at that conclusion is somewhat vague.
Moving on to the “overview”, (published in Climatic Change) upon which his article is based, alarms are set off up front by use of the words “may” and “possible” in the first 2 sentences of the introduction. In the methodology description, it says the scenarios “should provide information on ALL” [my emphasis] “components of radiative forcing that are needed as input for climate modeling and atmospheric chemistry modeling,” but then it restricts “all” to “emissions of greenhouse gases, air pollutants and land use.”
It also says that “all RCPs include the assumption that air pollution control becomes more stringent, over time, as a result of rising income levels.” This is a deceptive assumption because it is regionally observed. Incomes increased in early-industrial U.S. and England, but pollution was tolerated until the populace was able to afford exporting that manufacturing to other places, first domestic, then foreign. Moving the pollution does not eliminate it.
And to think they did it all with a creditability rating of FFF !!
The EPA is still needed to keep real polluters, such as several along the Willamette River, from pouring mercury into our streams and rivers. It is still needed to keep gas stations and other types of fuel-based industries from pouring left overs into the ground. It is still needed to keep large feedlots from allowing filthy sludge to seep into ground water. It is still needed to keep our meat free of bacteria, viruses, and other contaminants. It is still needed to help us clean up after illegal pot operations in our forests and drug labs in our neighborhoods. And it is still needed to keep corporate farms from sending poisoned fruits and vegetables into our homes.
But what we can do to economize is to treat food, and air/water/ground polluters with the same disdain, penalties, and oversight. We have too many governmental agencies with too little funding and personnel to adequately keep us from getting sick.