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.
So the IPCC now agree with what I think George W Bush said all along?
I’ve invested three hours and failed to find a WUWT article I think I have read. Maybe I’m going senile. In any case, I’m asking for some help from WUWT readers.
Can anyone give me the link I’m looking for? As I recall it, Anthony reposted a link originally produced in some other blog, that contained details of a poll about public perceptions about climate science. The poll asked people a few questions, including “what colour is carbon dioxide?”
All help appreciated, and I apologise for being off-topic.
Here in Oregon the alarmist left screws up eveything they touch. We’re the poster child for wrong and ridiculous.
The many causes throughout the spectum of the left that have hitched onto AGW are really similar causes in themselves. Based on lousy or no evidence while pushing for rememdies that have bo chance of arriving where they imagine. When failure ensues it’s because more of the same failed remedy is needed.
They are ike nitiwts driving to a destintion while never recognizing all the passing signs they are heading in the opposite direction.
Thanks very much for this news Tim. I just finished convincing the wife and kids that we had to start thinking about living in a cave, for the sake of the planet, and now you tell me I need to update to a fully modernised carbon integrated and intensive cave……………just bloody great, and, to make matters worse my new proposed sea level rise inspired water-side retirement home in the ‘Blue Mountains’ (NSW, Australia) may not now see the sea…….just bloody great./sarc on
The ‘senility’ possibility gains credibility due to my mis-spelling my own name in the e-mail address for my previous post. (Mutter, mumble, iPad keysize.) Could anyone who helps me please do so as a reply to THIS post, not the previous one.
Thanks.
We have long known that with economic prosperity birthrates decline and emissions are stabilized. This is what has happened in the G7 countries. Except for immigration many of these countries do not have birth rates sufficient to maintain their population.
Initially the G7 countries had high air pollution, as we seeing in India and China now. Then with prosperity they were able to afford improvement in air quality standards. Compare London today with the pea soup fog they used to get from air pollution. That wasn’t achieved by shutting down the economy. It was paid for by growing the economy.
The Al Gore’s of the world that continue to preach one set of policies for everyone else, while living that fat lifestyle ignore the most obvious of facts. You cannot make positive changes to the world unless you first come up for a way to pay for these changes.
Taxes alone cannot ever pay to change the world because the money must first be earned before it can be taxed. Only after governments provide economic growth can they use taxes to make a change. Otherwise the result will be crushing debt that destroys the prosperity needed to pay for change. This has been clearly demonstrated in both the US and Europe.
In the article: We know very well that there’s a connection between economic growth and population size. Richer countries on average have lower fertility rates so as the world becomes richer fewer children are born. Further, we don’t in fact need to reduce our energy consumption.
The political elite of the West have solved that problem by importing more poverty and higher birth rates to combat hard earned wealth in the West. And it has worked very well as the West goes down to poverty.
And the IPCC may be looking at loss of funding due to economic decline in the West. The bottom line can be a bitch.
Worstal’s analysis, if correct, sounds to me like the IPCC is trying to make the alternative energy scam more palatable. It roughly boils down to, ‘You can be an AGW skeptic or a believer, keep on living well, as long as you subsidise all our inefficient power generation schemes to the eyebrows (and evermore redistribute your savings to all our UN mendicant countries).’
Over here in blighty we have just gone through protests about not being able to afford the latest trainers or mobile phone, I wonder what happens when they have to choose between food and heating this winter?
And the IPCC couldn’t find there arse with both hands. There answer is to push the price of energy up to un-affordable prices then turn round and say ‘Oh and by the way can we have as much growth as possible to save the planet please’ (At least there polite).
“Whether or not we want to believe in climate change (…)” What? What? Are we going to have to explain again that it’s not about believing in climate change or not (since it always does change, we all agree on this)? I’m tired of this problem, it’s all over the media… but here at WUWT?
Previous models woefully under predicted aerosol emissions by China’s growing economy, thus the lack of warming that we are seeing today and the falsification of their weather models.
Now we have more models showing accelerating economic growth, when the economic world is facing a potential implosion? I think the IPCC may actually serve a useful purpose as a contrarian indicator.
@richard Tol
If the different categories were not meant to be compared, why did the authors place them on the same graph repeatedly, with nice colours, apparently inviting comparison?
Look, they are waking up to the fact that no one will accept living in a world with an even worse economy than the one we have now…. which is exactly what they previously wanted. Preaching that we have to slow economic growth doesn’t sound bad when we are in boom times, but when we’re in a Great Recession, and people realize how sucky that is, the “slow the economy down or we’re doomed” message is only going to further drive people away from the AGW camp. When we finally get some real economic growth (in a few years maybe) then you’ll see them reverse again and say “whoa, we need to slow this thing down”.
Cynical??? Yes! But they’ve earned it..
I thought this was going to be pics of Patchy’s kind of models. You know…………
Miss IPCC Patchy Morales 2011
Are economic models any better than climate models?
Actually economic models are much better at predicting the past than climate models (e.g. lack of Mideaval Warm period in some models). I do admit that predicting the future has not been the strong suit of either discipline.
What a stupid solution.
Of course. With no economic growth and no technological advancement The Great Horse-Manure Crisis of 1894 could not possibly have been overcome. We would indeed be doomed, our shining great cities buried under half a mile of horse manure. Could have been worse than we’d thought.
They may be on to something. Something that many have known for a long time, and is just basic common sense to the rest.
Ignoring the difference between local and global phenomena for the moment, you’ll universally notice that rich people live in clean, environments. Poor people, on the other hand, dump their garbage in their back yard. The objective is to make the poor people rich so they can spend more effort on a pleasant environment, rather that scrabbling around for clean water, a nourishing meal.and proper sanitation.
The best way to make poor people rich (however one may measure ‘richness’, and not only in monetary terms) is cheap and abundant energy. Raising the cost of energy has little effect on ‘the rich’ and drives the poor even deeper into the [snip] hole.
It’s a fallacy to believe that the only reason we have clean air or clean water is because of the force of government. We have these things because people want clean air and clean water.
The fact that the EPA is messing around with greenhouse gases tells us that has largely succeeded in achieving the things it was originally created to do. It’s no longer a necessary agency.
One could equally say “look at all the smog! We need the EPA.” Well then, why isn’t the EPA focusing on that? If their original mission isn’t completed, why are they seeking to expand into regulating other things?
It’s not news to me that it’s better to burn coal than people.
And the better the burning of the coal, the better it is for the people.
@James Baldwin Sexton
Population, income, energy demand, energy use, and CO2 emissions come as a package (called a model). You can compare emissions and incomes for various scenarios in one model. And you can compare emissions and incomes between models for the same scenario. But you cannot vary model and scenario at the same time (and hope for meaningful results). The problem is just too non-linear, and the models are too different.
@Dale Rainwater Chaos
I guess that the authors of the paper never thought that anyone would ever do what Tim did. They would not. People tend to assume that other people know what they themselves know.
@Ed Walsh
You can make first order comparisons (emissions v emissions) but no second order ones (emission intensities v emission intensities).
Just pay the carbon tax and everything will be fine.
So why the carbon tax?
Pamela Gray says we need the EPA to keep us from getting sick.
The faith of the government-educated is a wondrous thing to behold. Imagine believing the general proposition that those who produce goods and services and offer them to us on the voluntary market are the baddies and that those who produce nothing and live off us by means of an extortion racket called taxation are the goodies who care for us. Imagine believing that someone showing you a product is dangerous and someone pointing a gun at you is your savior.
Imagine thinking that the unproductive slobs who claim to “serve” us won’t take bribes from those who wish to trade with us. Imagine thinking that producers are motivated to harm their customers while extortionists are motivated by altruistic concern for the welfare of their victims.
There have always been proper legal procedures to deter those who harm or threaten us. It is absurd to think we also need a tyrannical gang of parasitic nannies to control us all while they feed upon us. Faith in coercive power is truly a wondrous thing to behold. Fear of voluntary free trade is even more wondrous.
These economic models show what many ahve believed is the reality about environmental issues in general- that economic prosperity permits more effective environmental policies.
The problem is that the IPCC solutions to their CO2 obsession is in conflict with the economic study they have done.
The AGW believer community is going to minsinterpret (deliberately?) the acceptance by the skeptic community of the IPCC economic position as support for the idea that skeptics should accept all that the IPCC says.
The believer faith is so brittle and shallow that they are unable to accept the nuanced perspective of many skeptics, or even mild critics, of the AGWconesnsus.
so how to make clear that skeptics welcome the IPCC agreeins with skeptics regarding economics, we still have strong disagreements with the IPCC based on well founded concerns about the process, the quality of the work, the scale of the alleged CO2 crisis, and the evidence itself, among many other areas of concern.