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.
It’s very interesting that different economic growth can have apparently counter-intuitive effects.
In biology you see similar phenomena: Tumour Necrosis Factor alpha is, unsurprisingly, something which kills tumours at high concentration.
Unfortunately for those who fancied delivering protein to tumours, it turns out that low doses cause tumours to grow FASTER.
This factor-dependent multimodality is something folks in science should think a lot about.
Because it’s a feature of most open complex dynamic systems.
ferd berple says:
“We have long known that with economic prosperity … emissions are stabilized. … with prosperity they were able to afford improvement in air quality standards.”
—————————————
This is the classic misunderstanding of this issue. With prosperity, people can afford to export their pollution problems. Even scubbers need to be disposed of somewhere. Economic growth is the best solution to poverty and disease, but beware when a movement which seeks to return us to the stone age uses it as an argument.
Nuke-Actually, I could pretty much tell your post was intended to be tongue in cheek. Notice I said:
“And at any rate, if you limit people’s decisions you miss the entire point of the economy! But I suspect you already know that.” [Emphasis added]
I did want to point out, however, that a planned economy is actually not simpler to “model” so to speak. Many people don’t fully understand the important work the Austrians did to explain why planned economies fail. Some of the points are very subtle. I encourage everyone to study these issues. Take care! 🙂
A lot of Greens will have no trouble at all accepting this. Many believe that investing in (what they believe to be) low-emission technology is economically productive. This would just look like justification for more solar/wind subsidies.
Pamela Gray (9:40AM 11AUG), dripping with true lefty condescension, informs us of the obvious facts that environmental problems existed before there were regulations and that poisoning children with mercury upsets mothers who can’t then be bought off with money. Gosh, you think?
Stating the obvious as if no one else gets it and brandishing a mercury poisoned baby are lefty techniques being used here as prelude to Pamela’s main point: that there are just as many baddies in the business world as in the government world.
Wrong, Pamela! The group of people who live by productivity and try to please customers include far fewer baddies than the group of unproductive parasites who live by means of an extortion racket and coercion and take bribes from those they claim to regulate and attack the productive to win votes from the envious and seek out victims to regulate in order to justify their power.
No one has a right to harm another. But no one has a right to rule and feed off others in the name of preventing harm, since ruling and feeding off others are harms. Preventive law is aggression. Only punitive law is just.
The Kaya identity still holds:
CO2 emission = population * GDP/capita * energy/GDP * CO2 emission/energy.
I.e. for a high GDP scenario to result in low emissions needs other factors to be low. The two graphs at Forbes indeed show that population is assumed lower in the high GDP scenario’s (makes sense). Haven’t checked, but probably the emissions per unit GDP are also lower in the high GDP scenario’s, i.e. choices are assumed to be made that decarbonize the economy (makes sense).
It is thus a little too simplistic to say that economic growth causes the least emissions; emissions are lower in the high GDP scenarios because population density and emission intensity of the economy are assumed to be low.
On the current trajectory of increasing all three of them, there’s no way in hell that emissions would be lowest.
See some graphs of population, GDP and emissions (and discussion of their roles): http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/what-does-population-have-to-do-with-climate-change/