Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t James Delingpole – Alice Bows-Larkin has given a TED talk, which outlines her plan for “saving” the environment from a 4c temperature rise. The gist of her idea seems to be that developed countries need to dramatically reduce their output, while developing countries raise theirs, so everyone gets a “fair” share of a smaller pie.
How deep a cut are we talking about?
10:52
So that poses very significant challenges for wealthy nations. Because according to our research, if you’re in a country where per capita emissions are really high — so North America, Europe, Australia — emissions reductions of the order of 10 percent per year, and starting immediately, will be required for a good chance of avoiding the two-degree target. Let me just put that into context. The economist Nicholas Stern said that emission reductions of more than one percent per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval. So this poses huge challenges for the issue of economic growth, because if we have our high carbon infrastructure in place, it means that if our economies grow, then so do our emissions. So I’d just like to take a quote from a paper by myself and Kevin Anderson back in 2011 where we said that to avoid the two-degree framing of dangerous climate change, economic growth needs to be exchanged at least temporarily for a period of planned austerity in wealthy nations.
Click here to read the full transcript
Why do I think this plan for aggressive CO2 emission cuts amounts to economic ruin? Lets think about what 10% per year actually means.
Imagine this reduction as slices taken away from a 5 day working week. I’m going to assume for the purpose of this calculation, that emissions are a proxy for economic activity.
In the first year, not so bad – its like leaving work every week on Friday at lunchtime. It might be uncomfortable, but a lot of people in developed countries probably have the spare financial capacity, to absorb a 10% cut in income.
By year 3, things get unpleasant. By now you are only working;
(1 – 0.10)3 years * 5 days = 3.5 days per week.
More than an quarter of your income has gone. Bills are getting tough to pay, you spend long hours in the Supermarket aisles agonising over your grocery basket.
By year 10, things are desperate. By then you are only working;
(1 – 0.10)10 years * 5 days = 1.7 days per week. 66% of your income is gone. Your mortgage if you owe money on your house is in arrears. Debt collectors are calling every other day, demanding money you don’t have. All you have to look forward to is more hopelessness and despair.
OK, so you’ve lost most of your income – but working 1.7 days per week, you would get plenty of time off, right? Wrong. The reality is you would probably still have to work your normal 5 day week. What is being degraded is not the number of hours you have to work, but the economic return those hours generate for you and your employer. Your 5 days of effort now only returns 1.7 days worth of the spending power, in terms of what you earned before the cuts started. Your employer’s profits have also been slashed – they simply can’t pay you any more, even if they wanted to.
Even at 34% of your original income, you probably still have more spending power than many people in the third world. The cuts would have to continue.
Of course, most people would probably be worse off than my simple calculation predicts. I doubt very much whether the green elite would give up their frequent flights to climate conferences, and other perks. So if the national pie in your country is shrinking, and the greens keep the full portion of their slice, your slice gets smaller even faster.
If alarmists are right about the rate of climate change, which by any reasonable evaluation of the skill of climate models is very doubtful, is all this hardship really a price worth paying, to prevent a few extra days of pleasant sunny weather every year?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Zealot meets unintended consequences.
Let’s suppose for a moment that the 1st world instantly cuts their economies by 10%. What happens?
One of the first things to happen is that millions upon millions of people in 3rd world countries lose their jobs. They are the low cost, high labour producers of consumer goods. A 10% reduction in purchase of consumer goods in the 1st world would result in several times the job losses of competing manufacturers in the first world (who are highly mechanized and have a much lower labour component in their goods).
The next thing that happens is that a reduction of 10% food production by the 1st world causes a massive spike in food prices world wide. 1st world countries can tough it out, but 3rd world countries (the ones where millions of people just lost their jobs) would be facing starvation.
I could go on, but these two examples should point out the obvious. A 10% reduction in 1st world economic activity would be a freaking disaster for the 3rd world which is already destitute and unstable. Whoever would inflict such a calamity on the teaming billions of poor in the 3rd world is either hopelessly naive or evil incarnate.
Considering her PhD, I am sticking with bat-shit crazy and 100% incompetent.
But how can you really tell the difference between “bat-shit crazy” and “drugged to the gills and under the influence of supreme evil”? Can we blame Ms. Bows-Larkin, who is, after all, a PhD? Is it possible she’s been compromised by SMURSH? Maybe ISIS? COBRA? Perhaps one of those other cartoon evil doers we all came to know and love as children? Maybe she was once attracted to Unicorn pharts and went wrong somewhere? Could she be rehabilitated? Too much fluoride in her water? Not enough carrots on her diet?
We could build a model of her…
Drugged to the gills shows up in the eyes.
I can spot it from a mile away.
The commenter up top who blames her nincompoopery on SBS may have a point.
Bit on further reflection, I have concluded that it is difficult for me to imagine how anyone can say what she said.
She wants to take money out of my pocket, and out of the pockets of my children, and of my family.
She wants to take food from our mouths, and from the mouth of my neighbors children, and my friends children, and the children if everyone in my town, and all of the kids in yor town, and all of the kids in every other town…and she wants to take the clothes from our backs, and remove the means to support our selves, and the means to heat our homes, and of society to progress.
She wants to steal the future from our children and hers alike.
If she has enough brains to think about what she is suggesting on any realistic way, she knows she is advocating death, misery and a life of destitute penury for us all.
So, I was wrong…she is either incredibly stupid or completely evil.
Plus she is 100% wrong about the danger.
Exactly David…. if the rich would cuts it’s economic growth…..the third world has no chance of increasing theirs
This is quite so. If the US were to lose it all in some crazy Obama dream-come-true it would benefit nobody and it would not go unnoticed by those nations whose palm is ever turned up but now and forever empty. It is sad that what was once a gift of the people of (Your country’s name here) is now seen as a UN entitlement to be paid by those nations that created the most comfortable generation in the history of mankind. And because the infrastructure was in place long before they were born, their idle time can be spent not making ends meet at home, inventing solutions for sewage, safe water delivered to the home, affordable energy, transportation for personal and distribution of goods, basic health care, and feeding a nation – nay, a world, but to feel the opiate of that greatest of luxuries – guilt over their inherited comfort. None but the most comfortable by least effort can feel this empty pleasure. And by this they personally give nothing but their approval and bleached toothed smiles because that is all that is expected of limousine liberals.
I read recently that the school lunch program is now 70 years on. Clearly a failure, it should have died long ago from success. Same with the war on poverty so eloquently argued by Hubert H. Humphrey and his lapdog Lyndon Johnson, late of the failed Great Society. Failure is success in this crazy world, and that we’re feeding more at the public trough than ever before is a line item of accomplishment on the resume’s of the incompetent.
Look, there’s too many dizzy dames over their heads spouting nonsense, like this one. Not sure how to put that more nicely. Women in the workplace is an overrated concept. I didn’t used to think that.
*in over their heads
Oh, methinks your chimp is out of control here, NZ willy…what about the stupid guys spouting nonsense? Plenty of those types around, sadly. Oh, and before you accuse me of being a ‘feminist’. I’m a guy.
Nearly 500,000 people have watched the disturbing Ted Talk. Young voters feeding on the anti-capitalist claptrap. What are we realists doing? Do we have suitable people doing Ted Talks? We urgently need up to date, easy to understand and irrefutable material available to use where we can before the Paris talks. There are avenues to use but a “one stop shop ” source of data would be ideal. The material is out there – it needs cataloguing. Could this be done via WUWT?
Agree. And if not via WUWT alone, then a stand alone reference center. All you would have to do is refer reference posts sans comments. There are several blogs from which solid such posts could be extracted, archived, and indexed. I am game to contribute if you and others are. Sort of like my last ebook, only in pure blogosphere cyberspace. Would have to be locked against hacks/modifications. Unlike an ebook, which once published can be annotated but is indelible.
Very good idea R.
Very good.
IPCC observed that it is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. At the same time IPCC also says it is a settled science. However, it is clear from IPCC’s observation that the increased global temperature since 1951 has two parts, namely (1) one caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gases and (2) the other caused by non-anthropogenic greenhouse gases component. Also, at the same time the anthropogenic greenhouse component has two components, namely (a) the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and (1b) the other anthropogenic forcings. However, IPCC is not sure of the quantitative contribution of these three groups on the global temperature.
Unless these three parts are quantified, we cannot say it is settled science as in this three parts, one is part is not global in character but it is only either local and or regional in character. Thus, this has no role at global scale except going in to the global averaging of temperature. With such qualitative groupings how can, IPCC argues it is a settled science? IPCC is arguing on 2 oC by the end of the century. The question is, is this relates to all the three parts or only one part that relates to the anthropogenic greenhouse gases concentration (1a)? IPCC needs to clarify this before asking individual governments to bring down anthropogenic greenhouses or some governments imposing taxes on emissions. Also, unless this is clarified IPCC, how can we say on the impacts on nature? First let us get clear idea on the subject. IPCC was cautious to refer 1a to global warming and instead uses climate change part of 1a!!!
The basic question is what is the contribution of 1a since 1951 to date. Is it less than 0.1 oC???
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
The suicide tendencies of Bows-Larkin should be justly ignored for good reason.
CAGW + AGENDA 21 is the end game for Statists.
The Green’s ideal future is an oppressive centrally-controlled Statist dystopia, where the top 10% government and business elites live affluently, and the bottom 90% live subsistence lives in mega-cities in 500 square-foot/2-bedroom apartments (“parasitic humans” family units will only be allowed one child, until an “optimal” world population is obtained) with only allotted public transportation available to them.
Huge Green Zones surround the mega-cities, with gigantic “wildlife sanctuaries” and agricultural zones established, where most “parasitic humans” are prohibited entry….
Sound Good!?…
Not so much…
One would think that “Critical Thinking 101” would be a prerequisite for any doctoral program. I see no evidence of that in this speech.
Perhaps she earned her shingle on line at facebook.edu where critical thinking is considered a fool’s errand.
dbstealey,
Thank you so much for this:
1. Government is force
2. Good ideas do not have to be forced on others
3. Bad ideas should not be forced on others
4. Liberty is necessary for the difference between good ideas and bad ideas to be revealed
This needs far wider dissemination.
And you need a Blue Max for troll slaying on this thread.
It is typical of what to expect from academics like Alice Bows-Larkin. Naive, simplistic, Utopian nonsense that simply reflects how academia really is not living in the real world!
We are already solving the problems posited by Alice Bows-Larkin (and her ilk) and have been for quite a while.
We use no more material than we did in 1949 in spite of the fact that:
1 – The economy tripled between 1949 and 1999.
2 – The population increased a lot.
We are going in the right direction, and will continue doing so, as long as we can keep the eco-crazies away from the levers of power. As the amount of material needed to enjoy our standard of living decreases, the benefits will spread to every corner of the globe (as is currently happening).
Of course, this is all based on the hypothetical that reducing CO2 emissions will make things cooler.
Wouldn’t it just be easier to eject a large amount of particulate matter or some surfer dioxide into the atmosphere. We know that would work.
So we can all starve to death when the interglacial ends suddenly?
No thinks.
Turn up the heat, and pass the tanning butter.
Reductio ad Absurdum; not just for breakfast anymore.
Neo wrote –
We all know it’s just a typo for sulfur dioxide, Neo, but I like it!
It’s those dang surfers getting slammed into the reefs and getting turned into surfer dioxide (chemical symbol SUrO2) that’s the real threat to coral reefs. CO2, not so much.
I thought he wanted to shoot a lot of that white cream that surfers put on their noses up into the atmosphere.
Relax everyone!
Even in Germany, where the conservatives are somehow green, such things will never happen. The government has made some attempts for carbon and enrgy reduction, but they are always caught by reality, more efficient cars are now more powerful, consuming more fuel, together with the greater amount of cars. more household gadgets are averaging the better efficiency.
Solar and wind power are fluctuatiing, so lignite powerplants (still the cleanest and most efficient) must be kept running. The renewable energy allowance went up too high, so they cut it to a margin, and nobody is interestet in RE investmen .any more,
Still they are trying hard, but in realiy no carbon reduction. As soon as people feel it intheir purse or in their comfort, they will rebel – and they already do. Politicians are very sensitive about opinions of the people, so they will adjust former plan even to the opposite if necessary.
media and other gatekepper can have som influence,for a short time, but in a democratic country reality will win in the long run.
The Germans have only just begun paying for their generosity to solar investors.
The massive over-payment for solar PV installations is enshrined in law and will continue through until 2030.
http://en.rwi-essen.de/media/content/pages/publikationen/ruhr-economic-papers/REP_12_353.pdf
Thank frog
Terrific link
JH
Thanks for the pep talk.
Such an expensive lesson though, no ?
Would love to see a link to a top journal article that describes this effect in Germany. Also a link to a favorite German NGO group that is also aware.
Do they understand that if we contract economically, there won’t be money for yo-yos like this to have the sinecures they currently do?
Does she really think that when we’re reduced to brown outs and even black outs that some in the rural areas won’t start to use wood and coal for heat regardless of the rules? Thus nullifying efforts in other places. And also what about non complying nations? How do they plan to deal with them?
Have they really decided that we can afford to do this AND that their plan will work? How do they know that what they propose will reduce “warming”? They can’t possibly know that because their models can’t predict what happens NOW let alone what will happen in a year or ten years.
And what about the possibility raised by the currrent decline in sunspot activity and the correlation between the Maunder minimum we’re experiencing NOW and the beginning of much colder winters and eventually all seasons as it has happened in the past?
But then this isn’t about saving a damn thing it’s about putting certain people in charge of government and the attempt at control and subjugation of the world’s population.
That’s always worked out well whenever it’s been tried before.
I just realised. One of the greatest inventions of mankind was glass and glass making, in particular lenses. She advocates, in effect, a return to a post-lens world. What sort of BS lenses is she looking through?
She has special glasses.
They create a short-sighted, blinkered view of the world.
One in which you are blind-sided by the unintended consequences of your own action.
Ultimately – she will end up making a spectacle of herself.
I’ve always loved this sort of stuff. Well, not *always*, there was a time when I took it seriously. A lot of the folks I used to work for had this kind of attitude (dare I call it a “complex”?), they’d set the goal with no idea at all how it might be accomplished. They considered themselves “leaders” and it was up to the troops to figure out how to take the hill, they were above that kind of thing.
In truth, they weren’t qualified to figure out how to take the hill and they hoped with all the power at their disposal no one would figure that out. My guess is they spent long nights shivering under the sheets in absolute panic.
For a long time it irritated me, then I understood it for what it was and started to ignore it. I never got so desperate I emulated it though and that’s something I’m proud of. But in the spirit of Ms. Bows-Larkin I’m going to break my rule and offer my solution to the problem:
All we need to do is move the planet another 10 million miles from the Sun. Problem solved.
Get on it folks. Times a wastin’. We’re burnin’ daylight here! Shake off the stink! Daylight in the swamp! Get movn’!
Hmmm,,, do we need to take the moon with us?
michael
S
They are counting on people not caring and/or being distracted as they execute. The goal has very little to do with CAGW and mostly to do with shifting wealth. They may be empty suits, but they are executing for other empty suits.
The current and most damaging effect is that capital that should be directed towards more pressing problems is being diverted to fake ones. And, at a time when the record long economic cycle is petering out, we may be waltzing towards a time when we will hear ourselves say … I wish we hadn’t wasted our capital on unicorns and fairies.
“Bills are getting tough to pay” … they are already at this point since the green ‘useful idiots’ have ensured our electricity prices are increasing due to renewable energy targets (taxes). such taxes cascade through the economy and multiply in every single product and service produced and delivered. It’s now time for revolt. We cannot let these morons have any more say. I was prepared to let them have their say but now I reckon we turn the censorship tables on the green leftist communist twits and arrest them all and stick them in jail to prevent further destruction of the western world.
I always thought that TED talks were great talks from great people. How wrong am I ?
The greatness is in the eye of a beholder.
I have just noticed an interesting post on the JoNova site with details of a report by the French Society of Mathematicians which is very scathing about the current IPCC policy recommendations .
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/french-society-of-mathematicians-global-warming-crusade-is-aburd-and-pointless/#more-46126
Since the society is involved with modelling their report
http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf
(in English) may be an antidote to some of the opinions expressed by the modeller Dr Bows-Larkin.
I have only just down loaded it so have not had time to read it in detail (and almost certainly not the competence to judge it) but the pictures look interesting , especially when concerned with adjustments, or corrections, to temperature data.
mikewaite I took the liberty of adding your post to Tips and Notes.
michael
The problem with self-declared debate wins like settled climate catastrophe science is that it leads further off the rails and further from any fact checking.
Alan Penn on October 25, 2015 at 11:25 am
” If you can’t afford a windmill, form a corporations and solicit share buyers. We’ll see how far you get.”
…
Do you mean something like this?…. http://www.albertawindenergy.net/
LOL. When I first read the post above by Alan Penn I thought he was a sceptic because the wind company he referenced is a loser. It has helped a load of investors divest themselves of cash. They would have been better off keeping it under the mattress. It is one of those “someday” companies. IKEA bought out one of their projects. Guess they can make furniture out of recycled turbine blades. 😉
[Reply: “Alan Penn” is a fake sockpuppet name for a repeatedly banned commenter. ~mod.]
Oh dear, how sad. There’s nothing for it, Europe and the UK will have to round up all those middle eastern migrants and ship them home quickly if they’re going to have to reduce their “emissions” by the “required” extent..
Curious about her credentials. Her bio posted above somewhere says she is a Dr. She did her PhD in climate modeling at Imperial College, trained in astrophysics. When I click on PhD researchers on the right, she is not listed there. On a linked-in site she is listed as a PhD in Philosophy, Atmospheric Physics (no degree?). Physics with Astrophysics, First Class. Is there anything there that really qualifies her for anything?