Given the magnitude of the challenge and the pace of action, it would not be too strong a conclusion to suggest that the Climate Change Act has failed even before it has gotten started.But apparently there is one policy option that I failed to consider: planned economic recession. From the UK Telegraph:
Planned recession. That is sure going to help sell action on climate change.At the moment the UK is committed to cutting greenhouse gases by a third by 2020.
However a new report from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research said these targets are inadequate to keep global warming below two degrees C above pre-industrial levels.
This would mean reducing the size of the economy through a "planned recession".
Kevin Anderson, director of the research body, said the building of new airports, petrol cars and dirty coal-fired power stations will have to be halted in the UK until new technology provides an alternative to burning fossil fuels.
9 comments:
What would happen if we did nothing to reduce man-made carbon dioxide emissions for the next twenty years except to modestly fund climate related research projects? What is going to occur in the future that is so catastrophic it necessitates the need for a long-term recession now?
Well Roger. At least it is honest.
While everyone else talks about abstract issues such as "reducing carbon intensity", the truth is that for the next couple of decades at least we either:
a) continue to increase the concetrtation of CO2 in the atmosphere, or
b) forgo a significant amount of income (and allt eh things that currently buys us including the warm fuzzy things like health care, education and social welfare).
I want more of this type of reporting because this is the nub of the political choice people need to make.
You may say you believe the "science". But given any material mititgation policies will mean these types of outcomes, how sure are you of the projections for climate produced catastrophic consequences?
I'd like to alert you to the fact that France seem to be showing the correct way to do things again. Here we have implemented a small carbon tax (18 euros per tonne), which isn't really noticeable. Crucially though - no cap and trade nonsense.
But more importantly there is now a zero interest loan available for insulation and geothermal heating. And more and more of these companies are springing up. I got a quote the other day of 10,000 euros for a 200m2 house - payback will take 4 years. Thus it will save em money and reduce my carbon footprint to virtually nil.
Now while that zero-percent loan has clearly stimulated green jobs it is not even a significant subsidy because the interest rate is near zero just now anyway. So this isn't difficult at all. All we need to decarbonize is to be given an alternative that actually saves us money. Now ok not everyone can be CO2 free in electricity but surely removing 80% of our home fuel burning must make a difference to the grid. And all that spare electricity will be used here to run the new generation of electric cars which Renault just developed. But of course you can even buy now a high-powered Jaguar that gets 50 mpg. Other diesels now get 60 or even 70mpg (see Top Gear on youtube for Basle to Blackpool on one tank of fuel).
Bottom line is that there isn't a need for either a debate on the merits of the science or of cap and trade (I personally think they both stink) but it is possible for everyone to make significant fuel/CO2 reductions - and save money - rather than sitting on the sofa whining that the government needs to do it (lefties) or that it's going to be an economic disaster (righties).
Yes Roger, Britain has cornered the market in fantasy politics.
How it works is that the government proposes an 80% reduction in Co2 by 2020. The following month a new runway for Heathrow is announced along with two coal fired power stations at Kingsnorth. Environmentalists burst into flames of righteous indignation (while offsetting the resultant emmissions).
I have suggested a three day working week and am hopeful of a positive response.
I changed my name to eric144, someone else is using Eric.
Off topic but following on from the article
Britain is good with recessions. Despite Prime Minister Brown blaming the global recession on local American problems, it was the British government that ulitimately brought down Lehman Brothers and caused the global recession.
Eventually Paulson called Lehman and declared that the British government was not prepared to let Barclays continue with the transaction, explains Cohen.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/6143297/Lehman-Brothers-the-bank-that-bust-the-boom.html
The other gigantic ($150 billlion) crash AIG was caused by their cds operation, run out of - London.
AIG trail leads to London 'casino'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3225213/AIG-trail-leads-to-London-casino.html
jgdes-
Your statement "All we need to decarbonize is to be given an alternative that actually saves us money" should be chanted as a background (or invoked, prayerlike, prior to?) to all climate policy debates, especially with regard to the ones in Congress right now. In my view.
I believe that MONEY = ENERGY. The global economy will use as much energy as it can afford. If I save some money through efficiency or conservation initiatives, I'll spend that money on something, and that something uses energy. Therefore the only way to cut carbon emissions is to convert to carbon-neutral energy sources - or shrink the economy, planned or not.
It is the old bait and switch. They promise a recession and will deliver a depression.
jgdes (3): "All we need to decarbonize is to be given an alternative that actually saves us money"
wcbluer (7): "I believe that MONEY = ENERGY. The global economy will use as much energy as it can afford. If I save some money through efficiency or conservation initiatives, I'll spend that money on something, and that something uses energy. Therefore the only way to cut carbon emissions is to convert to carbon-neutral energy sources..."
Yes, but see the first quote. Those "carbon-neutral energy sources" need to cost LESS than the existing sources, or else people will not voluntarily switch.
Post a Comment