The great Copenhagen climate summit is now well underway and many people seem to be making encouraging noises. But at the same time, there seems to be a huge and growing amount of scepticism around. Such is our suspicion of politicians and opinion formers these days, that if they all seem to agree on one thing, then they simply MUST be wrong, or so the thinking goes.
For me, the worry isn’t about
• whether or not climate change is happening (it surely is),
• nor whether it is caused by our carbon emissions (it surely is – I’ve not been in any doubt since I first saw the ice core readings a few years back, I think that’s what clinched it for me. You can stick sunspots up your arse)
• nor how serious it may be (Bjorn Lomborg is beginning to sound more and more shrill, or maybe he’s just annoying because he is so smug)
• but just what the hell are we really going to do about it.
Yesterday, I heard Ed Miliband, our climate change minister, being interviewed on Radio 5 by Simon Mayo. He was game for a few questions and one enterprising listener in Japan asked the population question. Like “if we can’t cope now, how are we going to cope with 3 billion extra people on board?” And Milliband minor answered thus: “By 2050, our economies will be six or seven times larger than they are now, and so we must ensure that all that growth is low or zero carbon growth.”
I took a proverbial double take. Six or seven times bigger than 2010? That assumes something like a 10% annual growth rate every year for 40 years. And yet carbon emissions are due to fall by 80% by that time. Just how is that going to work?
Historically, economic growth has been fuelled by carbon – almost every innovation we come up with involves substituting machines for human labour, which involves burning carbon somewhere along the line. Now we may be able to make machines which are less carbon intensive, but do you really think we will be able to get to zero carbon by 2050 whilst at the same time expanding the world economy by six or seven times? It seems staggeringly unlikely, given the state of the technologies we have available right now.
Then someone else popped the 3rd runway at Heathrow question. And this is what Miliband said: “It’s not inconsistent to support a 3rd runway because it is within a framework of holding our emissions by 2050 at current levels. I don’t think it’s realistic to freeze the amount of flying. We just have to have bigger cuts in other areas. Flying is going to become more expensive, but we can’t cut back on it or freeze it.”
Why exactly should flying be a special case? No sensible explanation was proffered. Why not driving cars? Or having copious supplies of hot water? Or eating meat? Or keeping pets? We are, by implication, going to have to cut right back on these so that we can keep flying.
Or was this just a case of an intelligent man talking gobbledegook?
If we were really serious about the problem, it’s economic growth that we should be freezing, at least until we have sorted out our problem with burning carbon. But we can’t do this because:
a) the governments have mortgaged off our future and are now totally dependent on economic growth to pay the bills over the next 20 years. Without economic growth returning, we are all effectively bankrupt.
b) no one will vote for hairshirt policies anyway so its democratically unacceptable.
But the carbon problem won’t go away. If emissions still continue to rise onwards and upwards through the 21st century, then our way of life will be under threat, we will be bankrupt and we will get hairshirt whether we like it or not. The climate sceptics keep pointing out (in their more effusive moments) that this is all some sort of Commie-inspired conspiracy to bomb us back to the Stone Age. And they may well be right, except that I don’t think it’s a conspiracy nor Commie-inspired. It’s unfettered economic growth that has got us into this pickle, and to really change things around, it’s the model of endless economic growth that is what has to be challenged. Without some alternative model of how the 21st century might pan out for us all, it seems just a tad unlikely that we are going to really get to grips with this mess.
And of course the problem is that the poor nations don’t want to stay poor and the rich nations can’t afford to stay where they are. Something has to give sometime, before the climate comes along and whacks us one. At the moment, cap and trade is the only game in town, but it seems rather unlikely to succeed because it avoids the really difficult issues which isn’t just the huge amount of carbon we are burning, but the vast differences in how much each country burns.
I have no doubt that Copenhagen will end up with smiles and photo opportunities and platitudes, but the underlying politics are ugly and about to get a whole lot uglier.
The mistake being made is that all skeptics are equal.
ReplyDeleteThere are skeptics that believe it just isnt happening (there are alot of questionable stats).
Ones that believe it isnt man made and completely natural (why are there warmer periods with similar c02).
And people like me. Yea, carbon can increase temperatures by 1-2C,
but further warming is modeled on positive feedback (1-2c of warming = more water vapour = more warming), this however is questionable based on past climatic evidence, the computer models for this are not robust enough to be conclusive.
I don't really care that some areas might go under the sea, because overall on a gloval scale warmer weather is "a good thing". It would be cheaper and better to spend money on adapting to change than trying to stop it.
Nicely argued Mark.
ReplyDeleteHowever I do wish everyone would stop calling climate change deniers sceptics. I would hope the climate scientists who are convinced that manmade climate change is a serious reality are also sceptics in the true scientific method sense of that word.
Climate change is only one of the two huge emerging problems caused by our addiction to oil; the other one is that we are running out of the stuff and that the oil price has nowhere else to go than steeply up over the next 30-40 years. That in itself is a very substantial risk to our way of life, and in my opinion fully justifies harsh global measures, such as a carbon tax hike and strictly rationing the amount of carbon we digg out and pump up each year. Reducing our consumption of fossil carbon not only will reduce the risk of a climate catastrophe, but will also be an excellent preparation of our economies for the inevitable end of cheap oil.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, the one thing that is common to most sceptics (other than those who really don't care) is a failure to understand the science behind global warming... and / or the economics.
ReplyDeleteReading the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change might help (though Stern himself has since said that he underestimated the risks, the likely damage and the probabilities of temperature increases).
My understanding is that we need to get the population of the UK down to 30 million (labour government)to achieve a sustainable future.
ReplyDeleteTherefore the big issue is how were going to decide who lives and who dies in the UK.
Anyone got any thoughts?
"It would be cheaper and better to spend money on adapting to change than trying to stop it."
ReplyDeleteThis is basically the Lomborg line. I used to think it was coherent, at the very least, but the more you think about it, the sillier it gets. We are going to have to adapt anyway, so what you are effectively saying is "Do nothing, everything will take care of itself." What is this vain hope based on? Hoping the science is overstated and that things won't turn out too bad after all? Wouldn't that be nice...
"Anonymous, the one thing that is common to most sceptics (other than those who really don't care) is a failure to understand the science behind global warming... and / or the economics."
ReplyDeleteIn other words, do as Ed Miliband does.
Don't debate the science, just call the other side dumb/fooled/etc!
We are going to have to adapt anyway, so what you are effectively saying is "Do nothing, everything will take care of itself."
ReplyDeleteWTF? I said "spend money on adapting" how do you take that to mean "we are going to have to adapt anyway and you want us to do nothing".
I mean, cmon?
We can spend billions on trying to cut emmisions, cripple our econmy, throw money at 3rd world countries, and then fail to stop warming and be stuck with spending the money on adapting anyway, if we have any left that is.
This kind of tosh is what we will see if we ask our goverment for cuts.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/money-for-old-carbon.html
This is basically the Lomborg line. I used to think it was coherent, at the very least, but the more you think about it, the sillier it gets. We are going to have to adapt anyway, so what you are effectively saying is "Do nothing, everything will take care of itself." What is this vain hope based on? Hoping the science is overstated and that things won't turn out too bad after all? Wouldn't that be nice...
ReplyDeleteMark, The climate will change whether we eliminate man made C02 or not - it always has - and will always continue to do so. (Did you see Tony Robinson on C4 last night - very interesting)
Therefore whereas I agree we should reduce man made C02 the priority should be in adapting for sea level rises etc
"The climate will change whether we eliminate man made C02 or not - it always has - and will always continue to do so."
ReplyDeleteThat's as maybe, but the timescales are quite different - an ice age takes several thousand years to develop. Here we are talking about a similar shift in climate in the other direction within 100 to 200 years if we carry on Business as Usual (with a little bit of Adaptation).
That's as maybe, but the timescales are quite different - an ice age takes several thousand years to develop.
ReplyDeleteI thought the consensus was that shifts in climate happen in a short period of time
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427344.800-mini-ice-age-took-hold-of-europe-in-months.html
Just because economic growth (measured in money equivalent) has historically run approx proportional to fossil fuel and other resource use, it doesn't follow that it will continue to do so in future.
ReplyDeleteThe 70s Limits to Growth study that's been the underlying gospel ever since, is out of date. It said that because fossil fuel and other resource use cannot continue to expand indefinitely, so neither can economic growth. Economic growth thereby became synonymous with resource use - but it isn't, necessarily.
Economic growth can readily be accompanied by declining resource use - aka doing more with less. Enormous change in that direction has already happened in the developed world, since the 70s, in most branches of human activity - except the building industry. True, economic growth has so far outstripped 'doing more with less' - plus the developing world has got well into old-fashioned 'doing more with more'.
The past really isn't a guide to the future - the pressure to do more with less intensifies daily.
Huge quantum leaps are on the verge of happening - with the abandonment of the inherently inefficient IC engine in transport, and with the abandonment of fuel-burning to heat (and cool) buildings, replaced by solar heat (not NOT 'replaced by renewable energy').
What does zero economic growth mean? It means no worn-out anything gets replaced, no obsolete inefficient anything gets modernised - because every time some item gets paid for, that's 'economic growth'.
'Economic growth' equals 'human busy-ness' - it's what we do. I'ts been a terrible red herring, when the real point is not 'economic growth' but 'resource use growth'.
"Huge quantum leaps are on the verge of happening "
ReplyDeleteThey have been since i was a little nipper, and will probably still be when i am old and wrinkled.
Very eloquently put Mark.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the 'how we're going to do it angle' I work for BioRegional Development Group and we've just released our 'Capital Consumption Report' which outlines the type of changes that London would need to make in order to meet its emissions targets. Might be of interest to you.
www.bioregional.com/news-views/news/news-report-capital-consumption/
Cheers,
Tom
"What does zero economic growth mean? It means no worn-out anything gets replaced, no obsolete inefficient anything gets modernised - because every time some item gets paid for, that's 'economic growth'.
ReplyDelete'Economic growth' equals 'human busy-ness' - it's what we do. I'ts been a terrible red herring, when the real point is not 'economic growth' but 'resource use growth'."
I disagree. A zero growth policy doesn't mean that we shouldn't consume or do anything. It means that we shouldn't allow our consumption to continue to rise exponentially.
If this years GDP for the UK is $2.65 trillion then under a zero growth policy next years GDP would be $2.65 trillion as well. In a zero growth world we’d still be buying, consuming and replacing at the rate that we are today. The main difference is that, as a society, we wouldn’t continually increasing the rate at which we buy, consume and replace everything.
"What does zero economic growth mean? It means no worn-out anything gets replaced, no obsolete inefficient anything gets modernised - because every time some item gets paid for, that's 'economic growth'."
ReplyDeleteTom, I think you are confusing economic activity with economic growth. The problem we face is having to decarbonise activity as it stands now. Growth is making the problem worse.
Arguably, there is a case to distinguish smart growth from dumb growth. But in order to do so, every new activity should be subject to a carbon test. If it doesn't reduce it, then it shouldn't be permitted.
"But in order to do so, every new activity should be subject to a carbon test. If it doesn't reduce it, then it shouldn't be permitted."
ReplyDeleteUtterly gobsmaked that you would say something so utterly ****
Mark, OK I exagerated, for effect - "confusing economic activity with economic growth".
ReplyDeleteBut what about my main point - 'growth' doesn't inherently measure 'consumption of resources' - it's a money measure of 'value of finished product'.
Valuable product may indeed be greedy of resources, or it may use negligible resources, as in production of highly-valued computer programs, or anywhere in between. Valuable production could even use negative resources, as in carbon-negative building, if such exists.
So economic growth isn't the problem - it's resource-use. The two are no longer synonymous. No need to frighten ourselves with hair-shirty 'zero growth. Zero-growth enthusiasts actually relish what really do think it means - cessation of economic activity, just as I described.
But what about my main point - 'growth' doesn't inherently measure 'consumption of resources'
ReplyDeleteIn theory, you may be right, but in practice, economic growth is tied up with greater use of resources.
Take mobile phones as an example. Today's mobile phone uses about 30% less resources than ones made 10 years ago. That's good news. The problems is that there are three or four times as many in use. The net result is that mobile phones now use twice as many resources as they did 10 years ago. That's what growth of the market does to resources.
Aha! you confirm my point!
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to 'doing more with less', yes it's true that the 'doing more' still outweighs the 'with less' (plus the developing world is coming on with lots of old-fashioned 'doing more with more').
But in the west, the 'doing more' is increasingly decoupled from the 'with more', and every incentive encourages the 'with less'.
Credit where it's due - and agree that Buckminster Fuller was right!
I think investment in technology is better than regulation. The gov't can sponsor or give tax breaks for things like zero-emission or low-emission vehicles. More people will buy and use something if it is not just green but also has a lower TCO.
ReplyDelete"But in the west, the 'doing more' is increasingly decoupled from the 'with more', and every incentive encourages the 'with less'."
ReplyDeleteTom, if that's what you think, fine, but I think you are making the same assumption as Ed Milliband. I.E. Business as usual is fine with just a little bit of techno-fix to green us up. "Feed-in-Tarrif here, boiler replacement there, job done. Oh and still spare capacity for another runway!" If only it was that easy.
No, Mark, I've read for example Future Scenarios by David Holmgren.
ReplyDeleteMy mission is to take all the buildings of the world's temperate zones off fuel burning altogether, for heating and cooling.
That's 35% out of the 80% demand reduction we need to find, to replace fossil-resource-mining and nuclear, with renewables. Is that enough 'heasdroom' for one man/lifetime?!
Interesting that Mr Anonymous then turns into Mr Angry and ends up swearing. That always seems to happen.
ReplyDeleteHi Tom,
ReplyDelete"But in the west, the 'doing more' is increasingly decoupled from the 'with more', and every incentive encourages the 'with less'."
One concept that we commonly come across is the rebound effect. For example, when we ask people what they're likely to do with the money they've saved when we've insulated their houses for them they tell us that they'll probably take another foreign holiday.
Just look at the long term trends in the UK's Ecological Footprint; http://tinyurl.com/yb29ukp. Although we've reduced our CO2 emissions (largely by 'accident' when we closed down all the coal mines) our footprint has continued to rise.
Tim Jackson's Report in the New Scientist provides another good illustration of the challenges of seeking growth and sustainability at the same time - http://tinyurl.com/y8nnhus.
In a way I think your right. Banging on about 'limiting' economic growth may not be the best way to approach it. If we agreed that the UK needs to reduce its per capita ecological footprint by, say, 5% each year but that, within those terms, it can have a much economic growth as it likes then I think the problem would take care of itself. If your right we’d continue to have economic growth whilst getting more sustainable at the same time. Alternatively, if your wrong, we’d get more sustainable but economic activity would begin to stabalise.
fostertom said...
ReplyDelete"Valuable product may indeed be greedy of resources, or it may use negligible resources, as in production of highly-valued computer programs, or anywhere in between."
In many ways this comment illustrates just how easy it is to take for granted the machinery needed just to sustain our day-to-day westernised life.
Compare the resources consumed to sustain a lone computer programmer living in a fast-food, next-day delivery, first-world society, to an aspiring family working the land in China with intermittant electricity and unreliable water.
It's Maslow's pyramid; we're at the top; and there simply isn't enough resources to go round.
I know you were probably making a wider point but this mismatch of realities underpins all else in this debate (which is about resources, ultimately).
"Interesting that Mr Anonymous then turns into Mr Angry and ends up swearing. That always seems to happen."
ReplyDeleteWell it was in a response to a suggestion that would if enacted to the letter, completely halt any and all economic activity in the UK except for a few bio toilet roll companies.
I know comments have been dormant for a while but this blog post and the subsequent comments have been churning around in my mind for a bit.
ReplyDeleteI have however only just got round to reading Tim Jackson's report, very good, also a talk at the RCA
http://bit.ly/4OF9PC
Just ordered the book.
We will need all the decoupling and efficiency measures we can muster to simply carry on at current levels of activity never mind levelling things out a bit around the planet.
Anyone who says economic growth can be sustainable needs to do some basic maths. First you need to decide what level of growth and how long would count as sustainable?
Human civilisation has been around for say 40K years but I'd suggest a rather more modest timescale for any compound growth calculations!
Mark, have you given sustainable growth an Eco Bollocks Award?