'Eonomic growth cannot continue'

Thucydides

Granted this is technical speaking economics forum material, but due to its potential effect on all of us, I thought it prudent to post in AH.

Have a glance at the BBC article here -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8478770.stm

NothingMan

Hey, if the planet has to end up destroyed a few million years earlier just so I can get a pay rise again then so be it.

bluto63

wrote:

Continuing global economic growth "is not possible" if nations are to tackle climate change, a report by an environmental think-thank has warned.

The New Economics Foundation (Nef) said "unprecedented and probably impossible" carbon reductions would be needed to hold temperature rises below 2C (3.6F).

Scientists say exceeding this limit could lead to dangerous global warming.

"We urgently need to change our economy to live within its environmental budget," said Nef's policy director.

Andrew Simms added: "There is no global, environmental central bank to bail us out if we become ecologically bankrupt."

None of the existing models or policies could "square the circle" of economic growth with climate safety, Nef added.

'No magic bullets'

In the report, Growth Isn't Possible, the authors looked at the main models for climate change and energy use in the global economy.

Magic bullets - such as carbon capture and storage, nuclear or even geo-engineering - are potentially dangerous distractions
Dr Victoria Johnson,
Report's co-author

They then considered whether economic growth could be maintained while "retaining a good likelihood" of limiting the global average temperature to within 2C of pre-industrial levels.

The report concluded that a growth rate of just 3%, the "carbon intensity" of the global economy would need to fall by 95% by 2050 from 2002 levels. This would require an average annual reduction of 6.5%.

However, the authors said that the world's carbon intensity had "flatlined" between 2000 and 2007.

"For each year the target was missed, the necessary improvements would grow higher still," they observed.

The findings also suggested that there was no proven technological advance that would allow "business as usual" to continue.

"Magic bullets - such as carbon capture and storage, nuclear or even geo-engineering - are potentially dangerous distractions from more human-scale solutions," said co-author Victoria Johnson, Nef's lead researcher for the climate change and energy programme.

She added that there was growing support for community-scale projects, such as decentralised energy systems, but support from governments was needed.

"At the moment, magic bullets... are getting much of the funding and political attention, but are missing the targets," Dr Johnson said.

"Our research shows that to prevent runaway climate change, this needs to change."

The report concluded that an economy that respected environmental thresholds, which include biodiversity and the finite availability of natural resources, would be better placed to deliver human well-being in the long run.

.

Forest Master

"think-thank"?

phantom_lord

bit of a misleading thread title imo

ScumLord

The modern world is a joke and will go down in history as such.

It's cheaper to ship food from the other side of the planet than it is to grow it down the road in what's probably better land. Wages shouldn't come into it that's ridiculous.

Our economy is set up to promote the manufacturing of inferior products guaranteed fail over robust products.

To make things fairer in the EU we took local waters away from local fishermen and gave it to other fleets that are bulldozing their way through the worlds fish stocks. We'll be literally out of fish by 2060 by all accounts.

The list goes on, but I think the only way we'll learn is for it all to collapse.

mikom

Andrew Simms added: "There is no global, environmental central bank to bail us out if we become ecologically bankrupt."

Hi, Andrew Simms here.
You may remember me from such TV shows as as Life on Mars or Dr. Who.
However, I am here today to teach you some basic management speak.
Now repeat after me.......

Magic bullets
Business as usual
Flatlined
Square the circle

phantom_lord

while i have complete disdain for that type of group, i actually thought was a nice little sound bite he had there.

cleremy jarkson

Sure it would seem obvious that the excellent standards of living we currently enjoy are extremely abnormal. The earth only has so many resources to distribute amongst an ever growing population demanding these resources.
Don't have kids, you're only adding fuel to the future fire of mass starvation. We live in a golden age and things will eventually get very much worse. Only a very very small percentage of all humans to have ever lived, ourselves included, have not had to worry greatly about where their next meal is coming from; APPRECIATE THIS FACT.

pickarooney

cleremy jarkson wrote: »

Don't have kids, you're only adding fuel to the future fire of mass starvation.

So instead we should ensure the species is eradicated within a century? That's some mighty fine thinking.

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

The modern world is a joke and will go down in history as such.

It's cheaper to ship food from the other side of the planet than it is to grow it down the road in what's probably better land. Wages shouldn't come into it that's ridiculous.

Actually wages DO come into it and its the exact reason we ship things from the other side of the world. Nobody want to accept a pay cut and therein lies the problem.

TheZohanS

Moved to Green Issues

ScumLord

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually wages DO come into it and its the exact reason we ship things from the other side of the world. Nobody want to accept a pay cut and therein lies the problem.

It's a system that's been mangled to make that happen, it should not be cheaper and isn't really to ship food from the other side of the planet. A systems been developed that makes it seem cheaper. People in Africa starve while the food they produce is sent to use, then we send them back other food as aid. It's madness!

cleremy jarkson

pickarooney wrote: »

So instead we should ensure the species is eradicated within a century? That's some mighty fine thinking.

Yeah? Me and you will be dead, why should we care? Also, to say that you "want the human race to live on" is just selfish, because it is more than likely that the standard of living and peace of mind that our generation enjoys will be greater than that experienced by people in 100 years time. Resources are running out.

Cunsiderthis

ScumLord wrote: »

... it should not be cheaper and isn't really to ship food from the other side of the planet...

STOP THE WORLD _ Scumlord wants to get off!!

Unfortunately with our minimum wage of nearly €9 per hour, it's often cheaper to produce high labour intensive goods elsewhere and ship'em to ireland.

Thats a fact, it's CHEAPER!! That's why we do it!

ScumLord

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

STOP THE WORLD _ Scumlord wants to get off!!

Unfortunately with our minimum wage of nearly €9 per hour, it's often cheaper to produce high labour intensive goods elsewhere and ship'em to ireland.

Thats a fact, it's CHEAPER!! That's why we do it!

It should not be cheaper,
It takes more people, it requires more machinery and requires more resources like fuel to produce and transport.

It's no different than the over inflated housing market, it's a false economy created by bankers and corporations. It's only cheap on paper in real world resources that we all need it's way more expensive.

Cheeble

ScumLord wrote: »

....It's no different than the over inflated housing market, it's a false economy created by bankers and corporations.

Are the people who borrowed the money to buy the houses at the over inflated prices completely absolved of any complicity? Likewise those who buy the well travelled foodstuffs from the supermarket shelf?

Cheeble-eers

Highly Salami

Cheeble wrote: »

Are the people who borrowed the money to buy the houses at the over inflated prices completely absolved of any complicity? Likewise those who buy the well travelled foodstuffs from the supermarket shelf?

Cheeble-eers

Its human nature to want to own the roof over someones head. If you wanted to buy a house for less than the market price during the boom you couldn't, because there was always someone else who was prepared to pay the market price.

As for food, people HAVE to buy food and eat it regularly, otherwise they starve! Jeez! Whatever silly argument can be made for people delaying the purchase of a home, people cant put off eating!

Cheeble

Highly Salami wrote: »

Whatever silly argument can be made for people delaying the purchase of a home.....

I'd be astonished to learn that there were many people who thought that delaying the purchase of a home from the over-inflated peak had turned out to be a silly idea.

Cheeble-eers

Cunsiderthis

ScumLord wrote: »

It should not be cheaper,
It takes more people, it requires more machinery and requires more resources like fuel to produce and transport.

Coulda shoulda woulda.

The fact is many goods are far cheaper for us to import, as the minimum wage here, coupled with high taxes and levies and national insurance, means that its far more expensive for us to, for example, produce agricultural produce, garments, motor cars, shoes and so on, than it is to produce them abroad and import them.

You are right, it shouldn't be. But it is!

djpbarry

Hmm. Not really seeing this developing into a 'Green Issue' - I think it might be more at home in the Economics forum.

nesf

Nef, meh.

Flamed Diving

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

I think it might be more at home in the Economics forum.

Whoops.

Time Magazine

djpbarry wrote: »

Whoops.

Nesf is a gob****e, don't mind him

Flamed Diving's pic is of Thomas Malthus, who famously predicted that we'd all die of starvation eventually. He was a bit of a prick, that fella.

Not really. He said population grows exponentially whereas food supply is limited by the finite land resources at our disposal, so that there's a natural limit to how rich we can get.

He has so far been proven to be almost completely wrong.

Flamed Diving's point is, I presume, that these debates have been had for hundreds of years yet still the benefits to society afforded by increases in technology have so far outstripped the wildest dreams of the greatest idealists.

Gary L

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

STOP THE WORLD _ Scumlord wants to get off!!

Unfortunately with our minimum wage of nearly €9 per hour, it's often cheaper to produce high labour intensive goods elsewhere and ship'em to ireland.

Thats a fact, it's CHEAPER!! That's why we do it!

Fact is a very strong word. Because of our economic system, Radically illogical production and distribution of resources takes place. If an alternative solution is feasible then its not just a fact of life it's something to be thought about objectively and managed properly.

Is there some way that we could produce enough food for everyone without living standards anywhere falling? Can we sensibly manage and sustain production while also sustaining the world? Off topic but is it possible to have top quality universal life long education everywhere without anyone being harmed by it?

If these are legitimate achievable goals if even with a small possibility then economists have a duty to give them some honest consideration.

Also,Time, Is it your belief that advances in science and engineering, technology, food production and the raising of living standards would cease without our current economic system?

Time Magazine

Gary L wrote: »

Fact is a very strong word.

Agreed.

Because of our economic system, Radically illogical production and distribution of resources takes place.

How serious do you want to get about this thread?

You talk about logical distribution of resources. What's a logical distribution? I am not for one second suggesting that the outcome of the distribution of world income is fair, but that's not me attacking the logic of things.

If an alternative solution is feasible then its not just a fact of life it's something to be thought about objectively and managed properly.

Again, as above, you're quick to dismiss Cunsiderthis' comment as too sure of itself, but "managed properly" isn't exactly well defined.

Is there some way that we could produce enough food for everyone without living standards anywhere falling?

Yes, technological improvements.

Can we sensibly manage and sustain production while also sustaining the world?

Yes. We already grow produce too much food.

Off topic but is it possible to have top quality universal life long education everywhere without anyone being harmed by it?

Very OT, I suggest we steer clear.

If these are legitimate achievable goals if even with a small possibility then economists have a duty to give them some honest consideration.

What makes you think that they're not considered?

Also,Time, Is it your belief that advances in science and engineering, technology, food production and the raising of living standards would cease without our current economic system?

You need to propose what the alternative is before I can answer that.

hobochris

Continuing global economic growth "is not possible" if nations are to tackle climate change, a report by an environmental think-tank has warned.

Hasn't evidence been presented recently that proves climate change is a hoax, preached by scientists trying to keep themselves in a job.

So on that basis the point of this article is moot.

Time Magazine

hobochris wrote: »

Hasn't evidence been presented recently that proves climate change is a hoax

No.

Flamed Diving

hobochris wrote: »

Hasn't evidence been presented recently that proves climate change is a hoax, preached by scientists trying to keep themselves in a job.

So on that basis the point of this article is moot.

You really need to invest time into learning what proof actually means.

Gary L

The line about stopping the world set me off I apologize. I struggle with the idea of 'the reality of the world'. As one person, its impossible for me to know anything for sure outside my own personal experience. Everything that I know, think and believe about greater human society comes from other people and different media.

It's an obvious point but the fact is I cant be sure of how the world works. Sure I can be relatively certain based on evidence and so act and think accordingly, but I'm basing my opinions on second hand information. This calls for a degree of detachment from stern ideas about society doesn't it? When I talk about logic I really mean the ability to probe and question ones own ideas and beliefs with questions.

Serious questions about Capitalisms effect on human society exist. I would like you people to consider them please.

Flamed Diving

Who are these 'you people'?

Gary L

Whoever is reading it. Any other thoughts?

Flamed Diving

Gary L wrote: »

Whoever is reading it. Any other thoughts?

No.

Anonymous1987

hobochris wrote: »

Hasn't evidence been presented recently that proves climate change is a hoax, preached by scientists trying to keep themselves in a job.

So on that basis the point of this article is moot.

One single case of manipulated data is nothing to go by. There are a lot of interested parties out there that would like governments to forget about climate change.