Comments on: Growth isn’t possible, says New Economics Foundation report

By: Book review: The God Species, by Mark Lynas « Make Wealth History

Book review: The God Species, by Mark Lynas « Make Wealth History — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 07:02:01 +0000

[...] He believes in the technofix (his own word) and greater efficiency, but if you’ve seen the maths on how carbon efficiency needs to play over the next century, you’ll know the miracle Lynas is [...]

By: A steady state economy reading list « Make Wealth History

A steady state economy reading list « Make Wealth History — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:31:24 +0000

[...] Growth isn’t possible, New Economics Foundation [...]

By: Tomislav Nakic-Alfirevic

Tomislav Nakic-Alfirevic — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 23:30:13 +0000

Growth is powered by cheap available energy. In the case of the industrial revolution, the unfortunate circumstance is that we allowed 150+ years of use of this energy without charging anyone for the environmental impact. The other unfortunate impact is that our energy sources are being depleted rapidly (exponential rise in demand, something like the bell-curve in supply).

It would be wonderful if carbon capture would prove to be practical on a global scale and as affordable as it’s made up to be. However, growth is still not going to happen as the total amount of power (barrels/day, tonnes/day) can go nowhere but down. And the energy requirements of a global carbon capture system are only going to make it go down faster.

It’s obvious (to me) that what the world needs is a civilization willing to accept significant, world-war-like investments/expenses/collective effort to drastically improve our energy use efficiency and set up the sustainable energy infrastructure that will keep the lights on, power the CCS systems and might one day allow growth to continue…on grounds like knowledge (how to use the resources available better) rather than brute force (more resources).

By: Adam Smith Institute on the impossibility of growth « Beyond Growth

Adam Smith Institute on the impossibility of growth « Beyond Growth — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:37:53 +0000

[...] 10 tags: adam smith institute, nef by Jeremy The Adam Smith Institute responds to nef’s Growth Isn’t Possible report, in typically dogmatic fashion: The nef’s latest report exhibits a complete lack of [...]

By: A Blueprint for a Safer Planet, by Nicholas Stern « MAKE WEALTH HISTORY

A Blueprint for a Safer Planet, by Nicholas Stern « MAKE WEALTH HISTORY — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 10:55:11 +0000

[...] creating a new era of growth and prosperity.” Others maintain that this is a fantasy and that growth is impossible in the face of climate change. It’s an important debate – in fact it may be the key [...]

By: Jem Cooper

Jem Cooper — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:54:35 +0000

Jeremy,

Part of the point I was making in my first comment is that although today there are many transport and heating applications where carbon capture is impractical, most of these can and will switch to electricity which can be carbon free. My website at

http://jemsavestheplanet.blogspot.com/

explains how to make it happen. It proposes that fossil fuel producers should be obliged to pay for the capture of an increasing fraction of the carbon content of their products. The website also gives more detail on why this proposal would be easier for all countries to agree to than cap and trade or a carbon tax, how it would drive energy saving, renewables and nuclear, how it would be implemented and how it would stop global warming.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:24:10 +0000

Indeed, I appear to have read a few too many zeroes off the calculator there – sorry for casting aspersions on your science!

That definitely is worth paying to avoid climate change, if it can be made to work. The problem that nef’s report highlights is that you either need a 95% cut in carbon intensity by 2050, or you need to cut growth. Given that it can only be applied to certain industries, how much of that 95% can carbon capture deliver?

By: Jem Cooper

Jem Cooper — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:42:40 +0000

Jeremy,
When I was at school 50 times 531 million was 27 billion. Our GDP in 2008 was $2.65 trillion or 1.88 trillion euros at today’s exchange rate. I make that just 1.4% of GDP. Isn’t that worth paying to stop global warming? Or are bankers bonuses a better investment.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:51:02 +0000

Really? According to the DECC’s provisional figures, Britain was responsible for 531 million tonnes of CO2 in 2008. I know you wouldn’t cut every tonne through CCS, but just for argument’s sake: 50 euros x 531 million = approximately 10 times our entire GDP.

I’m aware I’m being simplistic, but so are those who portray CCS as a silver bullet answer. It’s a vital technology and I’m all for it, but it is one of dozens of things that we need to do.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:24:29 +0000

You would do well to look at history too: yes, there are cycles, but none of them have moved as fast as the climate has in the last fifty years. It’s taken thousands of years to move from a warm age to a cool age. We’ve managed to accelerate the process far beyond the natural cycles.

Doing what we can to get by in these tough times means tackling climate change, or the times ahead will be tougher still.