But don’t say that this is a political movement, because this is totally about “science”! Here’s Warmist Prof. Alice Bows-Larkin (video here) (via Climate Depot)
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.
Interesting. Leftists have been telling us “austerity” is a Bad Thing, from the tiny itty bitty “austerity” implemented via Mr. Obama’s sequestration to asking Greece to live within their means, well, at least the means of all the loans (that don’t get repaid) provided for them. But, hey, for ‘climate change’? Austerity for all!
This is a really difficult message to take, because what it suggests is that we really need to do things differently. This is not about just incremental change. This is about doing things differently, about whole system change, and sometimes it’s about doing less things. And this applies to all of us, whatever sphere of influence we have. So it could be from writing to our local politician to talking to our boss at work or being the boss at work, or talking with our friends and family, or, quite simply, changing our lifestyles. Because we really need to make significant change. At the moment, we’re choosing a four-degree scenario. If we really want to avoid the two-degree scenario, there really is no time like the present to act.
She’s not just talking about changing lifestyles (which Warmists rarely do for themselves), but changing the whole economic system. To what, you ask? She won’t quite say, because that would give the game away. She and Kevin Anderson have called for “de-growth” in 1st world nations. Naomi Klein, who has advocated for a complete economic change to a socialist system, cites the Anderson/Bows-Larkin paper. So does Socialist Climate and Capitalism. As do other Socialists and Progressive sites. Surprise?
So, who is Dr Alice Bows-Larkin? She’s a professor at the University of Manchester, and is, one would guess, very secure in her job. (Tenure as in the United States does not really exist in the United Kingdom.) The obvious question has to be: if we do use the power of government to enforce a “de-growth” economy — something other people would call a recession, if not a depression — just who will pay the price? Wlll it be Dr Bows-Larkin?
Well, probably not. Oh, she might have to have afternoon tea in less expensive china, but what are the odds that she’d be one of the ones who lost his job?
We have just had a recession, and it has been followed by a period of slower-than-normal growth. The official unemployment rate is down, but that’s only because so many people have left the workforce. Wages and salaries have remained stagnant, and for many people have not kept up with even the (purportedly) low inflation rate. People are simply a bit poorer than they were.
Well, if we have a long-term, government-enforced recession, just how are people going to eat? Our welfare rolls skyrocketed during the recession, and haven’t really come back down, and all of the money to feed and house all of the people Dr Bows-Larkin wants to throw out of work has to come from somewhere.
The left simply do not think things through.
In 2012 USA. Carbon pollution footprint was the lowest in 18 years
Thanks Dana!! Thanks Teach
This has happened while our population has increased by 40 million
Teach typed:
No. No, she did not. What she DID say was that heavily polluting nations need to immediately cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 8-10% per annum to meet the “no more than 2C rise in mean global temperature”. This is still being debated. She also said this would require a reduction in carbon fuel demand, not just supply. Is she correct? I don’t know, nor do you.
One concept she discussed that I really hadn’t considered was the cumulative effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide was what was important. Recall she talked about the area-under-the-curve (AUC) of the time vs CO2 emissions curve being more relevant than just the point in time concentration of CO2.
Thanks, John, for proving our point. All that took place without any carbon tax! How did that happen? Must be magic. Could fracking have had anything to do with it? Must be all those people driving their Prius. I’ve been told that that’s a car.