Warmist Prof. Alice Bows-Larkin calls for ‘planned recessions’ to fight ‘global warming’: ‘Economic growth needs to be exchanged’ for ‘planned austerity’ – ‘Whole system change’
Another issue that we really need to grapple with is the issue of well-being and equity. There are many parts of the world where the standard of living needs to rise. But with energy systems currently reliant on fossil fuel, as those economies grow so will emissions. And now, if we’re all constrained by the same amount of carbon budget, that means that if some parts of the world’s emissions are needing to rise, then other parts of the world’s emissions need to reduce.
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.
Writing in Vox, Brad Plumer argues that saving the planet will require destroying the U.S. economy. From, “The Math on Staying Below 2 Degrees Global Warming Looks Increasingly Brutal:”
In the United States, the necessary cuts would require policies exponentially more ambitious than anything the Obama administration has been doing through the Environmental Protection Agency. Under an “equity” approach we’d need to go zero carbon by 2040 — just 25 years!
“Brutal” doesn’t describe it. We are talking economic destruction:
Climate scientist Kevin Anderson recently argued in Nature Geoscience that the only way we’ll stay below 2°C is if we either a) develop negative-emissions technology, or b) opt for negative economic growth. The math is too brutal otherwise.
Please run on that plank, Democrats! Let the people decide if we want to live in a permanent Great Depression.