Denialists tell us to despair: solving Global Warming will make dire global poverty worse, because we can't afford enough clean energy to make the poor prosperous. Economist William Nordhaus has said otherwise, and now we have the data. Nobel Prize winner and Yale Professor Nordhaus won the prize for integrating climate change into long-run macroeconomic analysis.
Actually, going over to cheaper renewables, EVs, and so on is one of the best things we can do for the poor. But that does not mean telling them to buy gas guzzling cars, or running diesel buses in their cities, or using oil for heating, as many of the Denialists claim they must.
The lying, black-hearted Denialists also claim that we can't ask the rich to cut back on their lifestyles of wretched excess/conspicuous consumption, and more generally that nobody can afford to go over to cheaper renewable energy, sustainable buildings, and electric vehicles and so on. So we should throw up our hands.
This New Yorker article took on this virulent form of bogosity earlier this year.
The False Choice Between Economic Growth and Combatting Climate Change
In 1974, the economist William Nordhaus described the transition from a “cowboy economy” to a “spaceship economy.” In the former, he wrote, “we could afford to use our resources profligately,” and “the environment could be used as a sink without becoming fouled.” But, in the spaceship economy, “great attention must be paid to the sources of life and to the dumps where our refuse is piled.” He added, “Things which have traditionally been treated as free goods—air, water, quiet, natural beauty—must now be treated with the same care as other scarce goods.” Toward the end of his landmark paper, “Resources as a Constraint on Growth,” Nordhaus discussed the possible adverse effects of energy consumption, most notably the “greenhouse effect.”
Nordhaus went on to publish a series of foundational studies on the economics of climate change. In 1992, he created an integrated economic and scientific model that could be used to determine the most efficient ways to cut greenhouse-gas emissions. His work—and that of many other economists who followed his lead—showed that a low tax on carbon, set to rise slowly over time, could be enough to keep emissions at reasonable levels, saving us from climate change at little, if any, cost. A “spaceship economy” could thrive if governments made sure that companies paid an appropriate price for the environmental damage they caused—what would come to be called the social cost of carbon.
I will have much more to say on Nordhaus's idea next Friday, when I discuss H. R. 763, The Energy Innovation Carbon Dividend Act promoted by the Citizens Climate Lobby. You can get a start on the basic idea here.
William Nordhaus and why he won the Nobel Prize in economics
Facts are Stubborn Things
How much energy do we really need?
Researchers have been grappling with the question of how much energy societies actually need to satisfy everyone's most basic needs for many years, but as global scenarios of climate stabilization assume strong reductions in energy demand growth in the face of the climate crisis—especially in developing countries—finding an answer is becoming crucial. In their study published in the journal Nature Energy, IIASA researchers attempted to find out whether meeting everyone's most basic human needs is in fact an impediment for stabilizing climate change.
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis: Energy requirements for decent living in India, Brazil and South Africa, Nature Energy (2019). DOI: 10.1038/s41560-019-0497-9
For over 30 years, researchers have tried to estimate how much energy societies require to provide for everyone’s basic needs. This question gains importance with climate change, because global scenarios of climate stabilization assume strong reductions in energy demand growth in developing countries. Here, we estimate bottom-up the energy embodied in the material underpinnings of decent living standards for India, Brazil and South Africa. We find that our estimates fall within these countries’ energy demand projections in global scenarios of climate stabilization at 2 °C, but to different extents. Further, national policies that encourage public transportation and sustainable housing construction will be critical to reduce these energy needs.
Why providing the necessary energy to end poverty need not cost the Earth
Dr. Narasimha Rao, assistant professor of energy systems at Yale University in the United States, has found it is possible to increase access to the essentials for what can be termed a 'decent life," without sharp rises in emissions.
His checklist for a decent standard of living includes a safe and uncrowded home, nutritious meals, clean stoves, access to water and sanitation, basic household appliances, primary education, healthcare and public transit.
By gathering data on the energy needed for these essentials around the world, he and his colleagues in the DecentLivingEnergy project aimed to identify ways for developing countries to provide the energy needed to eradicate poverty without accelerating climate change. A crucial step was to quantify how much energy is needed to provide decent living standards and to assess their contributions to greenhouse gas emissions.
The 35 countries cutting the link between economic growth and emissions
Is it possible to reduce emissions while growing the economy? This is a major question for policymakers hoping to combat climate change.
Historically, emissions have increased as the global economy has developed. More people have access to electricity and transport in richer countries. In many cases, development has also been associated with an increase in carbon-intensive industrial activity.
This has led to a debate often conducted on ideological grounds.
Some, including scientist Kevin Anderson and author Naomi Klein, argue against certain types of economic growth in the interests of shrinking emissions.
But in a world where 836m people still live in extreme poverty, and people in the developed world enjoy all the benefits that a large economy brings, shrinking the economy in the name of climate change is a tough political sell.
Denialism isn't the only problem we have with this question. Naomi Klein and Kevin Anderson understand many of the problem of unfettered capitalism. They do not understand the fundamental economics and technology of Global Warming that we have been examining in this series.
Klein: 'The Economic System We Have Created Global Warming'
Anderson: Avoiding dangerous climate change demands de-growth strategies from wealthier nations
Here are the counterexamples to this supposition, the countries that have cut CO2 or kept it level, while growing their economies. Note that they include rich and poor countries, countries of all sizes, and countries everywhere in the world. So the other countries have no excuses.
|
Country |
Change in CO2, millions of tonnes |
Change in CO2, % |
Change in real GDP, % |
Change in CO2 intensity, % |
1 |
Macao |
-0.4 |
-23.2% |
345.0% |
-83% |
2 |
Singapore |
-22.4 |
-45.7% |
107.5% |
-74% |
3 |
Uzbekistan |
-0.1 |
-0.1% |
168.4% |
-63% |
4 |
Ukraine |
-101.4 |
-31.6% |
49.5% |
-54% |
5 |
Slovak Republic |
-6.6 |
-18.5% |
74.6% |
-53% |
6 |
Macedonia |
-3.7 |
-30.5% |
45.5% |
-52% |
7 |
Romania |
-19 |
-21.1% |
65.3% |
-52% |
8 |
Suriname |
-0.2 |
-9.6% |
84.8% |
-51% |
9 |
Belize |
-0.1 |
-19.2% |
64.1% |
-51% |
10 |
Burundi |
-0.1 |
-17.4% |
64.6% |
-50% |
11 |
Lithuania |
-0.2 |
-1.7% |
79.7% |
-45% |
12 |
Hungary |
-15.2 |
-27.3% |
29.0% |
-44% |
13 |
Ireland |
-6.4 |
-15.6% |
47.4% |
-43% |
14 |
Czech Republic |
-24.2 |
-19.5% |
40.1% |
-43% |
15 |
Iceland |
-0.4 |
-17.5% |
42.7% |
-42% |
16 |
UK |
-128.3 |
-23.7% |
27.1% |
-40% |
17 |
Bulgaria |
-1.2 |
-2.7% |
61.7% |
-40% |
18 |
Poland |
-1.6 |
-0.5% |
62.6% |
-39% |
19 |
Denmark |
-16.7 |
-32.6% |
8.3% |
-38% |
20 |
Spain |
-61.2 |
-20.8% |
19.7% |
-34% |
21 |
Belgium |
-22.2 |
-19.3% |
21.1% |
-33% |
22 |
Canada |
-49.8 |
-9.3% |
32.4% |
-32% |
23 |
Jamaica |
-2.6 |
-24.8% |
9.4% |
-31% |
24 |
Cote d'Ivoire |
-0.1 |
-1.4% |
40.0% |
-30% |
25 |
Switzerland |
-3.6 |
-9.3% |
28.3% |
-29% |
26 |
US |
-414.9 |
-7.3% |
28.1% |
-28% |
27 |
France |
-53 |
-14.6% |
16.3% |
-27% |
28 |
Portugal |
-15.8 |
-25.1% |
1.2% |
-26% |
29 |
Finland |
-6.5 |
-12.4% |
17.8% |
-26% |
30 |
Germany |
-113.8 |
-13.7% |
16.0% |
-26% |
31 |
Sweden |
-0.2 |
-0.5% |
30.6% |
-24% |
32 |
Austria |
-3.2 |
-5.1% |
21.1% |
-22% |
33 |
Croatia |
-0.5 |
-2.6% |
22.6% |
-21% |
34 |
Netherlands |
-13.9 |
-8.4% |
15.1% |
-20% |
35 |
Japan |
0 |
0.0% |
10.9% |
-10% |
COP25, suddenly relocated from Chile to Spain recently,
Renewable Friday: COP25 Uproar
will take up these questions in a few weeks. Many countries have already gathered to share lessons learned and current best practices in Costa Rica, and many cities have done so in Copenhagen, Denmark, where AOC wowed the crowd.