Softpedia
 

NEWS CATEGORIES:



NEWS ARCHIVE >>
SOFTPEDIA REVIEWS >>
MEET THE EDITORS >>
Home > News > Science > Sci Pry

January 25th, 2010, 20:01 GMT · By

Further Global Economic Growth Impossible

SHARE:

Adjust text size:


Paternoster Square is the home of the London Stock Exchange. A new NEF report shows that further economic growth is impossible without harming the environment extensively
Enlarge picture
A newly released report by the international think-tank New Economics Foundation (NEF) has revealed that the world has no chance of continuing its economic growth if the planet's climate is to have any chance of surviving. The document shows that the environmental bankruptcy of our planet is imminent, and also that it would take an “unprecedented and probably impossible” amount of carbon-dioxide reduction plans to keep global warming below two degrees Celsius by 2100, the BBC News reports.

“We urgently need to change our economy to live within its environmental budget. There is no global, environmental central bank to bail us out if we become ecologically bankrupt,” NEF's Policy Director, Andrew Simms, explains. Scientists with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have determined in a large number of studies that the temperature rise currently underway needs to be stopped before the two-degree-Celsius threshold is reached.
When this happens, they warn, the consequences of global warming, including rising sea levels, ice sheets melting, unpredictable and violent weather patterns, and desertification will spiral out of control.

In their work, the investigators looked at some of the advanced and complete climate models available today, and their predictions. Then they cross-referenced this data with prospective economic-growth plans, and sought to find out whether there was any chance of the two working together. They found out that this scenario was basically impossible to achieve. The team also determined that a three-percent global economic growth meant that the overall carbon intensity would need to decrease by as much as 95 percent. This reduction will have to be calculated in reference to 2002 levels, and will also need to take place by no later than 2050.

This means that, starting from this year, the global economy will need to reduce its carbon intensity by more than 6.5 percent each year. Considering that, between 2000 and 2007, this rate has remained steady, and has experienced no significant fluctuations, the report concludes that it's fairly accurate to say that the objective will not be achieved. Also, the NEF work adds, for each year that is lost, the level of reduction that will need to be made the following year will increase considerably, making it even harder for governments to take direct and efficient action.

“Magic bullets – such as carbon capture and storage, nuclear or even geoengineering – are potentially dangerous distractions from more human-scale solutions. At the moment, magic bullets […] are getting much of the funding and political attention, but are missing the targets. Our research shows that to prevent runaway climate change, this needs to change,” the lead researcher for the NEF climate change and energy program, Victoria Johnson, says. She is also a coauthor of the new paper.

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK:

1,474 hits · 2 comments · Link to this article · Print article · Send to friend · Subscribe to news

MUST-READ RELATED ARTICLES:


2010 Could See New Global Temperature Record

UK Warns UN Summit of Ocean Acidification

CO2 Targets Split Developing Nation Group

Our Planet's Temperature More Sensitive to CO2

Experts Propose 'Living' Buildings that Clean the Atmosphere

READER COMMENTS:


Comment #1 by: Brad Arnold on 26 Jan 2010, 21:24 UTC reply to this comment

Nonsense. World-wide energy demand is expected to increase 50% by 2030. Only a fraction of this demand is expected to be met (or could be met logistically) by renewable energy production. Instead, a vast majority of the energy will be generated by dirty coal-fired power plants.

In other words, instead of lowering emissions, mankind will predictably vastly increase emissions. Furthermore, current climate models badly underestimate the rate of future climate change due to their ignoring natural emissions of methane in a warming world, and ecosystem collapse.

My conclusion is that either we develop a "magic bullet" like a revolutionary clean (and cheap) energy production technology or a geoengineering technique like dimming the sun a little (more) by seeding aerosol into the upper atmosphere, or we will have to cull the human population by war, famine, or (much more likely) disease.

Either the Hail Mary pass of a "magic bullet" or a bioterrorist pandemic using a highly contagious extremely lethal virus. Your choice dummies.


Comment #2 by: John Abbath on 12 Apr 2010, 04:55 UTC reply to this comment

The geopolitical reality of the situation is that those who possess the necessary influence and wealth to solve these problems would be shooting themselves in the foot by doing so. In the end, the John Holdren approach will always be the one that is taken seriously by the ruling class, as the necessary solutions would deprive them of their power.

So far all, "geoengineering" techniques have been ludicrous to say the least, the central banks have no incentive to invest in renewable and clean energy, and even when population control is taken to the next level, the infrastructure will still exist and still need to be maintained or dismantled, as it has its own environmental consequences.

Like all of the worlds truly great problems, the steps that need to be taken to solve the problem will be swept under the rug.

Copyright © 2001-2012 Softpedia. Contact/Tip us at

WindowsGamesDriversMacLinuxScriptsMobileHandheldNews

SUBMIT PROGRAM   |   ADVERTISE   |   GET HELP   |   SEND US FEEDBACK   |   RSS FEEDS   |   UPDATE YOUR SOFTWARE   |   ROMANIAN FORUM