#climateeconomics — Public Fediverse posts

2/ about the new paper on "The History of a 3°C Future"

Remarkable that no IAM run that I know of has projected 3°C by 2050, or even over. The worst case scenarios only start to diverge from the other scenarios in 2045 or so, by which time, 2°C was about to be exceeded. "was" – because apparently, everyone now assumes 2°C will have been passed by 2040.

Regarding this:
"global economy would need to shrink substantially by 2050 in order to meet international climate targets. Such a protracted economic contraction also has no historical precedent."
Not on a global scale, okay.
But we can see it in the war period when all nations involved upped their fossil emissions, ie grew their economic activity.
Except UK. Who rationed everything and only ended this rationing in 1955 or so, see
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co2?stackMode=relative&time=1927..1949&country=USA~GBR~DEU~JPN&focus=~GBR&Gas+or+Warming=CO%E2%82%82&Accounting=Territorial&Fuel+or+Land+Use+Change=All+fossil+emissions&Count=Per+capita

Also, this was a good thing for their society, for example because equal rations stopped inequality, and also because nutrition was so much better for the majority of people.

You can read more about the whole rationing thingy and politics in war-time UK (and less so in the US) here, by historian Andrew Simms https://rapidtransition.org/stories/when-everything-changed-the-us-uk-economies-in-world-war-ii/
"When everything changed: the US & UK economies in World War II"

This is the form of #Degrowth that's historically proven to work.
And it can be done by many societies at the same time, making it a global degrowth reality.

You might say, but UK did not reduce her emission so this would not suffice in our case where emissions need to drop.
True that.
But a) we're not spewing out war tools made of CO2-laden steel as UK did and b) we're replacing those CO2 sources with renewables that we deem important enough for society so they had escaped our initial shutdowns of superfluous emission drivers. UK also shut down unimportant companies and individual CO2-heavy activities. But UK did not replace CO2 emitters with non-emitters. We will. 🖖🏽

#ClimateChange #climatepolitics #ClimateEconomics #Economics #Degrowth #Capitalism

2/ about the new paper on "The History of a 3°C Future"

Remarkable that no IAM run that I know of has projected 3°C by 2050, or even over. The worst case scenarios only start to diverge from the other scenarios in 2045 or so, by which time, 2°C was about to be exceeded. "was" – because apparently, everyone now assumes 2°C will have been passed by 2040.

Regarding this:
"global economy would need to shrink substantially by 2050 in order to meet international climate targets. Such a protracted economic contraction also has no historical precedent."
Not on a global scale, okay.
But we can see it in the war period when all nations involved upped their fossil emissions, ie grew their economic activity.
Except UK. Who rationed everything and only ended this rationing in 1955 or so, see
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co2?stackMode=relative&time=1927..1949&country=USA~GBR~DEU~JPN&focus=~GBR&Gas+or+Warming=CO%E2%82%82&Accounting=Territorial&Fuel+or+Land+Use+Change=All+fossil+emissions&Count=Per+capita

Also, this was a good thing for their society, for example because equal rations stopped inequality, and also because nutrition was so much better for the majority of people.

You can read more about the whole rationing thingy and politics in war-time UK (and less so in the US) here, by historian Andrew Simms https://rapidtransition.org/stories/when-everything-changed-the-us-uk-economies-in-world-war-ii/
"When everything changed: the US & UK economies in World War II"

This is the form of #Degrowth that's historically proven to work.
And it can be done by many societies at the same time, making it a global degrowth reality.

You might say, but UK did not reduce her emission so this would not suffice in our case where emissions need to drop.
True that.
But a) we're not spewing out war tools made of CO2-laden steel as UK did and b) we're replacing those CO2 sources with renewables that we deem important enough for society so they had escaped our initial shutdowns of superfluous emission drivers. UK also shut down unimportant companies and individual CO2-heavy activities. But UK did not replace CO2 emitters with non-emitters. We will. 🖖🏽

#ClimateChange #climatepolitics #ClimateEconomics #Economics #Degrowth #Capitalism

2/ about the new paper on "The History of a 3°C Future"

Remarkable that no IAM run that I know of has projected 3°C by 2050, or even over. The worst case scenarios only start to diverge from the other scenarios in 2045 or so, by which time, 2°C was about to be exceeded. "was" – because apparently, everyone now assumes 2°C will have been passed by 2040.

Regarding this:
"global economy would need to shrink substantially by 2050 in order to meet international climate targets. Such a protracted economic contraction also has no historical precedent."
Not on a global scale, okay.
But we can see it in the war period when all nations involved upped their fossil emissions, ie grew their economic activity.
Except UK. Who rationed everything and only ended this rationing in 1955 or so, see
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co2?stackMode=relative&time=1927..1949&country=USA~GBR~DEU~JPN&focus=~GBR&Gas+or+Warming=CO%E2%82%82&Accounting=Territorial&Fuel+or+Land+Use+Change=All+fossil+emissions&Count=Per+capita

Also, this was a good thing for their society, for example because equal rations stopped inequality, and also because nutrition was so much better for the majority of people.

You can read more about the whole rationing thingy and politics in war-time UK (and less so in the US) here, by historian Andrew Simms https://rapidtransition.org/stories/when-everything-changed-the-us-uk-economies-in-world-war-ii/
"When everything changed: the US & UK economies in World War II"

This is the form of #Degrowth that's historically proven to work.
And it can be done by many societies at the same time, making it a global degrowth reality.

You might say, but UK did not reduce her emission so this would not suffice in our case where emissions need to drop.
True that.
But a) we're not spewing out war tools made of CO2-laden steel as UK did and b) we're replacing those CO2 sources with renewables that we deem important enough for society so they had escaped our initial shutdowns of superfluous emission drivers. UK also shut down unimportant companies and individual CO2-heavy activities. But UK did not replace CO2 emitters with non-emitters. We will. 🖖🏽

#ClimateChange #climatepolitics #ClimateEconomics #Economics #Degrowth #Capitalism

2/ about the new paper on "The History of a 3°C Future"

Remarkable that no IAM run that I know of has projected 3°C by 2050, or even over. The worst case scenarios only start to diverge from the other scenarios in 2045 or so, by which time, 2°C was about to be exceeded. "was" – because apparently, everyone now assumes 2°C will have been passed by 2040.

Regarding this:
"global economy would need to shrink substantially by 2050 in order to meet international climate targets. Such a protracted economic contraction also has no historical precedent."
Not on a global scale, okay.
But we can see it in the war period when all nations involved upped their fossil emissions, ie grew their economic activity.
Except UK. Who rationed everything and only ended this rationing in 1955 or so, see
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co2?stackMode=relative&time=1927..1949&country=USA~GBR~DEU~JPN&focus=~GBR&Gas+or+Warming=CO%E2%82%82&Accounting=Territorial&Fuel+or+Land+Use+Change=All+fossil+emissions&Count=Per+capita

Also, this was a good thing for their society, for example because equal rations stopped inequality, and also because nutrition was so much better for the majority of people.

You can read more about the whole rationing thingy and politics in war-time UK (and less so in the US) here, by historian Andrew Simms https://rapidtransition.org/stories/when-everything-changed-the-us-uk-economies-in-world-war-ii/
"When everything changed: the US & UK economies in World War II"

This is the form of #Degrowth that's historically proven to work.
And it can be done by many societies at the same time, making it a global degrowth reality.

You might say, but UK did not reduce her emission so this would not suffice in our case where emissions need to drop.
True that.
But a) we're not spewing out war tools made of CO2-laden steel as UK did and b) we're replacing those CO2 sources with renewables that we deem important enough for society so they had escaped our initial shutdowns of superfluous emission drivers. UK also shut down unimportant companies and individual CO2-heavy activities. But UK did not replace CO2 emitters with non-emitters. We will. 🖖🏽

#ClimateChange #climatepolitics #ClimateEconomics #Economics #Degrowth #Capitalism

2/ about the new paper on "The History of a 3°C Future"

Remarkable that no IAM run that I know of has projected 3°C by 2050, or even over. The worst case scenarios only start to diverge from the other scenarios in 2045 or so, by which time, 2°C was about to be exceeded. "was" – because apparently, everyone now assumes 2°C will have been passed by 2040.

Regarding this:
"global economy would need to shrink substantially by 2050 in order to meet international climate targets. Such a protracted economic contraction also has no historical precedent."
Not on a global scale, okay.
But we can see it in the war period when all nations involved upped their fossil emissions, ie grew their economic activity.
Except UK. Who rationed everything and only ended this rationing in 1955 or so, see
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co2?stackMode=relative&time=1927..1949&country=USA~GBR~DEU~JPN&focus=~GBR&Gas+or+Warming=CO%E2%82%82&Accounting=Territorial&Fuel+or+Land+Use+Change=All+fossil+emissions&Count=Per+capita

Also, this was a good thing for their society, for example because equal rations stopped inequality, and also because nutrition was so much better for the majority of people.

You can read more about the whole rationing thingy and politics in war-time UK (and less so in the US) here, by historian Andrew Simms https://rapidtransition.org/stories/when-everything-changed-the-us-uk-economies-in-world-war-ii/
"When everything changed: the US & UK economies in World War II"

This is the form of #Degrowth that's historically proven to work.
And it can be done by many societies at the same time, making it a global degrowth reality.

You might say, but UK did not reduce her emission so this would not suffice in our case where emissions need to drop.
True that.
But a) we're not spewing out war tools made of CO2-laden steel as UK did and b) we're replacing those CO2 sources with renewables that we deem important enough for society so they had escaped our initial shutdowns of superfluous emission drivers. UK also shut down unimportant companies and individual CO2-heavy activities. But UK did not replace CO2 emitters with non-emitters. We will. 🖖🏽

#ClimateChange #climatepolitics #ClimateEconomics #Economics #Degrowth #Capitalism

"Our history does not look like the past of a 2°C future."

and

"Failing such an unprecedented technological change or a substantial contraction of the global economy,
by 2050 global mean surface temperatures will rise more than 3 °C above pre-industrial levels."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378025000469

They look at the history of drivers of emission growth. And the way this used to play out globally and regionally with the political economics of growth and technological advancements, they conclude, it'll be more than 3°C by 2050.

"As shown above, sustaining economic growth at the pace projected by the OECD would require unprecedented efficiency improvements in the carbon intensity of the global economy. Conversely, if carbon intensity were to continue declining at its current historical average, meeting climate goals would only be possible through a sustained global GDP contraction of around –1.4 % per year. Such a prolonged recession, however, has no regional or global precedent in modern global history.
"
They also say something about IPCC Integrated Assessment Models, IAM:
"With a few exceptions (Keyßer and Lenzen, 2021, Li et al., 2023), integrated assessment models do not consider degrowth alternatives, which makes it difficult to technically assess their viability, beyond the very substantial political obstacles to their implementation. According to our results, if efficiency gains stay in a bussiness-as-usual path, the global economy would need to shrink substantially by 2050 in order to meet international climate targets.
Such a protracted economic contraction also has no historical precedent."

I think, they're wrong there. See 2/ below
#ClimateChange #climatepolitics #ClimateEconomics #Economics #Degrowth #Capitalism

"Our history does not look like the past of a 2°C future."

and

"Failing such an unprecedented technological change or a substantial contraction of the global economy,
by 2050 global mean surface temperatures will rise more than 3 °C above pre-industrial levels."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378025000469

They look at the history of drivers of emission growth. And the way this used to play out globally and regionally with the political economics of growth and technological advancements, they conclude, it'll be more than 3°C by 2050.

"As shown above, sustaining economic growth at the pace projected by the OECD would require unprecedented efficiency improvements in the carbon intensity of the global economy. Conversely, if carbon intensity were to continue declining at its current historical average, meeting climate goals would only be possible through a sustained global GDP contraction of around –1.4 % per year. Such a prolonged recession, however, has no regional or global precedent in modern global history.
"
They also say something about IPCC Integrated Assessment Models, IAM:
"With a few exceptions (Keyßer and Lenzen, 2021, Li et al., 2023), integrated assessment models do not consider degrowth alternatives, which makes it difficult to technically assess their viability, beyond the very substantial political obstacles to their implementation. According to our results, if efficiency gains stay in a bussiness-as-usual path, the global economy would need to shrink substantially by 2050 in order to meet international climate targets.
Such a protracted economic contraction also has no historical precedent."

I think, they're wrong there. See 2/ below
#ClimateChange #climatepolitics #ClimateEconomics #Economics #Degrowth #Capitalism

"Our history does not look like the past of a 2°C future."

and

"Failing such an unprecedented technological change or a substantial contraction of the global economy,
by 2050 global mean surface temperatures will rise more than 3 °C above pre-industrial levels."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378025000469

They look at the history of drivers of emission growth. And the way this used to play out globally and regionally with the political economics of growth and technological advancements, they conclude, it'll be more than 3°C by 2050.

"As shown above, sustaining economic growth at the pace projected by the OECD would require unprecedented efficiency improvements in the carbon intensity of the global economy. Conversely, if carbon intensity were to continue declining at its current historical average, meeting climate goals would only be possible through a sustained global GDP contraction of around –1.4 % per year. Such a prolonged recession, however, has no regional or global precedent in modern global history.
"
They also say something about IPCC Integrated Assessment Models, IAM:
"With a few exceptions (Keyßer and Lenzen, 2021, Li et al., 2023), integrated assessment models do not consider degrowth alternatives, which makes it difficult to technically assess their viability, beyond the very substantial political obstacles to their implementation. According to our results, if efficiency gains stay in a bussiness-as-usual path, the global economy would need to shrink substantially by 2050 in order to meet international climate targets.
Such a protracted economic contraction also has no historical precedent."

I think, they're wrong there. See 2/ below
#ClimateChange #climatepolitics #ClimateEconomics #Economics #Degrowth #Capitalism

"Our history does not look like the past of a 2°C future."

and

"Failing such an unprecedented technological change or a substantial contraction of the global economy,
by 2050 global mean surface temperatures will rise more than 3 °C above pre-industrial levels."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378025000469

They look at the history of drivers of emission growth. And the way this used to play out globally and regionally with the political economics of growth and technological advancements, they conclude, it'll be more than 3°C by 2050.

"As shown above, sustaining economic growth at the pace projected by the OECD would require unprecedented efficiency improvements in the carbon intensity of the global economy. Conversely, if carbon intensity were to continue declining at its current historical average, meeting climate goals would only be possible through a sustained global GDP contraction of around –1.4 % per year. Such a prolonged recession, however, has no regional or global precedent in modern global history.
"
They also say something about IPCC Integrated Assessment Models, IAM:
"With a few exceptions (Keyßer and Lenzen, 2021, Li et al., 2023), integrated assessment models do not consider degrowth alternatives, which makes it difficult to technically assess their viability, beyond the very substantial political obstacles to their implementation. According to our results, if efficiency gains stay in a bussiness-as-usual path, the global economy would need to shrink substantially by 2050 in order to meet international climate targets.
Such a protracted economic contraction also has no historical precedent."

I think, they're wrong there. See 2/ below
#ClimateChange #climatepolitics #ClimateEconomics #Economics #Degrowth #Capitalism

"Our history does not look like the past of a 2°C future."

and

"Failing such an unprecedented technological change or a substantial contraction of the global economy,
by 2050 global mean surface temperatures will rise more than 3 °C above pre-industrial levels."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378025000469

They look at the history of drivers of emission growth. And the way this used to play out globally and regionally with the political economics of growth and technological advancements, they conclude, it'll be more than 3°C by 2050.

"As shown above, sustaining economic growth at the pace projected by the OECD would require unprecedented efficiency improvements in the carbon intensity of the global economy. Conversely, if carbon intensity were to continue declining at its current historical average, meeting climate goals would only be possible through a sustained global GDP contraction of around –1.4 % per year. Such a prolonged recession, however, has no regional or global precedent in modern global history.
"
They also say something about IPCC Integrated Assessment Models, IAM:
"With a few exceptions (Keyßer and Lenzen, 2021, Li et al., 2023), integrated assessment models do not consider degrowth alternatives, which makes it difficult to technically assess their viability, beyond the very substantial political obstacles to their implementation. According to our results, if efficiency gains stay in a bussiness-as-usual path, the global economy would need to shrink substantially by 2050 in order to meet international climate targets.
Such a protracted economic contraction also has no historical precedent."

I think, they're wrong there. See 2/ below
#ClimateChange #climatepolitics #ClimateEconomics #Economics #Degrowth #Capitalism

FREE TODAY Sat 24 May PDT: Economics & Environment ebook https://amazon.com/Economy-Want-Donald-Power-ebook/dp/B0DBLJ2RX4 Details https://sites.google.com/view/economyofwant

We've got an economy where the only way to get more economic activity so that some extra cash trickles down to workers or social programs, is to persuade the wealthiest to want more and more stuff.

#ClimateChange #EcologicalEconomics #GreenEconomics #Environment #EnvironmentalEconomics #SustainableEconomy #Degrowth #Green #Economics #Sustainability #ClimateEconomics #MastoEcon

Asphalt, plastics, brick, glass, cement, lime, gypsum, steel, and aluminium.

Nine common industrial products with huge hidden climate costs

https://scitechdaily.com/9-everyday-materials-are-secretly-costing-the-u-s-79-billion-each-year-in-climate-damage/

#asphalt #plastics #brick #glass #cement #lime #gypsum #steel #aluminium
#climateChange #greenhouseGases #industry #costs #climateEconomics

🌡️ Rising seas, melting glaciers, and deforestation aren’t just environmental issues—they’re trillion-dollar threats to economies worldwide. 🌊 Let’s act before the cost is too high. #ClimateEconomics #ThwaitesGlacier #ClimateCrisis

Economics is a tribal discipline, and Lagarde now wants to be part of the club https://www.euractiv.com/section/economy-jobs/news/economics-is-a-tribal-discipline-and-lagarde-now-wants-to-be-part-of-the-club/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=mastodon #climateeconomics #economicforecast #environmentaleconomics

The "dismal science" and climate change. They collide, because "how we gonna pay for all this?"

Clarified economics suggest there are some means to pay, but these need to be more central in public policy.

Later today at 8p Eastern, 5p Pacific #RealProgressives will be hosting their regular get-together "Macro and Chill," featuring Prof. Fadhel Kaboub and centering on climate reparations and how to finance those.

Register:

https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZMrc-mprjMrE9W8eKEN83h2GT2-jbPOv-7u#/registration

#ClimateEconomics
#ClimateReparations