And there is a serious need for reversion to former patterns of land use, which will include significant replanting
Apparently we’re to go back to proper organic farming with cowshit as fertiliser. So, plough up every available piece of land so as to be able to feed everyone.
I am not an environmental expert and have never claimed to be.
Third, there is the issue of population. Most people don’t mention this, but I will. We are heading for 10 billion people on this planet. That will stress it to its limits. We do have to encourage birth control. There really is no other way to put it. We’re not going to stop population growth. But we do need to manage it.
We are managing it. By getting rich. As people get rich fertility rates fall below replacement levels. Has happened everywhere it has happened. And is happening everywhere it is happening. And contraception is some 10% or so of this. The other 90% is people getting rich. So, to curb population we must all get rich.
It’s impossible to suggest all the ways in which this change can happen,
Yes, quite, that’s why every economist on the subject insists that we must use markets in our solution. Because only markets provide the incentives to explore every possible piece and part of the solution.
So, if continual growth has been the singular prevailing narrative of government for 75 years – and I would suggest it has been – then that can no longer be the case.
Idiot. Actually, twat.
So RCP 2.6 is the one in which we conquer climate change. We o everything necessary and we save ourselves, the ice caps and Flipper.
This scenario might be described as the best case for limiting anthropogenic climate change. It requires a major turnaround in climate policies and a start to concerted action in the next few years in all countries, both developing and developed.
Global CO2 emissions peak by 2020 and decline to around zero by 2080. Concentrations in the atmosphere peak at around 440 ppm in mid century and then start slowly declining.
Global population peaks mid century at just over 9 billion and global economic growth is high.
Actually, he’s a cretin, isn’t he?
According to the standard and accepted science solving climate change involves high economic growth.
And if it has been assumed that wealth would trickle down – and that has been the assumption even though the evidence for the theory has been very thin on occasion and virtually non-existent of late – then this approach to the relief of poverty and the redistribution of well-being has to also end. If everyone is to have a chance now that can only happen as a result of positive action by government. Nothing less will do.
What’s actually the economic tale of the past 40 years? The manner in which growth has been pro-poor of course.
Whilst if government has for the last 40 years of the neoliberal era believed it’s been its job to stand back and let business take the lead in society because markets can apparently generate the answers to all problems then we also need to radically change that assumption as well. Markets have led us to where we are.
Man’s remarkably ill informed isn’t he?
And we’re out of control. The invisible hand has proved to be remarkably malign. Government has to believe in itself like it never has in the time most people alive have known of it. That’s the most massive challenge.
Just a thought but the Millennium Development Goals included the idea that we halve absolute poverty globally. The only one of the targets that was overachieved and early. All due to those neoliberal markets of course, government action had nowt to do with it.
But that then means that government must spend to good effect. And it also means that tax policy must be designed to reinforce the policies of government.
Well, yes, as all the economists have been saying, have a carbon tax.
This is possible. To achieve this goal I suggest that the government must impose a new accounting demand on businesses. All but the smallest of businesses would be required to prepare a plan for them and their supply chains to be net zero carbon by 2030. Those businesses must cost this plan. And they must publish it. And the costs of the whole process of change must be included in their accounts by no later than 2022. If as a result they cannot either indicate how they might make this change, or if they think that they can but cannot see a way to fund that transition then they must be declared carbon insolvent. That would mean that they would not make it to the era when we have a sustainable economy. Let me not beat about the bush. This would mean that they would have to close. And the capital that they now use would have to be reallocated to those businesses that can operate sustainably.
The business of being the Sage of Ely requires transport – not carbon neutral in the Britain of today. Heating of a house at least, not carbon neutral in the Britain of today nor by 2022. Food ain’t carbon neutral here either.
So, looks like we get to close down the business of being the Sage of Ely.
Or we could just ponder that demand in itself of course.
Public transport must be transformed to cut the waste within private transport systems. This may well require nationalisation of large parts of this system to deliver the required degree of co-ordination between networks. The future is not the electric car. The future is either not travelling or doing so on public transport charged with renewable energy.
Even the Soviets allowed you on a list for a car.
I find this question rather boring. What it implies is that we have a choice about doing these things. We don’t. I do have a choice when it comes to the life of my dog – and yes I have one. Given his age there would definitely be a cost I would not pay for him if a vet asked me to do so. I am not apologising for this: that’s, literally, a dog’s life. But ask me the same for my children and there is no price I know of that I would not pay if I had to. And that’s what this is about. How much does this cost? ‘Whatever’, is my answer. And it will still be a price worth paying.
An interesting question. Does the Senior Lecturer also think that any price is worth paying when it’s societal resources? For example, would he demand that more than £30,000 per Qualy be spent upon the lives of his children?
That said, best estimates are that it will cost the UK as a whole at least £50 billion a year, or about 2.5 per cent of GDP.
Abolishing cars and building out public transport by 2030 will cost 2.5% of GDP per annum will it?
But given the climate crisis we face we need to stop the continual flow of funds into the purchase of second hand shares – which is all that stock markets have to sell – and second hand buildings, which is all that most commercial estate agents have on their books. These are utterly unproductive savings mechanisms. We have to instead direct savings to where they might be used – and right now that is likely to be government based savings schemes used to provide capital for the Green New Deal.
Everything that is already built or created therefore has no value as there is no market for it. This will also be true of everything that is built or created as there will be no second hand market for it. At which point how the hell does anyone get their capital back? To, you know, use again to build another thing?
He’s basically demanding that everyone invest with no possibility of exit.
Err, yes, man’s an idiot. And a remarkably illinformed one too.