Hmm, The G\’s CiF won\’t publish this comment to an Andrew Simms piece. Wonderwhy? Other comments have been going through…..
As we try to ensure a world fit for future generations, have a look around and ask yourselves, is this the best that we can do? What would it take, and what could we achieve if we were able to harness our transformative impulse for good?
OK, yes, let\’s ask this. Me, I think the abolition of global poverty would be a good idea. So, how are we going to do that?
Let\’s look at what the IPCC can tell us. Let\’s look at the economic models (in the SRES) which underly everything we know about climate change.
We\’ve basically two things, capitalism and globalisation. We end up with four basic models, Globalised capitalism (A1), not globalised capitalism (A2, and the model the Stern Review uses), globalised not capitalism (B1) and not globalised not capitalism (B2).
Andrew Simms and his mates at the nef argue that we should be striving towards the B2 model. They certainly don\’t like globalisation, they want more local production, less trade and more self sufficiency. They are also not notably cheer leaders for capitalism….or even markets. OK, so that\’s what they\’re after.
Me, I\’d rather have the A1, the globalised capitalism one. For several reasons.
Firstly, the globalised models have lower emissions than the non globalised. Yes, A1 has lower emissions than A2, B1 than B2. So, to beat climate change we do want a globalised economy.
Secondly, Only in the A1 model do we manage to end global poverty. For it\’s the only model which actually generates enough economic growth to lift all (yes, everyone!) out of poverty. No, really, you can go and look it up here:
Thirdly, one of the variants of the A1 model, and the B1 model, have the lowest emissions of all of them. That A1 model is the model with high technology in it, A1T.
So, Andrew Simms argues for a low tech, not globalised and not capitalist world. I argue for a high tech, globalised and capitalist world.
My suggestion leads to a richer, cleaner world and one with lower emissions than the nonsense Simms argues for.
And, get this, we manage to abolish world poverty at the same time.
Pretty good hunh?
The only question left is why Simms argues as he does….well, perhaps we also ought to ask why anyone listens to him.