Well, yes, obviously

The world can enjoy higher standards of living and more travel, while drastically cutting emissions to avoid dangerous climate change – but only with sweeping changes to our infrastructure, the natural world and agriculture, a new analysis has found.

The UK government analysis also assumes that billions of people will remain in dire poverty at mid-century, despite efforts to lift them to greater prosperity, as the population rises to an estimated nine billion people.

Of course this is true
. We know damn well it is true. For this is part of the starting assumptions that we use to work out what’s going to happen to the climate. That your conclusion mathes your original assumption is a useful check on your internal logic but it’s hardly startling news.

9 thoughts on “Well, yes, obviously”

  1. It’s true only if you agree that the starting assumptions are correct. Trouble is, pesky facts keep disturbing the Green’s wet dreams.

  2. Is this dire poverty of the ‘eating off garbage dumps & living in mud’ type, or the ‘I have to survive on an iPhone 3GS and first edition Playstation’ type?

  3. The UK govt could not find its worthless arse with its worthless hands. If you wanted a report on “Mass Thievery” or “Destroying a formerly Great Nation” it would be worth your while consulting with suchlike human sewage for there abides whatever small expertise they possess. Otherwise—not even worth the time/micro-effort of reading their tripe.

  4. “insulating houses, making electrical appliances more efficient and using electric vehicles”

    The government is already pouring substantial amounts of money and/or regulations into those three areas. There are “energy grants” for insulating homes: they’re literally giving away thousands of pounds for you to insulate your home. There’s a £5,000 up front grant to buy yourself an electric car. Finally, the EU is forever mandating ever more efficient domestic appliances.

    Our work here is done, we can go home.

  5. bloke (not) in spain

    ““insulating houses, making electrical appliances more efficient and using electric vehicles”

    There’s a video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFcM2mRI8Gg&index=45&list=UUVktNhxFTBnrLfeIe1tdgSQ of a guy squeezing the last dregs of efficiency out of a domestic fridge. (Clever Yank, this one. Some of his other stuff has proved very useful)
    Without watching the thing again, I think he manages around 40%. But it’s what he has to do to achieve it. And it shows, all energy savings are incremental. It gets progressively harder to squeeze further drops out.
    So you do have to balance the inevitable increase in the costs of energy saving, against the energy saved, against the costs of not being able to afford whatever you’re trying to make efficient. How much food would you be wasting if you couldn’t afford the fridge. What’s the point of a £27,000 electric car.

  6. Higher standards of living and more travel? While cutting emissions?
    Cannot see it happening with current publicly available technology.

    The greens tend to love electric cars, ignoring any emissions to make said cars and supply chain involved. I’ve nothing against electric cars, just not currently the range, efficiency or charging time to be more than a very niche vehicle. In 10 years time maybe? In 20 years? But to me cannot yet compete with vehicles having longer range and a refill time measured in minutes.

  7. Martin Davies: you left out battery life, battery toxicity when disposing of old ones, energy required to manufacture them and the narrow temperature range for optimal performance. The only good electric car would have batteries made of unicorn poo.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *