From Richard Murphy:
Second, to claim that we are dependent on growth as he defines it is simply wrong. The financially engineered, fossil fuel driven growth of modern capitalism is what is driving us to extinction and there is not a shred of evidence that it can continue into the future and be reconciled with continuing human life on earth.
Third, if he wants to talk growth then it is growth of the state sector that he should have been promoting, but did not. We do need more care, education, social housing, sustainable transport infrastructure and so on. But we do not need more long haul holidays, heavy weight cars, monoculture farming, junk fashion and much else, all designed to fuel the inexorable demand for an interest return to banking.
And fourth, talking green and about growth in the way he does is simply impossible: carbon and temperature targets (let alone those required to secure biodiversity) cannot be reconciled with the sort of GDP growth his report envisioned. We can do more for each other, without a doubt, but only in a radically transformed society and it’s the height of in difference to the fate of humanity to pretend otherwise.
From the actual science on the subject:
RCP 2.6 is the one where everything is kept below 2 oC and where everything is fine. The perceptive will note that GDP is *higher* in this scenario than in more emittively polluting ones.
Why doesn’t the damn fathead ever, I mean ever, bother to check the source materials? Why do we always get these confident predictions entirely at loggerheads with the actual science he professes to be backing up?
Crippled JC on a pogo stick it only takes two minutes to look up the emissions models and their associated GDP levels after all.