On Sun, 20 May 2007, Michael Tobis wrote:
>> Some people argue that there can't be an economics driven catastrophe,
>> because renewables and efficiency are cheap enough already that a
>> switch over a few decades would only mean slower growth.
>
> I don't think many people argue that.

John Quiggin does:

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/05/help_me_here_defining_dangerou.php#comment-438132

----
"Could we rule out the risk of economic collapse if we restricted out CO2 
emissions (this is, I think, from JA)."

Absolutely. Here's an easy way of getting an upper bound on the costs. Suppose 
we made a collective decision to replace all fossil fuels with solar (the most 
expensive of the renewables, but essentially unlimited in supply) by 2050, and 
had no technological progress, improvements in energy efficiency etc. Allowing 
for costs of storage and so on, solar might cost four times as much as the 
fossil fuel alternative. Since energy is about 5 per cent of output value, this 
would reduce income by 20 per cent.

If the average growth rate to 2050 under BAU, this would reduce it to 1 per 
cent; a substantial slowdown, but still growth rather than decline, let alone 
collapse.

Of course, this upper bound is way in excess of a realistic estimate. With a 
quadrupling of price, demand would certainly decline by at least 50 per cent, 
bringing the cost down to 10 per cent of income. Then there would be induced 
innovation and so on.

And that's for complete elimination of fossil fuel consumption, which no-one is 
proposing. A cut by 50 per cent relative to BAU would be less than half as 
expensive by the low-hanging fruit principle. So, even with highly pessimistic 
assumptions, it's almost impossible to get a cost estimate higher than 5 per 
cent of income.
  ----

-W.

William M Connolley | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | 07985 935400

--  
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only.  NERC is subject
to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any
reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under
the Act.  Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic
records management system.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated 
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of 
global environmental change. 

Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the 
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not 
gratuitously rude. 

To post to this group, send email to [email protected]

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to