Economic Growth, Climate Change and Environmental Limits
Economy | Information | History | Online | Facts | World | Global | Money
Debate about the relationship between environmental limits and economic growth has been taking place for several decades. These arguments have re-emerged with greater intensity following advances in the understanding of the economics of climate change, increases in resource and oil prices and the re-emergence of the discussion about peak oil. These issues are addressed here by Cameron Hepburn, He is Professor of environmental economics at the University of Oxford, based at the Smith School and the Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School, and is also Professorial Research Fellow at the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics and a Fellow of New College, Oxford. According to Professor Hepburn, the economic pessimism created by the great recession of 2008-2012 has put the spotlight back on the prospects for economic growth and invariably, the impact on the impact and climate change. But does the pursuit of growth necessitate a trade-off with the environment. In the interview ,Hepburn offers a conceptual and synthetic analysis of the relationship between economic growth and environmental limits, including those imposed by climate change. It explores two related questions. Will environmental limits, including limits on the climate system, slow or even halt economic growth? If not, how will the nature of economic growth have to shift? To be clear, Cameron Hepburn does not envisage a ‘zero growth’ world as being necessary for us to live within environmental limits, nor does he see economic growth as a problem. Rather, he maintains that stopping economic growth (which is measured in terms of value) is neither necessary nor desirable. Indeed, as far as meeting environmental challenges is concerned, it would be counterproductive; recessions have slowed and in some cases derailed efforts to adopt cleaner modes of production. Rather, large leaps in clean technology, triggering a structural shift in the way we produce and consume energy, are required. This is a ‘green growth’ rather than a ‘no growth’ world. The continuation of growth in value to humans is consistent with us living within the material constraints imposed by a finite (if very large) planet, provided that we continue to expand the "intellectual economy" through innovation, technology development, an increased focus on services and, more fundamentally, the art of living, all of which he discusses in the interview below.
Comments
-
A bit sad to see the outcome of this interview...
-
" Responding to climate change is perhaps the biggest global challenge of the 21st Century, and the transition to a low-carbon economy will require investors to take account of the reality of a carbon-constrained world. This shift is happening, but there are obstacles to overcome—stock markets are currently over-valuing companies that produce and use carbon (a ‘carbon bubble’ consisting of fossil fuel assets which will have to be left unburned in order to cut emissions to the levels required to limit climate change), and there is a green finance gap with investments currently running at less than half of the level needed to deliver the decarbonisation implicit in national and international emissions reduction targets. "
Source: Summary
HC 191
Published on 6 March 2014
by authority of the House of Commons
London: The Stationery Office Limited
URL: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmenvaud/191/191.pdf -
5:07 - 6:14
You'd think the economics profession would be more cautious in discussing matters they are unqualified to opine on as to not show themselves even more inept than what the GFC have shown them to be...
Scientific illiteracy is certainly on par with the abolition of the "History of Economic Thoughts" courses as one of the reason for that ineptitude.
Stunningly ignorant. Fucking pathetic really.
Actually, what this really looks like is willful ignorance, correct that --learned ignorance; aka indoctrination.
A very polished form of it I concede, but indoctrination none the less.
------------------------------
Note to INET
Just as in evolution vs creationism; you don't need to give equal weights to both sides of the debate when, as Bill Maher once said, one side is a load of crap.
This interview was a bewildering embarrassment for an organization that pretends to "New" economic thinking.
20m 52sLenght
33Rating