Revisiting Rachel: The legacy of Rachel Carson Twitter: #BL12

Revisiting Rachel:

The legacy of Rachel

Carson

Twitter:

#BL12

UCL ENERGY INSTITUTEUCL ENERGY INSTITUTEUCL ENERGY INSTITUTEUCL ENERGY INSTITUTEUCL ENERGY INSTITUTE

Economic Growth and the Environment: the Continuing Conundrum

The 2012 Burntwood LectureRevisiting Rachel: the Legacy of Silent Spring Fifty Years On Paul EkinsProfessor of Resources and Environmental PolicyUCL Energy Institute/UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources, University College London

St. Ermin’s Hotel, London November 22nd, 2012

UCL ENERGY INSTITUTEUCL ENERGY INSTITUTE

3

The Limits to Growth Debate (1)• Post-dates Rachel Carson by ten years• She “called for a change in the way humankind viewed the

natural world”.• Her message was based on the local impacts of human activities

on other life forms• “Limits to Growth”, a report by the Club of Rome in 1972,

expounded global limits to human economic aspirations. “If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next 100 years. The most probable result will be a sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.”


4

The Limits to Growth Debate (2)• “Beyond the Limits” (1992): “Human use of many essential resources

and generation of many kinds of pollutants have already surpassed rates that are physically sustainable. Without significant reductions in material and energy flows, there will be in the coming decades an uncontrolled decline in per capita food output, energy use, and industrial production.” These conclusions constitute a conditional warning, not a dire prediction. “This decline is not inevitable. To avoid it two changes are necessary. The first is a comprehensive revision of policies and practices that perpetuate growth in material consumption and in population. The second is a rapid, drastic increase in the efficiency with which materials and energy are used.” http://www.context.org/iclib/ic32/meadows/

• Smithsonian, April 2012: “Turner compared real-world data from 1970 to 2000 with the business-as-usual scenario. He found the predictions nearly matched the facts. “There is a very clear warning bell being rung here,” he says. “We are not on a sustainable trajectory.”

http://www.context.org/iclib/ic32/meadows/


5

Understanding wealth creation

In the beginning was the world: the ecological cycle

+

BIOSPHERE

ENVIRONMENTAL FUNCTIONS

Resources (Source) Waste absorption (Sink) Ecosystem services (life-

support, amenity etc.)


6

The ecological cycle and human well-being

+ -

BIOSPHERE

ENVIRONMENTAL FUNCTIONS

Resources (Source) Waste absorption (Sink) Ecosystem services (life-

support, amenity etc.)

HUMAN BENEFITS

Economy Health Welfare


7

The economy as a sub-system of the biosphere

SOLAR ENERGY HEAT

BIOSPHERE

Eco-system services

Energy Energy

Source Sink functions functions

Materials Wastes

Materially growing economic sub-system,

leaving less space for nature

HUMAN POPULATION

AND

ECONOMIC ACTIVITY


8

What kind of growth?

• Physical growth (growth in the amount of matter/energy mobilised by the economy: indefinite growth of this kind is impossible in a finite physical system subject to the laws of thermodynamics

• Economic (GDP) growth: growth in money flows/incomes/value added/expenditure: there is no theoretical limit on this kind of growth

• Growth in human welfare:– Dependent on sustaining environmental functions– Complex relationship to economic growth (although hard to

argue that, ceteris paribus, more money is not better than less)

– Dependent on many other factors (see below)


9

The four capitals model of wealth creation• Capital is

– A STOCK, or asset, which has the characteristic of producing– A FLOW of income or some other benefit– The stock value is the net present value of the flow

• Four capitals model – Manufactured (or physical) capital– Human capital (health, skills, motivation)– Social capital (institutions, organisations, “the Big Society”)– Natural (or environmental, ecological) capital– Financial capital is a form of social capital with the power of mobilising the other

four capitals

• The four capitals generally need to be combined in a production process in order to generate their benefits (this is least true of natural capital which generates many benefits independently of humans)


10

The four capitals model of wealth-creation Hu, SOu Wes Uh, Uso Wu ESu COu Ese Pu Stocks of capital, C Ees Ep Ic Mp Goods Lp Sp COc Bads Kp Wc Pc Dc Capital feedback effects

Natural Capital EC

Human Capital HC

Social/organisa-tional Capital, SC

Manufactured Capital, MC

Production process/ National economy P

Intermediate production, M

Investment I

Consumption CO

Wastes, pollution W

Depreciation D

Welfare, Utility U Environmental services

ES


11

Human well-being/happiness• The ‘big seven’ (Layard 2005, Happiness) (first five in order of

importance)– Family relationships (importance of marriage)– Financial situation (relative income; “benefit of extra income is less

if people are rich” Layard 2005; people get less pleasure out of increased consumption than they thought they would – adaptation (Easterlin 2003))

– Work (employment)– Community and friends (trust)– Health– Personal freedom; Personal values (importance of religion)

• Inequality?– “Some groups like inequality” (Layard 2005 – because gives

opportunities for mobility, relative advantage)– “Equality is better for everyone” (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2009)

• What about the environment?


12

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)


13

Policies for increasing happiness(Layard 2005, except last two points)

• Monitor development of happiness• Rethink range of issues:

– Tax: restrains excessive status-seeking– Performance-related pay: encourages excessive status seeking– Mobility: weakens family/community, increases crime

• Help the poor (marginal utility of income)• Improve family life, subsidise activities that promote community life• Eliminate high unemployment (benefits conditional on working)• Spend more addressing mental illness• Reduce escalation of wants (curb advertising, especially to children)• Improve education• Reduce inequality? Yes (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2009)• Promote environmental sustainability (absent from well-being

literature) (see below)


14

Core issues of sustainable development

• Sustainability entails maintenance of human welfare and therefore of the benefits which give rise to it and therefore of the capital stock which produces the benefits.

• Issues of substitutability between capitals: weak and strong sustainability

• Issues of benefit valuation - and therefore valuation of the capital stocks

• Difference between economic, social and environmental sustainability (capacity for continuance)


15

Principles of economic sustainability• Borrow systematically only to invest, not to consume• Keep money sound: control inflation, public borrowing, trade

deficits, indebtedness• Establish transparent accounting systems that give realistic

asset values• Maintain or increase stocks of capital (manufactured, human,

social, natural) • As has become apparent every one of these principles has

been spectacularly broken over the last few years, even in the financial sector and mainstream money economy

• What prospect then for broader sustainability, particularly environmental sustainability? We must start by getting right the basic conception of how wealth is created and how the human economy relates to the natural environment

• What about social sustainability?


16

What about social sustainability?

• It is apparent that at some level of crime, unemployment, family breakdown, widespread social breakdown (i.e. unsustainability) would occur

• The level at which this would occur is socially contingent , and highly uncertain and unpredictable

• Probably makes sense to think in terms of socially unsustainable trends rather than ‘sustainability limits’


17

Environmental sustainability• Sustainability: capacity for continuance• Environmental sustainability: maintenance of important environmental

functions and the natural capital which generates them. Importance: Not substitutable, irreversible loss, ‘immoderate’ losses Maintenance of health, avoidance of threat, economic sustainability

• Any aspiration for sustainable economic growth must start from the recognition of the need for the sustainable use of resources and ecosystems, and be rooted in basic laws of physical science:

Indefinite physical expansion of the human economy on a finite planet is impossible;

All use of non-solar forms of energy creates disorder, and potential disruption, in the natural world

• Thermodynamics: at a certain physical scale, further physical growth becomes counter-productive.

• There is little doubt that except from a very short-term perspective this scale has now been exceeded

• What is the optimal physical scale of the human economy? Operating within environmental limits (cf social sustainability)


18

A safe operating space for humanity: Rockstrom et al. 2009, Nature


Closing the Sustainability Gap

Environ-mental stress

(ES)

Sustain-ability

standard(SS)

Sustain-abilityGap (SGAP)

(ES-SS)

Normalised SGAP(100*SGAP/SS), EPeq

Years tosustain-ability

1980 1991 1980 1991 1980 1991Climate change,Ceq

286 239 10 276 229 2760100

229083

54

Ozonedepletion, Oeq

20000 8721 0 20000 8721 na na 8.5

Acidification,Aeq

6700 4100 400 6300 3700 1575100

92559

16

Eutrophication,Eeq

302 273 86 216 187 251100

21786

71

Dispersion, Deq 251 222 12 239 210 1992100

175088

80

Waste disposal,Weq

15.3 14.1 3 12.3 11.1 410100

37090

102

Disturbance,Neq

46 57 9 37 48 411100

533130

never

TOTAL na na na na na 7399100

608582

51

Table 3.2: Various Sustainability Measures for the Netherlands

Source: Ekins, P. & Simon, S. 2001 ‘Estimating Sustainability Gaps: Methods and Preliminary Applications for the UK and the Netherlands’, Ecological Economics, Vol.37 No.1, pp.5-22


20

The imperative of decoupling physical from financial growth• Decoupling: a decline in the ratio of the amount used of a

certain resource, or of the environmental impact, to the value generated or otherwise involved in the resource use or environmental impact. The unit of decoupling is therefore a weight per unit of value.

• Relative decoupling: in a growing economy, the ratio of resource use (e.g. energy consumption) or environmental impact (e.g. carbon emissions) to GDP decreases

• Absolute decoupling: in a growing economy, the resource use or environmental impact falls in absolute terms

• If GDP growth continues, climate stabilisation at levels of CO2 concentration that limit global average temperature increases to 2oC will require a degree of absolute decoupling of GDP from carbon emissions that is outside all previous experience


Decoupling of CO2 and other air pollutants in some OECD countriesTable 2: GDP and Domestically Produced Emissions Indices, selected OECD Countries, 2005 (1990=100) GDP SOX NOX Particulates CO VOC CO2

France 132 35 66 67 50 52 98

Germany 123 10 50 10 33 35 82

Ireland 258 38 95 106 55 58 126

Japan 120 76 94 67 88 107

Portugal 135 69 104 133 70 94 143

Turkey 173 128 166 92 184

UK 143 19 55 53 29 41 85

USA 155 63 74 81 62 69 116

Shading = no absolute decoupling Source: Everett et al. 2010, p.22 Note: International aviation and shipping emissions are excluded from the ‘territorial’ emissions figures, but the economic benefits from aviation and shipping are included in GDP.


The necessary improvements in energy/resource productivity

• Energy productivity = GDP/energy; energy intensity = energy/GDP

• Carbon productivity = GDP/carbon; carbon intensity = carbon/GDP• Carbon intensity of energy = carbon/energy

• Carbon emissions = Population * GDP/capita * energy/GDP * carbon/energy• Carbon emissions = Population * GDP/capita * carbon/GDP

• To achieve 450ppmv atmospheric concentration of CO2, assuming ongoing economic and population growth (3.1% p.a. real), need to increase carbon productivity by a factor of 10-15 by 2050, or approx. 6% p.a.

• Compare current increase in carbon productivity of 0% p.a. over 2000-2006, i.e. global carbon emissions rose at 3.1% p.a.; also

• Compare 10-fold improvement in labour productivity in US over 1830-1955, must achieve the same factor increase in carbon in 42 years


An unprecedented policy challenge

The Stern Review Policy Prescription for climate change

• Carbon pricing: carbon taxes; emission trading

• Technology policy: low-carbon energy sources; high-efficiency end-use appliances/buildings; incentivisation of a huge investment programme

• Remove other barriers and promote behaviour change: take-up of new technologies and high-efficiency end-use options; low-energy (carbon) behaviours (i.e. less driving/flying/meat-eating/lower building temperatures in winter, higher in summer)

• The basic insights from the Stern Review need to be applied to the use of other environmental resources (water, materials, biodiversity [space])

• In a market economy, pricing is the key to resource efficiency, investment and behaviour change. If it was politically feasible to increase resource prices to the necessary extent (through, for example, environmental tax reform (ETR)), what would this do to economic growth?


The costs of increasing resource productivity

• Optimists:• ‘Costs’ are really investments, can contribute to GDP growth• Considerable opportunity for zero-cost mitigation• A number of resource-efficient technologies are (nearly) available at

low incremental cost over the huge investments in the economic system that need to be made anyway

• ‘Learning curve’ experience suggests that the costs of new technologies will fall dramatically

• Resource efficiency policies can spur innovation, new industries, exports and growth

• Pessimists:• Constraining resource use is bound to constrain growth• Cheap, abundant energy and other resources are fundamental to

industrial development

• Issue has been most studied in respect of reduction of carbon emissions

24


The (micro)economic cost: global cost curve for greenhouse gas abatement

Source: A cost curve for greenhouse gas reductions, The Mckinsey Quarterly, February 2007


Technological potential: the Socolow Wedges

Source: Professor Robert Socolow “Stabilisation Wedges”, Met Office Symposium, 3 rd February 2005


Potential “wedges”: cuts of 1Gt of carbon per year in 2054• Efficient vehicles: Increase fuel economy for 2 billion autos from 30 to 60 mpg.

• Nuclear: Tripling of capacity to 1050 Gwatts.

• Gas for coal substitution: 1400 Gwatts of electricity generation switched from coal to gas.

• Carbon capture and storage: Introduce CCS at 800 Gwatt coal stations

• Wind power: 50 times as much wind power as at present.

• Solar PV: 700 times 2004 capacity

• Hydrogen: Additional 4000 Gwatts of wind capacity or additional CCS capacity

• Biomass fuel: 100 times the current Brazilian ethanol production

Source: Professor Robert Socolow “Stabilisation Wedges”


Cost evolution and learning rates for selected technologies

Source: IEA, 2000, Stern Review, Chapter 9


Estimating the macro-economic cost of carbon reduction• Models are essential to integrate cost data in a

representation of– The energy system (MARKAL): energy system cost, welfare

cost, GDP cost– The economy : macro-econometric/general equilibrium models– Good models are ‘garbage in – garbage out’; getting the inputs

right• Stern’s conclusion (p.267)

– “Overall, the expected annual cost of achieving emissions reductions, consistent with an emissions trajectory leading to stabilisation at around 500-550 ppm CO2e, is likely to be around 1% GDP by 2050, with a range of +/-3%, reflecting uncertainties over the scale of mitigation required, the pace of technological innovation and the degree of policy flexibility.”


UK MARKAL• MARKet ALlocation dynamic optimization model• 100+ users in 30+ countries under IEA ETSAP network• A least cost optimization model based on life-cycle costs of

competing technologies (to meet energy service demands) • Technology rich bottom-up model (e.g. end-use

technologies, energy conversion technologies, refineries, resource supplies, infrastructure, etc)

• An integrated energy systems model– Energy carriers, resources, processes, electricity/CHP, industry,

services, residential, transport, agriculture• Range of physical, economic and policy constraints to

represent UK energy system• Extension to MARKAL-Macro (M-M), MARKAL Elastic

Demand (MED)


CO2 emission reductions - UK MARKAL MED


Final energy demand – UK MARKAL MED

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

20

00

35

-B

35

-CFH

35

-CLC

35

-CA

M

35

-CS

AM

50

-B

50

-CFH

50

-CLC

50

-CA

M

50

-CS

AM

PJ

Final Energy demand by fuel Others

Heat

Biomass

Manufactured fuel

Bio diesels

Ethanol/Methanol

Hydrogen

Jet fuel

Diesel

Petrol

Coal

Gas

LPG

Fuel oil

Electricity


GDP % changes – UK MARKAL MACRO

Change in GDP - 60% CO2 reduction

-1.6%

-1.4%

-1.2%

-1.0%

-0.8%

-0.6%

-0.4%

-0.2%

0.0%

0.2%

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

% d

iffe

rnec

e

Central fuelprices

High fuelprices

Low fuel prices

SLT

No nuclear

No CCS,nuclear

2020innovation limit

2010innovation limit


Relevant projects on environmental tax reform (ETR) or green fiscal reform (GFR)

Definition: ETR is the shifting of taxation from ‘goods’ (like income, profits) to ‘bads’ (like resource use and pollution) • COMETR: Competitiveness effects of environmental tax

reforms, 2007. http://www2.dmu.dk/cometr/ (What is the experience to date of ETR in Europe? See Andersen, M.S. & Ekins, P. (Eds.) Carbon Taxation: Lessons from Europe, Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York, 2009

• petrE: ‘Resource productivity, environmental tax reform (ETR) and sustainable growth in Europe’. One of four final projects of the Anglo-German Foundation under the collective title ‘Creating Sustainable Growth in Europe’. Final report published October 29, Berlin, November 25, London. www.petre.org.uk

• UK Green Fiscal Commission. Final report published October 26, London. www.greenfiscalcommission.org.uk

http://www2.dmu.dk/cometr/

http://www.petre.org.uk/

http://www.greenfiscalcommission.org.uk/


PETRE: What opportunities are presented by ETR in Europe?

Economic impacts

Environmental impacts

ETR Increased output

Higher employment

Less pollution Less resource use

Higher human

well-being

Green innovation Green technology development


Relevant projects on environmental tax reform (ETR) or green fiscal reform (GFR)

• COMETR: Competitiveness effects of environmental tax reforms, 2007. http://www2.dmu.dk/cometr/

• petrE: ‘Resource productivity, environmental tax reform (ETR) and sustainable growth in Europe’. One of four final projects of the Anglo-German Foundation under the collective title ‘Creating Sustainable Growth in Europe’. Final report published October 29, Berlin, November 25, London. www.petre.org.uk

• UK Green Fiscal Commission. Final report published October 26, London. www.greenfiscalcommission.org.uk

http://www2.dmu.dk/cometr/

http://www.petre.org.uk/

http://www.greenfiscalcommission.org.uk/


What is the experience to date of ETR in Europe?

• Six EU countries have implemented ETRs: Denmark, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, UK

• The outcomes – environmental and economic – have been broadly positive: energy demand and emissions are reduced; employment is increased; effects on GDP are very small

• Effects on industrial competitiveness have been minimal

• See Andersen, M.S. & Ekins, P. (Eds.) Carbon Taxation: Lessons from Europe, Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York, 2009


Environmental and economic impacts of ETR, from COMETR study, 2007


CHART 7.28: THE EFFECTS OF ETR: GDP IN ETR AND NON ETR COUNTRIES

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

ETR Countries

% difference

Non ETR Countries

Note(s) : % difference is the difference between the base case and the counterfactualreference case.

Source(s) : CE.


What might a large-scale ETR in Europe look like.....? (1)

• Two European macro-econometric models: E3ME, GINFORS.

• Models deliver insights, not forecasts or ‘truth’• Six scenarios:

– Baseline with low energy price (LEP)– Baseline sensitivity with high energy price (HEP, reference case)– Scenario 1: ETR with revenue recycling designed to meet 20% EU

2020 GHG target (S1(L) – scenario compared with LEP Baseline)– Scenario 2: ETR with revenue recycling designed to meet 20% EU

2020 GHG target (S1(H) – scenario compared with HEP Baseline) – Scenario 3: ETR with revenue recycling designed to meet 20% EU

2020 GHG target (S2(H) – scenario compared with HEP Baseline)• proportion of revenues spent on eco-innovation measures

– Scenario 4: ETR with revenue recycling designed to meet 30% ‘international cooperation’ EU 2020 GHG target (S3(H) – scenario compared with Baseline with HEP)


What might a large-scale ETR in Europe look like.....? (2)

• The taxes …– A carbon tax rate is introduced to all non EU ETS sectors equal to the carbon price in

the EU ETS that delivers an overall 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 2020 (in the international cooperation scenario (S4) this is extended to a 30% GHG reduction)

– Aviation is included in the EU ETS at the end of Phase 2 in 2012– Power generation sector EU ETS permits are 100% auctioned in Phase 3 of the EU

ETS (from 2013) [NB auctioning does not change carbon prices or emissions]– All other EU ETS permits are 50% auctioned in 2013 increasing to 100% in 2020– Taxes on materials are introduced at 5% of total price in 2010 increasing to 15% by

2020– S4 carbon tax in non-EU countries is 25% of carbon tax in EU

• … and tax reductions– Reductions in income tax rates (for households) and social

security contributions (for businesses) in each of the member states, such that there is no direct change in tax revenues

– In S3 10% of the environmental tax revenues are recycled through spending on eco-innovation measures


A large-scale ETR in Europe that meets its carbon targets

Scenario CO2 price GDP Employment Labour productivity

Euro2008/t

% change from

baseline % change

from baseline % change from

baseline S1(L) E3ME 142 0.6 2.2 -1.6 GINFORS 120 -3.0 0.0 -3.0 S1(H) E3ME 59 0.2 1.1 -0.9 GINFORS 68 -0.6 0.4 -1.0 S2(H) E3ME 53 0.8 1.1 -0.3 GINFORS 61 -0.3 0.4 -0.7 S3(H) E3ME 204 0.5 2.7 -2.1 GINFORS 184 -1.9 0.8 -2.6


... and what would be its implications for the rest of the world?

20

24

28

32

36

40

1990 2005 2010 2015 2020

Base LEP

Base

S2

S4

CO2 emissions- GINFORS


What might be a way forward for ETR in Europe (in a time of financial crisis)?

• Need for substantial new sources of tax revenue (tax pollution)• Need for substantial new sources of employment (make

employment cheaper)• Carbon tax very similar to permit auction• Energy Tax Directive in place – proposal to split between energy

and carbon• Carbon tax would put floor on permit price• EU-wide carbon tax would dilute concerns about

competitiveness (cf China)

Ekins, P. & Speck S. Eds. 2011 Environmental Tax Reform: A Policy for Green Growth, Oxford University Press, Oxford


UK Green Fiscal Commission• Investigation of

– Enonomic, social and environmental implications of major green fiscal reform (GFR) (share of environmental taxes in total revenues from 5% to 15-20% by 2020)

– Public attitudes to GFR

• Modelling of scenarios– Three baselines (B1, B2, B3) – low, medium, high world market fossil

fuel prices – Two GFR scenarios (S1, S2) – increase in transport, household and

industrial energy taxes, and taxes on water and materials, reductions in income taxes (households) and social security contributions (business)

– Two ’eco-innovation’ scenarios (E1, E2) – spending 10% of green tax revnues on energy-efficient buildings, renewable energy and hybrid vehicles


Green Fiscal Commission – GHGs

400

500

600

700

800

1990 B1 2020 B2 2020 B3 2020 S1 2020 S2 2020

MtCO2e

Source(s) : NAEI, Cambridge Econometrics.

GHG EMISSIONS IN 2020

34% reduction target


Results: GDP and carbon emissions

92

94

96

98

100

102

104

80 85 90 95 100 105

Note(s) : GHG figures have been calculated on a net carbon account basis in MtCO2e.

Source(s) : ONS, NAEI, Cambridge Econometrics.

COMPARISON OF GDP AND GHG EMISSIONS IN 2020

B1

B3

S1

S2E2B2

E1

GDP (B1 = 100)

GHG (B1 = 100)


How would the economy in Europe develop with ETR?

• ETR would rule out a resource-intensive growth path

• This would constrain growth unless it led to innovation in low-resource technologies

• ETR would stimulate such innovation, but this may need to be supported with complementary policies


Will ETR lead to ‘sustainable growth’ in Europe?

• ‘Sustainable’ growth will be resource-efficient and may in time turn out to be slower growth, with higher employment (lower productivity and incomes)

• Relatively high-growth countries in a sustainable future will be those that have developed, and can export, resource-efficient technologies and industries

• ETR is a key policy for fostering sustainable growth• There is no evidence that ETR or other policies for environmental

sustainability would choke off economic growth altogether• ‘Unsustainable’ growth will not last beyond this century, and could

lead to environmental collapse well before 2100• The choice is clear and from a cost-benefit angle is a no-brainer at

any but the highest discount rates.• If the economic costs are low, why is carbon reduction so difficult?


The cost/political feasibility paradox (1)• The technologies for large-scale climate change

mitigation are, or soon will be, available at affordable cost.

• Government funding of R,D&D will need to increase dramatically, but deployment and diffusion can only be driven at scale by markets.

• Developing and deploying the technologies will require huge investments in low-carbon technologies right along the innovation chain (research, development, demonstration, diffusion).

• Financing this investment will require a substantial shift from the UK’s consumption-oriented economy of today to an investment economy that builds up low-carbon infrastructure and industries.


The cost/political feasibility paradox (2)

• This shift need not impact negatively on GDP (incomes) and employment but will require higher savings and lower consumption rates. This may not be politically popular in a consumer society (UK savings rates fell below zero in early 2008).

• Stimulating the required investment will require high (now) and rising carbon prices over the next half century, to choke off investment in high-carbon technologies and incentivise low-carbon investments.

• These high carbon prices will also greatly change lifestyles and consumption patterns. This too may not be politically popular.


Conclusion

• It is not technology or cost, that are the constraining factors to climate change mitigation, but politics – related to people’s attachment to consumption rather than savings/investment, and aspects of high-carbon lifestyles.

• Changing this political reality is the necessary condition for the adequate mitigation of climate change, and for achieving environmental sustainability more generally, which will alone avoid the potentially enormous, but still very uncertain, costs of adapting to climate and other environmental events and conditions outside all known human experience.

•Further readingEconomic Growth and Environmental Sustainability: the Prospects for Green Growth (Routledge 2000)

Thank You

www.ucl.ac.uk/energy

Next Event - DMUG 2012: Much Ado About Modelling

Wednesday, December 5, 2012St Martins in the Fields

IAQM is hosting this year's DMUG conference that will focus on the science and application of modelling in air quality. This must attend event for anyone involved in air quality and dispersion

modelling will also mark the 10th anniversary of the founding of IAQM.

Documents

Revisiting Rachel: The legacy of Rachel Carson Twitter: #BL12