DeDevelopment Neg cfjmp lab’s DeDev File Uniqueness
Download 1.08 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Exts – Warming
- Growth is the key cause of warming
- Studies prove that an economic downturn is the only way to solve warming
- Continued Economic Growth Creates More Rapid Warming – Most Accurate Studies Prove
- Global Collapse of the Economy Is The Only Solution To Warming
AT: Warming FalseWarming real and anthro – scientific consensusRohricht 6/27 – Master’s Candidate, American University, School of International Service, M.A. Ethics, Peace, and Global Affairs. B.A. Professional Writing and B.A. Philosophy at Kutztown University of Pennsylvania. (2014, Alyssa, “Capitalism & Climate Change”, CounterPunch, http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/27/capitalism-climate-change/ // SM) We are currently experiencing, without a doubt, the greatest crisis to face human kind. Indications of climate change are being seen around the globe: accelerated melting of the Arctic sea ice, rapidly receding glaciers, rising sea levels, warming oceans and ocean acidification, more frequent and longer-lasting droughts, stronger and more frequent storms, higher temperatures than ever recorded, and a rapid extinction of species are direct result of a warming climate. There is a scientific consensus that the climate is rapidly changing and that these rapid changes are due to anthropogenic causes. The science is clear: the human-caused emissions of great amounts of greenhouse gases – primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide – are causing global environmental damage. change. ... Exts – WarmingEconomic collapse is key – switching to alternatives won’t happen fast enough and growth means consuming more resources is inevitableSiegel 09 (Lee, “Is Global Warming Unstoppable? Theory Also Says Energy Conservation Doesn’t Help”, 22 November 2009) In a provocative new study, a University of Utah scientist argues that rising carbon dioxide emissions - the major cause of global warming - cannot be stabilized unless the world's economy collapses or society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each day. "It looks unlikely that there will be any substantial near-term departure from recently observed acceleration in carbon dioxide emission rates," says the new paper by Tim Garrett, an associate professor of atmospheric sciences. Garrett's study was panned by some economists and rejected by several journals before acceptance by Climatic Change, a journal edited by renowned Stanford University climate scientist Stephen Schneider. The study will be published online this week. The study - which is based on the concept that physics can be used to characterize the evolution of civilization - indicates: •Energy conservation or efficiency doesn't really save energy, but instead spurs economic growth and accelerated energy consumption. •Throughout history, a simple physical "constant" - an unchanging mathematical value - links global energy use to the world's accumulated economic productivity, adjusted for inflation. So it isn't necessary to consider population growth and standard of living in predicting society's future energy consumption and resulting carbon dioxide emissions. •"Stabilization of carbon dioxide emissions at current rates will require approximately 300 gigawatts of new non-carbon-dioxide-emitting power production capacity annually - approximately one new nuclear power plant (or equivalent) per day," Garrett says. "Physically, there are no other options without killing the economy." Getting Heat for Viewing Civilization as a "Heat Engine" Garrett says colleagues generally support his theory, while some economists are critical. One economist, who reviewed the study, wrote: "I am afraid the author will need to study harder before he can contribute." "I'm not an economist, and I am approaching the economy as a physics problem," Garrett says. "I end up with a global economic growth model different than they have." Garrett treats civilization like a "heat engine" that "consumes energy and does 'work' in the form of economic production, which then spurs it to consume more energy," he says. "If society consumed no energy, civilization would be worthless," he adds. "It is only by consuming energy that civilization is able to maintain the activities that give it economic value. This means that if we ever start to run out of energy, then the value of civilization is going to fall and even collapse absent discovery of new energy sources." Garrett says his study's key finding "is that accumulated economic production over the course of history has been tied to the rate of energy consumption at a global level through a constant factor." That "constant" is 9.7 (plus or minus 0.3) milliwatts per inflation-adjusted 1990 dollar. So if you look at economic and energy production at any specific time in history, "each inflation-adjusted 1990 dollar would be supported by 9.7 milliwatts of primary energy consumption," Garrett says. Garrett tested his theory and found this constant relationship between energy use and economic production at any given time by using United Nations statistics for global GDP (gross domestic product), U.S. Department of Energy data on global energy consumption during1970-2005, and previous studies that estimated global economic production as long as 2,000 years ago. Then he investigated the implications for carbon dioxide emissions. "Economists think you need population and standard of living to estimate productivity," he says. "In my model, all you need to know is how fast energy consumption is rising. The reason why is because there is this link between the economy and rates of energy consumption, and it's just a constant factor." Garrett adds: "By finding this constant factor, the problem of [forecasting] global economic growth is dramatically simpler. There is no need to consider population growth and changes in standard of living because they are marching to the tune of the availability of energy supplies." To Garrett, that means the acceleration of carbon dioxide emissions is unlikely to change soon because our energy use today is tied to society's past economic productivity. "Viewed from this perspective, civilization evolves in a spontaneous feedback loop maintained only by energy consumption and incorporation of environmental matter," Garrett says. It is like a child that "grows by consuming food, and when the child grows, it is able to consume more food, which enables it to grow more." Is Meaningful Energy Conservation Impossible? Perhaps the most provocative implication of Garrett's theory is that conserving energy doesn't reduce energy use, but spurs economic growth and more energy use. "Making civilization more energy efficient simply allows it to grow faster and consume more energy," says Garrett. He says the idea that resource conservation accelerates resource consumption - known as Jevons paradox - was proposed in the 1865 book "The Coal Question" by William Stanley Jevons, who noted that coal prices fell and coal consumption soared after improvements in steam engine efficiency. So is Garrett arguing that conserving energy doesn't matter? "I'm just saying it's not really possible to conserve energy in a meaningful way because the current rate of energy consumption is determined by the unchangeable past of economic production. If it feels good to conserve energy, that is fine, but there shouldn't be any pretense that it will make a difference." Yet, Garrett says his findings contradict his own previously held beliefs about conservation, and he continues to ride a bike or bus to work, line dry family clothing and use a push lawnmower. An Inevitable Future for Carbon Dioxide Emissions? Garrett says often-discussed strategies for slowing carbon dioxide emissions and global warming include mention increased energy efficiency, reduced population growth and a switch to power sources that don't emit carbon dioxide, including nuclear, wind and solar energy and underground storage of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning. Another strategy is rarely mentioned: a decreased standard of living, which would occur if energy supplies ran short and the economy collapsed, he adds. "Fundamentally, I believe the system is deterministic," says Garrett. "Changes in population and standard of living are only a function of the current energy efficiency. That leaves only switching to a non-carbon-dioxide-emitting power source as an available option." "The problem is that, in order to stabilize emissions, not even reduce them, we have to switch to non-carbonized energy sources at a rate about 2.1 percent per year. That comes out to almost one new nuclear power plant per day." "If society invests sufficient resources into alternative and new, non-carbon energy supplies, then perhaps it can continue growing without increasing global warming," Garrett says. Does Garr’ett fear global warming deniers will use his work to justify inaction? "No," he says. "Ultimately, it's not clear that policy decisions have the capacity to change the future course of civilization." Growth is the key cause of warmingSpeth 08 – law prof—Served as President Jimmy Carter’s White House environmental adviser and as head of the United Nations’ largest agency for international development Prof at Vermont law school. Former dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University . Former Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center, teaching environmental and constitutional law. .Former Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality in the Executive Office of the President. Co-founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council. Was law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo L. Black JD, Yale. (James Gustave, The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability, Gigapedia, 1-2,) In short, there is little doubt that the process of human-induced global warming has begun in earnest, that the consequences are already serious, and that they could be devastating if the buildup of greenhouse gases is not halted.24 Yet the process of halting their buildup has hardly started. Global carbon dioxide emissions climbed by 22 percent between 1980 and 2000. Since 2000, the growth rate of emissions has tripled over the average for 1990–1999.25 The International Energy Agency projects that if societies continue on a business-as-usual path between 2004 and 2030, the result will be a rise in carbon dioxide emissions of 55 percent globally. Even in its most optimistic scenario, where environmental actions are taken, global emissions climb by 31 percent.26 Congress is fi nally waking up, but it is terribly late. To date, industrial nations have contributed far more to the buildup of greenhouse gases than developing countries. The developed countries with 20 percent of the world’s people have contributed more than 75 percent of the cumulative carbon dioxide emissions and are responsible for about 60 percent of today’s emissions. The United States emits roughly the same amount of greenhouse gases as 2.6 billion people living in 150 developing nations. The rich countries have reaped huge economic benefits in the process. That said, developing country emissions of greenhouse gases are increasing rapidly, especially in China and India. The developing world was the source of the majority of carbon dioxide emissions growth in 2004. It is doubtful that the developing nations will act to curb their emissions unless the industrial nations help provide powerful incentives, technology, and other assistance, as well as a good example. Studies prove that an economic downturn is the only way to solve warmingKlimas, 12 [Liz Klimas, Technology and Science Editor For The Blaze Journal, Bachelor in Science, and Participant at NOAA, 5-7-2012, Study: Big Economic Downturn Needed to Slow…Global Warming, The Blaze Journal, http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/05/07/study-big-economic-downturn-needed-to-slow-global-warming/] A new report from the University of Michigan starts off its press release with a not so optimistic phrase: “It’s a message no one wants to hear.” Just what message is this? That it would take an extreme economic downturn to slow the effects of global warming. The research conducted by José Tapia Granados and Edward Ionides of U-M and Óscar Carpintero of the University of Valladolid in Spain is considered the first to assess fluctuations in carbon dioxide based on measurable levels, instead of less accurate carbon emission estimates. “If ‘business as usual’ conditions continue, economic contractions the size of the Great Recession or even bigger will be needed to reduce atmospheric levels of CO₂,” Tapia Granados, a researcher at the U-M Institute for Social Research, said in a statement (via Science Daily). The research, published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science and Policy, evaluated natural phenomena — volcanic eruptions and the El Niño Southern oscillation, which the release states are believed to impact CO2 levels — the world’s population, and the world economy based on worldwide GDP and their correlation with changes in atmospheric CO2 levels. Here’s what they found: Tapia Granados and colleagues found no observable relation between short-term growth of world population and CO₂ concentrations, and they show that recent incidents of volcanic activity coincided with global recessions, which brings into question the reductions in atmospheric CO₂ previously ascribed to these volcanic eruptions. In years of above-trend world GDP, from 1958 to 2010, the researchers found greater increases in CO₂ concentrations. For each trillion in U.S. dollars that the world GDP deviates from trend, CO₂ levels deviate from trend about half a part per million, they found. Concentrations of CO₂ were estimated to be 200-300 ppm during preindustrial times. They are presently close to 400 ppm, and levels around 300 ppm are considered safe to keep a stable climate. Detroit’s CBS affiliate explains further, that since El Niño cannot be controlled by man, the “sole modifiable factor” is economic activity. What is suggested to “break economic habits” that are contributing to the rise in this greenhouse gas and subsequent global warming according to the researchers are “enormous” economic changes. In addition, CBS reports Tapia Granados saying “[...] climate change will soon have a serious impact on the world, and the time is growing short to take corrective action.” “One solution that has promise is a carbon tax levied on any activity producing CO₂ in order to create incentives to reduce emissions,” Tapia Granados said. “The money would be returned to the population on a per capita basis so the tax would not mean any extra fiscal burden. Continued Economic Growth Creates More Rapid Warming – Most Accurate Studies ProveGerken, 12 [James Gerken, Green Editor at The Huffington Post, Graduate at Colgate University, 5-1-2012, Climate Change And Sustained Economic Growth Link Observed In New Study, The Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/climate-change-economic-growth-linked_n_1468100.html] Will sustained global economic growth intensify the effects of climate change? A new study from the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research suggests that a transformation of the world's economies or a limit to economic growth may be needed to curb the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Published online in the journal Environmental Science & Policy, the study examined the impacts on global CO2 levels caused by the world economy (measured in global GDP), population, volcanic eruptions and the El Niño Southern oscillation. It is the "first analysis to use measurable levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide" rather than only estimates, "which are less accurate," according to a press release. José Tapia Granados and Edward Ionides, both from Michigan, and Óscar Carpintero of the University of Valladolid, Spain, discovered "no observable relation" between short-term global population growth and CO2 levels, but greater carbon dioxide levels were observed in years of "above-trend world GDP" between 1958 and 2010. The researchers found that for each trillion in U.S. dollars that global GDP deviates from the trend, there is an accompanying deviation in CO2 levels of about half a part per million (ppm), reported LiveScience. Noting that the study "more or less" echoes 1972's "The Limits to Growth," author and environmental activist Bill McKibben told HuffPost in an email, "We should change the meaning of 'business-as-usual' to focus on building more resilient, localized, community-focused economies, instead of the sprawling ones that for the last few decades have been awarding their bounty to the 1%." Study co-author José Tapia Granados offered a remedy, saying in a press release, “One solution that has promise is a carbon tax levied on any activity producing CO2 in order to create incentives to reduce emissions. The money would be returned to the population on a per capita basis so the tax would not mean any extra fiscal burden." The Michigan study comes at the same time as research from PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, a Dutch national environmental policy institute, which found that annual global equivalent CO2 emissions in 2020 are likely to exceed 2010 estimates by 2.5 billion tons. The projected 50.9 billion ton annual output in 2020 is "some 7-11 billion tones [sic] beyond levels needed to prevent runaway climate change," reports Reuters. Global Collapse of the Economy Is The Only Solution To WarmingAllen, 11 [Dan, Writer at the Energy Bulletin, 7-17-2011, Deus ex Machina: Will economic collapse save us from climate catastrophe?, Resilience, http://www.resilience.org/stories/2011-06-17/deus-ex-machina-will-economic-collapse-save-us-climate-catastrophe] So I repeat, there are NO ways to address our climate predicament with the technologies of industrial civilization – existing or proposed. We’re running up against a pressing biophysical deadline, the hard material and energy limits of a finite planet, an ecosphere in an advanced stage of material and energetic dissipation, and the iron-clad Laws of Thermodynamics. And none those inconvenient truths are gonna give one damn bit, no matter how desperately we plead. And as for that fabled last-minute, miracle-technology break-though all my high school students are banking on, I’d say this: ‘don’t hold your breath’ – except that Hansen reminds us that we don’t even have TIME to hold our breath. It’s money-time NOW -- and we got no ‘money’. The abject failure of ‘even more technology’ to solve this problem of essentially ‘too much technology’ points to one remaining solution: a rapid return to simplicity by any means possible. OUR OPTIONS NARROW TO ONE So it now becomes painfully obvious that our options have narrowed to one: JUST QUIT BURNING FOSSIL FUELS – replacements be damned -- and figure out the monumental (impossible?) adjustments on the fly. Wow. We really let it come to this? …Really? Wow. The wise ape? Now while our lone ‘just stop it’ option can be either voluntary or involuntary, we have already dismissed the ‘voluntary’ option above as requiring a political phase change that’s very unlikely to happen in time. So we’re left with this sad truth: Likely the only thing that will save our species (and all species) from climate catastrophe at this point is a global collapse of the industrial economy -- beginning in the next few years and progressing rapidly to an extremely low level of technological complexity. The 6% annual decrease in CO2 emissions modeled by Hansen dictates that emissions get halved about every twelve years. That’s what we need. And we might even need it faster. Tipping points loom large and dark – still partially concealed in the mists of complexity, but there nonetheless. Now, do I realize the extreme amount of human suffering a rapid economic collapse will cause? Yes. Do I realize that neither I nor my loved ones will likely make it through unscathed – or maybe even alive? Yes. But I answer with this: What’s the alternative? The answer here also stands alone --climate catastrophe. That’s it. That’s where we are. That’s the bed we’ve made. So, sadly, at this late hour, we just flat-out NEED the dark angel of economic collapse to swoop down onto the stage, ‘Deus ex Machina’ style, and save the day. Download 1.08 Mb. Share with your friends:
|