Economic Growth, Climate Change and Environmental Limits

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.

[@longnewton1]

I’m struggling with this video. It’s full of assumptions and misleading comments. For example, comparing the risk of nuclear power with coal is yesterday’s argument. Today we need the decide whether and how much nuclear power we need as part of our wider renewable energy transition. While the lifetime carbon emission of nuclear are low, the risk a large scale deployment increases other risks. Some nuclear may be sensible for base load, but not too much.

[@andregregoire1175]

Add these up, Climate crisis, economic crash, destruction of civilization, nuclear disasters,war, what chance do we have,

[@GeaVox]

I guess it depends on what ATCION we are prepared to take. There are more of us, ordinary people, than the 2% who benefit from pollution and environmental destruction. We can make diferent choices... planetcoop.info/

[@longnewton1]

Perhaps my biggest problem with the argument that economic growth should continue, only as green growth, is the proponents, including Professor Hepburn, ignore the other side of the equation. We need to reduce consumption of high carbon products and services, so flights, construction, luxuries, meat, shipping and so on. To what extent in the medium to long term will this lead to degrowth. We can’t simply rely on green growth and future innovation. We need to act now and that means reducing consumption in high income countries. High income countries need to reduce consumption also to enable low income countries to grow. Sorry, Professor Hepburn, I think you need to do a bit better!

[@polpak1955]

" 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: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmenvaud/191/191.pdf

[@MrPaddy924]

Interesting, but it sounds like the kind of conversation we should have been having 30 years ago. As things stand, we have no time to devise new approaches to protect the current status quo. The opportunity to do that has passed. Nothing short of a radical reset will suffice at this stage, what the IPCC has referred to as a 'handbrake motion'. This would inevitably result in economic collapse and years of suffering, but that's where we're at folks. Having said all that, I don't think it will happen. Rather, we will continue with our current political paralysis until populations become so angry they start voting for radical (perhaps dangerous) demagogues who promise easy solutions. What happens thereafter is anyone's guess, but it isn't going to be pleasant.

[@longnewton1]

Contrary to what this person says, there is clear evidence that we face real material constraints to growth, particularly in high income countries. As developing countries demand more lithium, copper etc., supplies will become more limited. As with the limits to growth study in the 1970s which has proved to be true, it’s a case of when, not if, supplies run out.

[@windokeluanda]

A bit sad to see the outcome of this interview...

[@muskduh]

Thanks for the video

[@jfvirey]

I stopped listening at "There's no evidence from the data that we face serious limits on our growth from material limitations." (around 5:15.) I recommend videos by Jack Alpert, Albert A. Bartlett, David MacKay, William Rees, the PostCarbon Institute and, if you understand French, Jean-Marc Jancovici.

[@CeltaVigo1916]

You should listen to the rest of it. Sounded like solid enough assertions to me.

[@Stjernberg274]

Watch from 6:20 It's worth it :)

[@ajn2370]

It is surprising how often very clever people will forget the existence of the laws of thermodynamics.

[@longnewton1]

Professor Hepburn says that the impact of carbon pricing doesn’t matter on very poor countries because the poor don’t emit much carbon. While true today, what is the longer term impact as these countries develop. Yes, if they only implement a zero carbon economy then it’ll be fine. If they don’t then carbon pricing may be, in their case, a mechanism that keeps the very poor in poverty.