There is a very clear link between GDP per capita and life expectancy, literacy, health, and a host of other social benefits. Holding back the industrialization of the world for potential far-off benefits has very real human costs now, in the present. If we wait 5 years to sign a Global Warming treaty, nobody will die. If we take trillions from the global economy to mitigate gas emissions that turn out to be harmless, many will.
The conservative thing to do is to gather data before making trillion-dollar changes to the global economy, while spending money on moderate cost green energy research (but not billion-dollar ethanol mandates).
But there is no clear link between GDP and carbon emissions. For example, US's GDP is slightly less than the EU's but our CO2 emissions are double the EU.
The idea that investing in alternative energy and the like will cost jobs or even lives is total bunk. If we can create a market around things we don't need (like gourmet potato chips) then we can create a market around things we do need, like clean air and water.
> For example, US's GDP is slightly less than the EU's but our CO2 emissions are double the EU
The biggest reason for this is France which generates the majority of its power (80%+) from nuclear power stations.
The environmentalists were extremely successful in the 70ies and 80ies to ensure that the USA does not use nuclear power. Since then their coal power stations have done untold damage to human health (particulate matter, mercury, sulphur emissions, etc...).
France generates the majority of their power from nuclear power stations, but it is certainly not the "biggest reason" the EU's CO2 emissions are half of the US's.
Of course there are other reasons. The United states is more affluent which means that more people will drive cars. The USA also has a lower population density which means that CO2 caused by transportation would be lower.
Many countries (such as Germany and some Eastern European countries) use natural gas in electricity generation in some places. This has lower carbon emissions, yet is substantially more expensive. It would also be interesting to consider CO2 imports and exports (if you buy a product that was manufactured in another country, then you import CO2). As an example, power hungry aluminium smelters are located where electricity is the cheapest. Yet everybody uses aluminium.
I would also like a citation for the “example, US's GDP is slightly less than the EU's but our CO2 emissions are double the EU.” statement.
Aluminum Smelting is actually one of the main industries in Iceland due to cheep electricity costs which are below below US, Europe, and China. At the same time Iceland's renewable energy industry provides over 70% of all the nation's primary energy and 99.9% of Iceland's electricity being generated from renewables. Iceland has explored the feasibility of exporting hydroelectric energy via submarine cable to mainland Europe and also actively seeks to expand its power-intensive industries, including aluminium and ferro-silicon smelting plants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iceland
The largest geothermal power plant is in the US and Iceland actually receives most of it's electric power from Hydro Power. They are almost done another 690 MW peak 525 MW av hydro power dam which is being created for the Fjarðaál smelter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rahnj%C3%BAkar
They do use geothermal for home heating which has an above normal payout in large part due to the cold preventing normal heat pump's from working at reasonable efficiency and the long winders preventing solar home heating system from working when they are most needed them. Most of the continental US can use solar hot water heating systems with a fairly fast payback for lower cost than Iceland's geothermal systems.
I am just pointing out that "green" tech is already competing with fossil fuels and winning in many areas. It's not a question of turning off coal and other fossil fuels today, but rather limiting their use to the most useful systems such as cars and airplanes.
PS: Many homes in the US would reduce their CO2 emissions more by adding insulation than they would by doubling the fuel economy of their cars.
Practically every country has gotten out of poverty at the cost of carbon emissions. The link isn't perfect but it is very strong. We need to get on a different curve. There doesn't seem to be any other way.
It is true that a developing nation typically needs to exploit its natural resources and cheap labor to industrialize and grow, which means CO2 emissions, but this is not true in modern, primarily service-based, economies, like the US. Again, US's GDP is roughly the same (slightly higher) per capita as that of the EU, but our CO2 emissions are (pitifully) over double the EU's, per capita. If there was a clear link, the the US's GDP should be much higher in comparison.
Finally I reject the notion that there doesn't seem to be any other way. I have much more faith in human innovation than that. I firmly believe that there is a market for green technologies, that, when fully developed, will create jobs, boost economies, and improve our global environment.
"Finally I reject the notion that there doesn't seem to be any other way. I have much more faith in human innovation than that. I firmly believe that there is a market for green technologies, that, when fully developed, will create jobs, boost economies, and improve our global environment."
This is what I meant when I said "We need to get on a different curve."
Climate change has already killed people. Suggesting that waiting five years will kill nobody is begging the question. Now has it killed significantly more people than it has saved, and will waiting 5 years make a significant long term difference is debatable, but you can't just assume your answer and move on.
Also, a 20-40% reduction in greenhouse gasses would (if done efficiently) cost less than 1 trillion over the next 20. years. (Multiply the cost Delta between electricity produced with coal to that produced non C02 producing options over their lifetime.)
PS: I often see people use the term "begging the question incorrectly" so I felt the need to point it out.
Edit: Wow, lots of hate. Do the math 1,000,000 * 1 million $ is a LOT of money, and coal plants have a finite lifetime.
There seems to be a fear of what reducing carbon emission would cost the world require giving up our modern lifestyle however, if we chose to mitigate at the least painful manor we can still do a lot.
EX: Coal fires in China burn 109 million tons of coal a year, emitting 360 million metric tons of CO2. This contradicts the ratio of 1:1.83 given earlier, but it amounts to 2-3% of the annual worldwide production of CO2 from fossil fuels, or as much as emitted from all of the cars and light trucks in the United States.[44]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal Stopping that would do more than requiring every American to drive a hybrid to work and yet it's ignored.
