Thread by @retepelyod

Thread

The debate between “degrowthers” vs “realists” is largely moot.

Degrowthers rarely specify who exactly is going to de-grow, when, or how much, or how it will be enforced, or even if they mean relative to the past, or relative to some future no-policy-change trend.

For most of them, its all just “desiderata”, often reflecting priorities which have nothing to do with warming itself.

“Realists”, on the other hand, who declare “it just isn’t going to happen” rarely specify how, in that context, we make sure that we don’t collectively overheat

After all, we can’t live in or eat or travel in services, so some level of physical goods production is inevitable, the production of which will be increasingly difficult and costly to “green”.

What neither side analytically confronts is that we just don’t know whether or not degrowth—however defined—will be necessary to meet temperature targets.

If the emissions intensity of output globally drops like a stone, thanks to technology, degrowth is totally unnecessary.

If, on the other hand, the global emissions intensity of output stays put, the only way to reconcile with temperature goals is degrowth, which could be “per capita” or “reductions in population”.

Since everything depends on the future trajectory of the emissions intensity of output, that is what global policy should focus on.

But it is totally ignored and people (incl scientists) focus on total emissions and global temperature trends instead.

Exaggeration?

Well, do you know what has happened in the past five years to the global emissions intensity of output ?

No you don’t, even though we’ve just had a gigantic global conference on climate, widely covered.

So, indeed, this critical measure is presently ignored.

The way to resolve the degrowthers vs realists’ debate is to set a path for the global emissions intensity of output assuming unconstrained global GDP, which meets the global temperature goal—given what is known re the link between the stock of emissions and temperatures.

Then, if in any year, that path is breached, those countries with the highest emissions intensity of output should face a steep penalty—applied by others in the world. That practice—an emissions inefficiency tarrif—sets up incentives for countries to compete …

… with each other to get their emissions intensities of output down, so as to avoid liability for the penalty in future years.

If that adjustment causes “degrowth”, well so be it. But if it can be accomplished without degrowth, so be it.

This applies a policy instrument—an emissions inefficiency tarrif—as a search instrument to find out whether or not degrowth is necessary or not.

That instrument is calibrated to ensure that the global temperature target is met.

This proposal—and more of the economics necessary to design a coherent policy framework for warming—are outlined in the following 40 min video.

It argues that what is needed is less arguing and a lot more economics to solve the warming problem.