and I feel fine.
...Only with the help of the very worst of worst-case assumptions, and some statistical jiggery-pokery -- adjusting for the disproportionate impact on the developing world, for instance -- do we get to the 20% reduction in world living standards that so excited the headline writers. Sir Nicholas himself prefers "at least 5 per cent" as a shorthand estimate, which is painful enough, but hardly Earth-destroying. And bear in mind that this is not 5% subtracted from current levels, or a 5% decline all in one year, but 5% over the next two centuries.
OK, based on that I need to change the headline. Think back to 1806. Now think forward to 2206. That would constitute the end of the world as we know it. But I still feel fine.
Comments (2)
A problem (among many) with these extrapolation exercises is that even the 20% reduction that Stern estimates is measured against what world GDP would have been under the status quo scenario. So if the global economy grows at an average of 4% a year (vs over 5% now) between now and 2050, it will be producing 5.6 times its current output. Reduce that by 20% and the economy is only 4.5 times bigger. That is certainly not insignificant, but assuming population growth of somewhat less than that rate, there will be no material reason why anyone on the planet will not be better housed and fed than now.
It rather amusing that environmentalists would marshal this as an argument considering that many of them hold consumer society in contempt and think we are already well enough off materially. It reveals them for the hypocrites they are.
Posted by Steve | November 4, 2006 3:40 PM
Posted on November 4, 2006 15:40
It is a ridiculous statement to claim that “world GDP” is going to be reduced by some amount over some period of time. GDP is a government statistic which is founded on arbitrary and illogical measurements and comparisons. See the nauseating details here and here. The short version of the story is, published GDP figures are pretty much what the government of the day wants them to be, that is, a thoroughly politicized and fake view of the economy which is designed to justify the growth of the government and its wealth-killing welfare-mongering and war-mongering. This calculation, like every other “key” economic indicator compiled by government, is designed solely for the purpose of winning elections by appearing to pull economic rabbits out of hats.
Anyone who’s public policy arguments are heavily dependent on GDP calculations - especially when they absurdly insist on comparing them between vastly dissimilar countries and extrapolating them decades into the future - has an extremely weak argument.
But it’s not really surprising that GDP is being tossed around in the global warming debate is it? Junk science and voodoo economics were made for each other.
Posted by Anonymous | November 5, 2006 6:05 PM
Posted on November 5, 2006 18:05