"There are no . . . limits to the carrying capacity of the earth that are likely to bind any time in the foreseeable future. There isn't a risk of an apocalypse due to global warming or anything else. The idea that we should put limits on growth because of some natural limit, is a profound error and one that, were it ever to prove influential, would have staggering social costs."
Former World Bank chief economist, Lawrence H. Summers, Nov., 10, 1991 Now the incumbent US Treasury Secretary replacing Rubin.
I suggest there IS a risk of major social, economic and environemntal consequences from global warming if we fail to act. We are responding slowly to this crisis with major changes required to a global economy whose energy base is currently 90% fossil fuels. This is no laissez-faire, 'steady-as-she-goes' situation. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommends a 60-70% reduction in CO2 emissions in order to stabilise atmospheric CO2 levels. (It is not even clear whether stabilisation at current levels will not continue the process of global warming. Pre-industrial 280ppm, 1959 316ppm, 1999 360ppm, an increase of 28% !)
The species extinction rate is estimated by the UN (UNEP) at 5-50 species of plants and animals per day (a wider range is 1-150 species per day) and accelerating. We should be regarding this as an ecological crisis ! (total number of species estimated at about 14-17m).
Until the above two indicators (at least) are stabilised, we can say we have ALREADY reached limits (to the current pattern of economic growth).
******
To resolve the two positions, perhaps we could say that we can do more to encourage economic growth, but that the parameters within which economic growth can occur are stricter (and include a minimum equity ratio, CO2 stabilisation, stabilisation of natural habitat area, minimum water quality, etc etc etc etc).
*****
Others would say that the very concept of 'economic growth' is obsolete. The question is not whether we have economic growth or do not have economic growth. The question is how to structure sustainable development and belongs to a different paradigm. The questions of 'economic growth' and 'sustainable development' are (perhaps) incomparable.
It's like talking about the forces of gravity (Newtonian paradigm) in the context of stellar bodies (Einsteinian paradigm where 'gravity' is a misconception of 'curved space').
I wonder, if after eight years, Lawrence Summers would prefer to amend his statement, or if he stands by it word for word.
Regards Geoff Holland