THE FATE OF FARMING - The Climate Casino - page 81

Now contrast the standard path with a situation with no economic
growth. I use the term “no growth” to mean no new or improved prod-
ucts or processes—no growth in total factor productivity, to use the
economist's technical language. In this stagnationist vision (unrealistic
but useful to consider) societies would no longer benefi t from continu-
ing improvements in computers, health care, electronics, or other areas
that have experienced rapid growth in recent decades. The era of tech-
nological miracles would end with the iPhone 5.
Figure 13 shows the two scenarios graphically. 2 These are stylized
scenarios but will usefully make the point about incomes and climate
change. The top part of the fi gure shows the two economic scenarios of
growth and no growth. They are obviously dramatically different. In
the no-growth scenario, global per capita consumption after two centu-
ries is around $10,000 per person, well under that of today's rich coun-
tries. In the growth scenario, world per capita consumption grows to
over $130,000 per capita. This sounds like a fantasy, but it is the result
of exponential growth of living standards. 3
Now look at the bottom half of Figure 13, which shows the differ-
ence in warming between the growth and no-growth scenarios. With
growth, global temperatures increase by around 3 1 ⁄ 2 °C by 2100 and by
6°C by the end of the second century. This is the nightmare scenario of
scientists.
Under the no-growth scenario, climate change is much smaller. The
global mean temperature in the no-growth future rises by about 2 1 ⁄ 2 °C
by 2200, even without any emissions controls. Some environmental
advocates might like the impacts of the no-growth scenario—until they

Figure 13 opposite. Living standards and climate change with and without economic

growth. This fi gure shows two possible futures. One is “no growth,” which turns off
productivity growth immediately. The other shows the projection of productivity growth
built into most integrated assessment models. The top half compares the paths of per
capita consumption. (“Per capita cons” represents average consumption of food,
shelter, education, and other items.) The bottom half shows the difference in climate
paths of growth and no growth without any climate policies. Rapid climate change is
the unintentional by-product of rapid economic growth with no abatement policies.